Originally posted by spruce112358 I'm not sure Democrats get any points for mouthing opposition to a system that they then exploit and benefit from.
That sounds more like hypocrisy.
So let me get this straight. You are saying that if a Democrat disagrees with the amount of corporate money flowing into politics, he should allow his opponent to take corporate money but not take any for himself so that his opponent will win and his own policies will never get implemented. Is that correct?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper So let me get this straight. You are saying that if a Democrat disagrees with the amount of corporate money flowing into politics, he should allow his opponent to take corporate money but not take any for himself so that his opponent will win and his own policies will never get implemented. Is that correct?
I have no problem with complaining about corporate money per se. I have a problem when they say of imply that it's somehow a Republican phenomenon.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper So let me get this straight. You are saying that if a Democrat disagrees with the amount of corporate money flowing into politics, he should allow his opponent to take corporate money but not take any for himself so that his opponent will win and his own policies will never get implemented. Is that correct?
Perhaps you need a refresher on what "standing on principle" means.
Originally posted by sh76 I have no problem with complaining about corporate money per se. I have a problem when they say of imply that it's somehow a Republican phenomenon.
No, but it's the Republicans who support corporate personhood.
Originally posted by sh76 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance?hp&ref=politics#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney
So please, please. Can Dems stop whining about Citizens United and the big money donors of the GOP?? Please.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have ...[text shortened]... ow the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
Okay, how about we whine that big money donors have locked in Wall Street's choices? Obama has certainly done well by them. Why wouldn't they support him, especially since it looks like he's going to win anyway?
It's not just about Republicans. How about the fact that every moment of airtime in North Carolina was sold for the primaries, and local businesses couldn't even get their business done until it was over? Volunteerism in national campaigns isn't going to be a factor anymore, for Republicans or Democrats. Special interest lobbyists are going to have deeply disproportionate influence in both parties.
We're going to end up with two pro-corporate parties, one pro-choice and one anti.
Originally posted by sh76 I have no problem with complaining about corporate money per se. I have a problem when they say of imply that it's somehow a Republican phenomenon.
Well, the crowing over the decision as a big win for Republicans at CPAC kind of supports the implication. But maybe they just don't know what's good for them?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper Standing on principle means doing what it takes to see your principles come to fruition.
I love the smell of moral relativism in the evening. Standing on principle means refusing to do something you believe is wrong, even if it means you lose. Your definition means principles don't matter as long as you win.
Originally posted by sh76 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance?hp&ref=politics#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney
So please, please. Can Dems stop whining about Citizens United and the big money donors of the GOP?? Please.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have ...[text shortened]... ow the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
Those numbers do not include the super-PACS.
Moreover, it is typical for a sitting president (including Obama) to get big donations from corporate America for reelection, and to have the $20,000+ dinners for the top 1%, etc.
Yet, it is the average Joe that drives the Obama fundraising, as evident by the very low average donation per donor. I know the numbers for Obama in 2008 was average less than $100 per donor.
I have contributed $50 and also bought an Obama-Biden t-shirt and stickers for another $50.
Originally posted by sh76 I have no problem with complaining about corporate money per se. I have a problem when they say of imply that it's somehow a Republican phenomenon.
I agree Republicans do not have an exclusive on the corporate money, but corporations have generally and historically favored Republicans. Also, the average Joe drives the Obama fundraising, as evident by the very low average donation (<$100) per donor.
Originally posted by dryhump I love the smell of moral relativism in the evening. Standing on principle means refusing to do something you believe is wrong, even if it means you lose. Your definition means principles don't matter as long as you win.
What you suggest is analogous to someone saying, "I'm against killing so I'm not going to kill Hitler"
Originally posted by moon1969 I agree Republicans do not have an exclusive on the corporate money, but corporations have generally and historically favored Republicans. Also, the average Joe drives the Obama fundraising, as evident by the very low average donation (<$100) per donor.
If both those things are accurate, and given the big Obama lead in $$ in 2008 and 2012, corporate money and Citizens United can only be seen as an important leveling of the playing field.
Originally posted by sh76 If both those things are accurate, and given the big Obama lead in $$ in 2008 and 2012, corporate money and Citizens United can only be seen as an important leveling of the playing field.
Yes, because the power of the collective people must be leveled out by making them compete with corporations.
I notice you're still comparing money raised by a single primary candidate to that of the incumbent and already decided nominee.
As far as 2008 goes, yes sh76. I'm in full agreement with you that the Citizens United case of 2010 didn't give corporations undo influence in 2008.
If Romney spent everything in all his overseas bank accounts, secret or otherwise, he could still go toe to toe with the Obama campaign. But perhaps that's not a "tax" he's willing to shoulder, even to stroke his ego with a presidential run.
24 Feb '12 06:14
Obama has raised 2.5 times the money Romney has
Back to Top