Author Topic: Who funds the candidates?  (Read 2731 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who funds the candidates?
« on: September 29, 2022, 08:47:46 PM »
George Soros funds enormous sums of money to individual candidates. Take Kim Foxx in Chicago. He originally got her elected with $300,000 in 2016 - then, after negative reports on her actions, he gave her $2 million in 2022 to get her reelected. He’s done this throughout the country to install ultra-progressive DA’s in blue cities. He donated $18 billion to his Open Society Foundation. I recently heard that he is only the second largest donor for the Democrat Party. The winner is a foundation I have never heard about. I caught a report on it but didn’t catch the name. It was said to donate much more than Soros. When I went to track it down, I saw many foundations and political funding groups, as well as wealthy individuals giving millions to PACs that distribute that money to candidates - but no mention of this dark money source. The name of the Foundation starts with an “A.” Both Soros and this group funds Progressive candidates.

We all get fund-raising emails - and though the GOP is larger than the Dems, and get much more small donations - they can’t keep up with the huge dark money sources funneling into individual Dem races.

Isn’t this important? Dinesh D’Souza got jail time for a few thousand dollars he contributed to a friend’s local campaign. These billionaires donate billions of dollars that buy disinformational ads that can't be answered, yet no one seems to comment on it. Search engines don’t seem to help. This seems to be the driving force behind elections now.

What is the answer?


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2022, 10:30:38 PM »
Maybe you should be urging your representatives to scrap legislation like Citizen's United and to join Sen. Sanders in fighting for campaign finance reform. That would solve all of your complaints and there would be no need to track the ultimate source of contributions, if those contributions don't exist. If you really have a problem with fancy funneling of money, the surest solution is to remove money from the equation. If you wanted to get really progressive you could even advocate for publicly funded campaigns set at fixed amounts.

I will be interested to hear all the reasons why these steps somehow interfere with freedom and democracy, while you still worry about how power brokers use wealth to do things you don't like.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2022, 10:51:33 PM »
Why don't you just skip the pretense of posing a question and just tell us your conclusion that no one will be able to sway you from.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2022, 10:52:37 PM »
Quote
We all get fund-raising emails - and though the GOP is larger than the Dems, and get much more small donations - they can’t keep up with the huge dark money sources funneling into individual Dem races.
Let me know when you get back from Bizarro World, please.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2022, 07:41:29 AM »
I wonder how much Pete Thiel and the Koch people have given in Dark Money over the years? Not to mention the Waltons and other billionaires. And I wonder which party benefitted from it the most.

jc44

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2022, 11:13:30 AM »
American campaign finance always seems really weird from the UK where party spending is limited by law to approx 3 orders of magnitude less than in the US - even allowing for some armwaving about what counts. And even that level of advertising is plenty annoying enough...

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2022, 11:29:46 AM »
...

Isn’t this important? Dinesh D’Souza got jail time for a few thousand dollars he contributed to a friend’s local campaign. These billionaires donate billions of dollars that buy disinformational ads that can't be answered, yet no one seems to comment on it. Search engines don’t seem to help. This seems to be the driving force behind elections now.

What is the answer?

Vote for democrats who support campaign finance reform. Democrats support judges who allow for limits on funds and disclosure rules.  Republicans oppose campaign finance reform and support judges who say there are no limits on PAC money and since PACs aren't the candidate donor disclosure rules are unconstitutional?

Welcome to the club of people who care about dark money. I wonder if you'll be as concerned about Adelson, the Koch's, Art Pope, and the many many other Republican billionaires who donate money the same way?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2022, 11:38:26 AM »
I wonder how much Pete Thiel and the Koch people have given in Dark Money over the years? Not to mention the Waltons and other billionaires. And I wonder which party benefited from it the most.

I checked those amounts, and Democrats have more than twice as much money coming in. Soros dwarfs anything the Koch brothers ever donated - even before David Koch died in 2019, they had donated a little less than $900 million to small government PACs. As comparison, Soros alone gave $18 billion dollars. According to the numbers, the ultra rich Democrat donors, excepting Soros and the "A" fundraiser, gave  enormous sums of money to individual candidates.

Quote
Major nonprofit groups aligned with the Democratic Party
Organization                                 Spending in 2020
Total                                             $5,172,579,799
Adjusted total                                $1,513,291,420
Sixteen Thirty Fund                        $410,038,247
America Votes                                $250,000,000
Majority Forward                             $185,000,000
Future Forward USA Action              $149,377,966
Hopewell Fund                                $127,636,237
The Voter Participation Center          $100,315,874
Voter Registration Project                $74,922,371
League of Conservation Voters Inc.  $71,608,762
Priorities USA                                 $70,959,898
Duty and Honor                              $58,617,637
Everytown for Gun Safety
     Action Fund Inc.                        $52,280,883
North Fund                                    $48,780,510
Center for Voter Information           $47,188,981
Planned Parenthood
     Action Fund Inc.                       $40,914,740
Defending Democracy Together       $38,117,693

Major nonprofit groups aligned with the Republican Party
Organization                                 Spending in 2020
Total                                            $972,501,426
Adjusted total*                              $904,202,426
One Nation                                    $195,992,551
Stand Together
      Chamber of Commerce Inc.      $170,671,786
U.S. Chamber of Commerce            $169,020,709
Americans for Prosperity                 $78,329,056
America First Policies Inc.                $66,234,305
The 85 Fund                                   $59,753,082
The Concord Fund                           $45,600,000
American Action Network Inc.          $43,000,000
Rule of Law Trust                            $38,447,824
Faith & Freedom Coalition Inc.         $33,694,567
American Conservative Union Inc.    $18,640,526
Susan B. Anthony List Inc.              $15,904,180
Heritage Action for America             $15,564,208
Club for Growth                              $12,874,486
Citizens United                               $8,774,146
« Last Edit: September 30, 2022, 11:43:54 AM by wmLambert »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2022, 12:07:52 PM »
Here's an idea:  how about we require by law that super PACs and other groups must disclose donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle? Do you think that might help, even a little bit?  At least to help you find out who was contributing to whom.

If so, then write your Republican Senator, because every single Republican Senator voted against such a bill last week.  Don't bother with the Democratic Senators--they all voted for it. :)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2022, 12:12:37 PM »
We all know why the Republicans vote against that.  Because companies are people too. Except when you try and hold them responsible for bad actions.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2022, 12:52:13 PM »
William, why wasn't the Senate Leadership Fun and the Congressional Leadership Fund included in your chart above?  Those are both partisan PACs and together have over $100 million on hand coming into this election.

Are you sure your chart is complete?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2022, 12:53:39 PM »
I am just curious where that chart came from? And what does Adjusted total mean? Could you link to where this info is coming from?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2022, 12:56:58 PM »
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-recipients/2022

This and other breakdown on opensecrets (the definitive follow the money site for federal offices), do not show an overwhelming advantage to Democrats.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2022, 01:09:36 PM »
I checked those amounts, and Democrats have more than twice as much money coming in.

It appears that we have interesting reason # 1 why campaign finance is just fine as it is: it is absolutely virtuous and upright to have large sums of private money fueling campaigns, unless one side is paying more than the other, in which case it becomes a kind of corruption and not virtuous at all? Since your case currently rests on the premise that Democrats funnel more money than Republicans do, wouldn't you say it would be both morally and strategically desirable for Republicans to squash the campaign finance system as it is now? Why don't they? Are they dumb?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2022, 01:21:45 PM »
Maybe the Republicans would have more money to donate if someone was not sucking up all of the money into his SuperPac and then using it for his legal defense instead of helping Republicans?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2022, 02:40:00 PM »
Personally, I think the problem is not with campaign money, its the fact that voters are so damn stupid that seeing political ads changes their opinion.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2022, 02:52:44 PM »
Ron Johnson has received $2.8 million in dark money in the last two weeks. He has used this money to ensure that no one anywhere near Wisconsin can watch a video on YouTube without hearing how Mandela Barnes opposes cash bail, and therefore wants violent criminals to walk free.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2022, 03:57:14 PM »
So no one is able to penetrate the search engines to find info on that "A"group? The name was something like "Antebellum" but finding it is hard. Those numbers I posted came from that search and I copied the numbers into my own archives because things disappear so quickly on line. I never got the whole thing and URL copied, which is why I asked for help. As for Ron Johnson getting money, Soros by himself gave Kim Foxx in Chicago $2 million for her reelection this year, and she was a DA - not a Senator or House member. And like I said, that "A" group was supposed to have distributed twice as much money to Democrats than Soros did.

Almost every email from GOP candidates asking for money, say their opponents have raised much more than they have, and they can't come close to matching the media buys. It's amazing that the much greater number of small donors funding GOP candidates are so far behind the smaller number of donors  getting much more money from fewer donors. One party is trying to buy the election - and it doesn't seem to be GOP.

The bills that have not been ratified by Democrats are the ones asking for fair elections. We are required to have ID for almost everything - but somehow, the lower economic quintiles of voters are said not to be smart enough to get valid ID. Cleaning up the voter rolls is mandated by law, but bills trying to help that effort is resisted by Democrat lawmakers. Why? When Conservative or Independents reject bills that make fair elections worse, why act like it is a vote against

Fenring asked; "...it would be both morally and strategically desirable for Republicans to squash the campaign finance system as it is now? Why don't they? Are they dumb? Well, it helps to have a fair DOJ to enforce what rules we have. It also helps to get fairness when the bills are supported across the board and not sunk because either party votes unilaterally.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2022, 03:59:37 PM by wmLambert »

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2022, 04:03:17 PM »
While I'm not particularly up to date on local Chicago politics, I'm suspicious that Soros gave $2 million to Foxx's campaign specifically. Did he donate to a PAC that supports her, along with a number of other candidates?

Quote
Almost every email from GOP candidates asking for money, say their opponents have raised much more than they have...
Almost all emails from candidates, regardless of party (or truth), say this. In twenty years of being an active donor, I could probably count on one hand the number of communications I've received that said "we have plenty of money and are outspending our opponent, but please give anyway."

Quote
somehow, the lower economic quintiles of voters are said not to be smart enough to get valid ID
I think you should look into the arguments here. Few of them are "these people are too stupid to get IDs."

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2022, 04:33:47 PM »
Maybe Democrats are getting more money because people like what they stand for? And are supporting them? How is that nefarious?

So you found these numbers you reported but are not able to tell us where they came from or how they were generated. And are not able to find them again?  Maybe you might understand why we find them suspicious.

So you are not able to answer the question what does adjusted total mean?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2022, 05:28:35 PM »
Fenring asked; "...it would be both morally and strategically desirable for Republicans to squash the campaign finance system as it is now? Why don't they? Are they dumb? Well, it helps to have a fair DOJ to enforce what rules we have. It also helps to get fairness when the bills are supported across the board and not sunk because either party votes unilaterally.

I think you can do better than this. It's inescapable that the GOP are the ones always pushing for harder freedom and less regulation regarding campaign donations. Why not just come out and say they are wrong about this and should change? It would solve your problem if they did, and there is no need to reverse your position on other issues, vote Dem, or make any other life change than saying the GOP are (according to your reasoning) sabotaging themselves on this topic and inviting a more toxic environment.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2022, 05:32:38 PM »
Personally, I think the problem is not with campaign money, its the fact that voters are so damn stupid that seeing political ads changes their opinion.

If you're going to go down this rabbit hole it gets much darker than just 'public stupidity'. You are looking at a populace uninvolved in the operation of politics, unschooled in civics, mistrustful of government (on both sides), and subjected to an economic system which deliberately puts them in the position of having to work free overtime to prove their worth and having zero free time to ponder the study of candidates. Realistically you expect all of them to spend their free time doing research? Aristotle may have had a glimmer of a point when he suggested that only gentlemen of leisure could be expected to pursue virtue in any serious way. That may be dated and overstated, but it does point to the fact that if you take away too much free time, apply too much stress, divide the classes too much, and otherwise incentivize mindless pleasure to decompress from a stressful life, you are simply not going to get anyone but intellectuals who will push themselves to do private study.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2022, 05:50:09 PM »
Personally, I think the problem is not with campaign money, its the fact that voters are so damn stupid that seeing political ads changes their opinion.

If you're going to go down this rabbit hole it gets much darker than just 'public stupidity'. You are looking at a populace uninvolved in the operation of politics, unschooled in civics, mistrustful of government (on both sides), and subjected to an economic system which deliberately puts them in the position of having to work free overtime to prove their worth and having zero free time to ponder the study of candidates. Realistically you expect all of them to spend their free time doing research? Aristotle may have had a glimmer of a point when he suggested that only gentlemen of leisure could be expected to pursue virtue in any serious way. That may be dated and overstated, but it does point to the fact that if you take away too much free time, apply too much stress, divide the classes too much, and otherwise incentivize mindless pleasure to decompress from a stressful life, you are simply not going to get anyone but intellectuals who will push themselves to do private study.

Sure. That's a fair presentation. Part of the reason why I oppose mandatory voting, and I hate the "get out the vote, just vote" blanket message. It should be "it's August, register and start researching candidates in your area."

I don't think for most people there's not enough time. It might take 3-5 hours if you want to research every candidate. So if you just don't watch a football game, you can get it done. People don't care to. Most of them already set who they would vote for, and all the ads just keep reminding them not to forget - kind of like a Coca-Cola ad.

Money doesn't entirely buy wins though, Bloomberg showed us that much.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2022, 06:23:20 PM »
The marginal utility of researching a candidate is approximately zero.

It is irrational to learn about a politician enough to make an 'informed vote' unless you are someone who can spend a lot of money to influence the election of a candidate or have a lot of social influence.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2022, 06:25:21 PM by LetterRip »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2022, 07:37:09 PM »
The marginal utility of researching a candidate is approximately zero.

It is irrational to learn about a politician enough to make an 'informed vote' unless you are someone who can spend a lot of money to influence the election of a candidate or have a lot of social influence.

Actually, there are many voting info websites that interact with candidates to fill out their generic info sheets to get their views on what they stand for. Some candidates either don't know such aids exist, or don't want to reveal what they stand for. Eitherway, not filling out the info is sign they are not the best candidates.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2022, 07:53:29 PM »
The marginal utility of researching a candidate is approximately zero.

It is irrational to learn about a politician enough to make an 'informed vote' unless you are someone who can spend a lot of money to influence the election of a candidate or have a lot of social influence.

No more or less so than the marginal utility of voting at all. But I think you're wrong because you are thinking of whopping giant races like Mayor of New York or Governor of Georgia.

Your local school board and city council are likely decided by a few hundred votes if not fewer. The same reason that in local races, the marginal utility of cheating is so much higher. I couldn't find online information on what two competing council candidates had as policy goals. One of them responded to me with a thoughtful response. The other didn't respond at all. Research complete. Was that irrational?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2022, 07:58:52 PM »
Personally, I think the problem is not with campaign money, its the fact that voters are so damn stupid that seeing political ads changes their opinion.

If you're going to go down this rabbit hole it gets much darker than just 'public stupidity'. You are looking at a populace uninvolved in the operation of politics, unschooled in civics, mistrustful of government (on both sides), and subjected to an economic system which deliberately puts them in the position of having to work free overtime to prove their worth and having zero free time to ponder the study of candidates. Realistically you expect all of them to spend their free time doing research? Aristotle may have had a glimmer of a point when he suggested that only gentlemen of leisure could be expected to pursue virtue in any serious way. That may be dated and overstated, but it does point to the fact that if you take away too much free time, apply too much stress, divide the classes too much, and otherwise incentivize mindless pleasure to decompress from a stressful life, you are simply not going to get anyone but intellectuals who will push themselves to do private study.

Sure. That's a fair presentation. Part of the reason why I oppose mandatory voting, and I hate the "get out the vote, just vote" blanket message. It should be "it's August, register and start researching candidates in your area."

I don't think for most people there's not enough time. It might take 3-5 hours if you want to research every candidate. So if you just don't watch a football game, you can get it done. People don't care to. Most of them already set who they would vote for, and all the ads just keep reminding them not to forget - kind of like a Coca-Cola ad.

Money doesn't entirely buy wins though, Bloomberg showed us that much.

I agree generally. Nothing is so sad as the news shows that do man on the street interviews, and always find voters who can't even name the Vice President, or know the big issues of the day. Through the years we gave had poll taxes and other ideas that have tried to prove the voters had the knowledge and capacity to make intelligent decisions of who is worthy of their votes. At one point the argument was that only property owners had the right to vote. Franklin nixed that with his argument: "Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

The argument that voting is a right is wrong. It should be viewed as a privilege that one should study to make informed decisions. Today's use of dark money to sway voters may be the only way that some people get their info. The election ads are very problematic, and often spew disinformation, so when only one candidate can buy those ads, the fix is in.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2022, 08:14:35 PM »
The marginal utility of researching a candidate is approximately zero.

It is irrational to learn about a politician enough to make an 'informed vote' unless you are someone who can spend a lot of money to influence the election of a candidate or have a lot of social influence.

No more or less so than the marginal utility of voting at all. But I think you're wrong because you are thinking of whopping giant races like Mayor of New York or Governor of Georgia.

Your local school board and city council are likely decided by a few hundred votes if not fewer. The same reason that in local races, the marginal utility of cheating is so much higher. I couldn't find online information on what two competing council candidates had as policy goals. One of them responded to me with a thoughtful response. The other didn't respond at all. Research complete. Was that irrational?

I agree generally. Nothing is so sad as the news shows that do man on the street interviews, and always find voters who can't even name the Vice President, or know the big issues of the day. Through the years we gave had poll taxes and other ideas that have tried to prove the voters had the knowledge and capacity to make intelligent decisions of who is worthy of their votes. At one point the argument was that only property owners had the right to vote. Franklin nixed that with his argument: "Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

The argument that voting is a right is wrong. It should be viewed as a privilege that one should study to make informed decisions. Today's use of dark money to sway voters may be the only way that some people get their info. The election ads are very problematic, and often spew disinformation, so when only one candidate can buy those ads, the fix is in.

Local elections always have info sourcing available, like Common Cause, The League of Women Voters, and the ACLU. If anyone runs for office, if they don't fill out such info requests, or provide more extensive websites, I recommend they aren't legitimate options for your vote. I also dislike candidates who hide their party membership. Why hide it?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2022, 08:39:48 PM »
The argument that voting is a right is wrong. It should be viewed as a privilege that one should study to make informed decisions.

Read Heinlein, by any chance?

By the way you haven't yet mentioned a good reason why you can't take sides against the GOP on this issue. Why don't they take those darned Dems to task by cutting off their dark funding?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2022, 01:38:48 AM »
I'm glad you agree dark funding and a lack of voter education is a problem, William. It gives us common ground to build on.

Ouija Nightmare

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2022, 01:55:19 PM »
The argument that voting is a right is wrong. It should be viewed as a privilege that one should study to make informed decisions.

Read Heinlein, by any chance?

By the way you haven't yet mentioned a good reason why you can't take sides against the GOP on this issue. Why don't they take those darned Dems to task by cutting off their dark funding?

Or find an idiot, see who he plans to vote for and vote the other way.

There’s a few such reliable barometers on this board.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2022, 12:01:25 PM »
Quote
Outside groups have poured in nearly $1 billion to buoy GOP Senate candidates. Just how important have these groups been to Republicans? Eighty-six percent of the money going toward pro-GOP TV ads is coming from these outside groups, compared to 55% for Democrats.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1129976565/dark-money-groups-midterm-elections-republicans-democrats-senate

Still care who’s funding the candidates?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2022, 10:59:30 AM »
Quote
Outside groups have poured in nearly $1 billion to buoy GOP Senate candidates. Just how important have these groups been to Republicans? Eighty-six percent of the money going toward pro-GOP TV ads is coming from these outside groups, compared to 55% for Democrats.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1129976565/dark-money-groups-midterm-elections-republicans-democrats-senate

Still care who’s funding the candidates?

Hilarious. This biased source (proven by naming the GOP as the bad guys) actually shows the Dems get more dark money funding as I already stated.  Perhaps when you post sources that support your opposing position, you put yourself in that group of voters one should vote the other way from.

One of the bad reasons this Soros/"Flowers for Algernon" spending is so heinous, is that the poor candidates who choose to not fill out the disclosure forms for voter info groups, also fund the local mailers that are easily disinformational and even libelous, which tend to be those uninformed voters' only source of info outside of TV.

It is easy  to disinform. Take the Abortion attacks. I see yard signs that say, "The abortion ban is against my religion." Wouldn't you think the idea that "Killing babies is not funny" is the best response? There are few recourses for mailers or yard signs that disinform. There are also many candidates who fight participating in debates. Biden set that precedent with his basement campaign, which now seems the norm for Dem candidates with bad positions on issues, like John Fetterman. I think elections are important, and see the various bills put out to control elections as allowing scamming by Dems and trying to protect fair voting by the GOP. Painting this the other way puts you in that group that one should vote oppositely.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2022, 04:41:03 PM »
Quote
Painting this the other way puts you in that group that one should vote oppositely.
This seems like a tiresomely roundabout way of Othering your opposition, frankly.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2022, 04:47:45 PM »
Quote
Outside groups have poured in nearly $1 billion to buoy GOP Senate candidates. Just how important have these groups been to Republicans? Eighty-six percent of the money going toward pro-GOP TV ads is coming from these outside groups, compared to 55% for Democrats.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1129976565/dark-money-groups-midterm-elections-republicans-democrats-senate

Still care who’s funding the candidates?

Hilarious. This biased source (proven by naming the GOP as the bad guys) actually shows the Dems get more dark money funding as I already stated.  Perhaps when you post sources that support your opposing position, you put yourself in that group of voters one should vote the other way from.
...

They didn't name the GOP as the "bad guys" they named them as the group receiving the most dark money. Money given directly to candidates isn't "dark money" it is disclosed. Maybe try looking at the charts again and you'll see the "dark money" outside groups for Republicans are outspending the "dark money" outside groups for republicans.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2022, 05:09:01 PM »
yossarian has the right of it. The total length of the bars is the total amount spent on behalf of each party's candidate; the light-colored portion of the bar is "dark money" that cannot be attributed to a source. While the Democrats appear to have more total money available, significantly less of their war chest consists of untraceable funds.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2022, 05:34:01 PM »
Tom's right.  According to that chart, Democrats received $420.0 million in dark money and Republicans received $617.2 million.  (I added it up, if you want to check my math. :) )  A significant difference, with the Republicans solidly "winning" in that respect.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2022, 05:54:27 PM »
So wm, why aren't you in favor of campaign finance reform?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2022, 07:31:14 PM »
He is but only for Democrats.  No Republican has ever violated campaign finance laws so they do are not needed for them.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2022, 12:09:02 PM »
In case anyone is still interested in the top donors for the 2020 midterms,Electoral-vote.com has a nice list of the top 10.

They are (sans commentary):
George Soros (D), $129 million, for Democratic candidates.

Richard Uihlein (R), $81 million, for Conservative candidates.

Kenneth Griffin (R), $69 million, for Republican candidates.

Jeff Yass (R), $47 million, for conservative candidates (leaning libertarian).

Timothy Mellon (R), $40 million, for Republican candidates.

Sam Bankman-Fried (D), $40 million, for Democratic candidates.

Fred Eychaner (D), $36 million, for Democratic candidates.

Stephen Schwarzman (R), $36 million, undetermined (by the article).

Peter Thiel (R), $33 million, for (two) Republican candidates.

Larry Ellison (R), $31 million, for (one) Republican candidate.

So that's about $205 million for Democratic candidates and $301 million to Conservative/Republican/Libertarian candidates, with another $36 million going to (probably) one or the other, or maybe both.  ???

Of course, this accounts for only a half-billion dollars of donations, and spending is up by $2 billion this cycle.  So take it as you will. :)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2022, 06:43:36 PM »
wmLambert, The name of the group you're looking for is, the first letter of each of the following words. Apples Randomly Against Basic Eggs Largely Labelled As Apple Deniers Victorious In Sequence Or Rotating Systems.  The have a bad reputation for suppressing their name. 

They're a clearing house for dark money on the left that takes giant donations and filters them down to a large network of other left dark money groups for deployment.  They're how it's possible for newly formed issue groups to pop into an area with a $20 million war chest.

As far as the specifics in this thread:

Of course Republicans are against disclosure of donors, leftists harass and threaten anyone whose name they can find.  They get them fired, they ruin their businesses, they destroy their lives.  All of which is fundamentally the opposite of free and fair elections.

It makes no sense that we have strict caps on individual contributions to elections that a billionaire can get around with trivial ease.  This isn't because  of Citizens United.  No campaign reform laws passed by politicians ever do anything but stack the deck. 

Despite their protests and pretending to be the good team, the Democrats structural advantages in the dark money space are insurmountable.  One of the fundamental characteristics that pushes people to be a Republican or a Democrat is whether you believe the ends justifies the means.  There is no large group of Republican voters that believes that an equivalent dark money organization on the right would be legitimate to create or use, whereas the refrain from the left is always it worked. 

Spending money to try and get the other party to nominate a worse candidate?  It works, ergo okay. 

The structural advantage of Democrat control of virtually the entire media, dwarfs by a factor of at least a hundred and probably far more every dollar the Republicans could ever spend.  How would the voters ever make an informed decision on the actual issues when the media won't fairly cover (or sometimes cover at all) any issue that makes Republicans look better than Democrats.  I mean, worst administration in history for the border, and the media pretended like it didn't exist for most of the last 2 years.  Inflation?  You have hours of "inflation-denier" coverage, "inflation is transitory" coverage, we aren't in a recession coverage, it's "all actually Trump's fault" coverage, it's "all the Republicans' fault coverage," Democrats passed a "reflation reduction" act that's making a difference, and even, it's Republicans fault that people even know what the word inflation is, to practically zero actually putting the blame where it belongs on decisions of the Biden administration and Democrat single party passed legislation.  If they covered it honestly, how many points does that equate to in an election?  More than enough in most races.

The cash and in-kind contributions by unions to Democrats who then negotiate deals with those unions is both corruption and incalculably valuable.  If Republicans had such a deal with anyone, the left would be screaming corruption at every turn and so would the media.

The fact that Democrats have legally established that they can conduct Lawfare on any number of issues they care about from organizations that are tax exempt and many of which are funded from the public coffers is incalculable.  This causes a massive distortion, where Democrat causes effectively get free, subsidized and virtually unlimited access to the legal system.  Republicans are slowly catching up but still face situations where subsidized Democrat legal activism can bankrupt organizations that try to protect their rights.  There's virtually no consequences when they are caught abusing people.

Bureaucrats overwhelmingly tip the scales on virtually every conceivable grounds to the left in hundreds of thousands of ways that make equal play impossible.

Honestly, given the factors at play in this election cycle, which in fact should have led to a red tidal wave (with the caveat that the SC's abortion decision was real factor in play in the other direction), the results of the actual election demonstrate the level of operational handicap that Republicans are suffering.  Literally, 90% plus of what Americans see is hand picked by pro-Democrat people to either make Dems look good, hide or dismiss problems that would make Dems look bad, make Republicans look terrible, and make non-existent any dialogue on things that make Republicans look good.

For example, I saw someone say Fetterman was so much better than Oz that if they'd switched parties the results would have been the same.  Honestly that's delusional.  If Fetterman had been a Republican, his stroke would have been covered wall to wall and every mishap would have been magnified in every broad cast, a dozen reporters would have been hammering him everyday and he would have tripped up over and over.  His whole incident with chasing an unarmed black man with a gun would have been packaged into a frequently shown bit about how racist he was.  He would have lost by 20 points.  You can see an actual example of something like that from back when Doug Jones got elected to the Senate in deep red Alabama - the media was relentless and it mattered.

Honest to goodness, an unbiased media would probably cost the Democrats 10-15 points nationally.  That's real state of where we are.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2022, 07:26:58 PM »
Nearly every single thing Seriati said above is probably false.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2022, 07:40:43 PM »
Gah. Autocorrect somehow changed "provably" to "probably." I suppose this version is almost certainly more accurate, but it's quite a bit less punchy. :)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2022, 09:26:38 PM »
wmLambert, The name of the group you're looking for is, the first letter of each of the following words. Apples Randomly Against Basic Eggs Largely Labelled As Apple Deniers Victorious In Sequence Or Rotating Systems.  The have a bad reputation for suppressing their name. 

Arabella Advisors? 

What?  If I type out their name will a black helicopter come for me?  They're so secret they have a wikipedia page?  Stories about them in Politico, The Grey Hooker, Fox Business?  I guess it's all disinformation put up by the lizard people. 

Seriously, Trumpism *censored*ed with y'alls heads. 

Roll Tide

Roll Tide

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2022, 07:13:43 AM »
Nearly every single thing Seriati said above is probably false.

Then it should be trivial for you to do so.  Please enlighten us.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2022, 12:25:15 AM »
Nearly every single thing Seriati said above is probably false.

Then it should be trivial for you to do so.  Please enlighten us.

I fear that it is far from trivial to try to enlighten you.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2022, 07:30:35 AM »
As usual, when leftists don't have actual arguments, they resort to personal attacks.

So, instead of being passively aggressive whilst hiding behind a pseudonym "TheDrake".  Why not own it and tell me you think I'm stupid because I have the Gaul to disagree with you.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2022, 08:05:43 AM »
Please enlighten us.

1. Gaul is/was an ancient Roman collection of provinces, inhabited by Celtic peoples known to the Romans collectively as "Gauls". Most people think of "Gaul" as modern day France, but this was better understood as "Transalpine Gaul", or "Gaul beyond the Alps".  "Cisalpine Gaul" extended all the way to the Rubicon (Rubico) River, separating Gaul from Italy proper.  It is of course also the modern word we use to describe the Celtic peoples who lived in Gaul, whether "this" side of the alps or on the other. 

2. Gall is defined as "bold and impudent behavior".


Bask in enlightenment.  That will be $5. 

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2022, 09:26:55 AM »
Rather than addressing the issues we get more personal attacks and deflection from Grant.  Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?  If you don't maybe you should just shut up.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who funds the candidates?
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2022, 10:14:12 AM »
Rather than addressing the issues we get more personal attacks and deflection from Grant.  Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?  If you don't maybe you should just shut up.

I don't think I was making a personal attack.  I was just pointing out a grammatical error, in the hopes of granting enlightenment, as requested.  Considering the value of this enlightenment, how it will make your future arguments even better because they will no longer be grammatically incorrect, I will accept your thanks.  You're welcome.  I personally thought that pointing out the grammatical error was very constructive criticism.  But at this point it's possible that you are not amenable to any criticism.  I will leave you to it.