Who Do We Blame?

[Guest]

Are you sick, disgusted, tired and aggravated by the continual humdrum of attack ads that we're seeing. They seem inescapable.

Who do we blame for this pox on our electoral system?

-- The framers of the Constitution, who didn't have the foresight to anticipate things like TV, the seemingly unlimited amounts of money that special interests are willing to spend to get their candidate elected, the political advisors to the candidates who advise the effectiveness of negative or attack advertising?

--The conservatives on the Supreme Court who reversed the Citizens United case from a federal appeals court on a straight vote along ideological lines?

--Or maybe the candidates themselves for approving the attack advertising through their silence?

I don't know who's to blame, maybe all of the above. But it seems that the cat is now out of the bag. The Citizens United decision will forever change political campaigning for the benefit of wealthy special interests and to the detriment of individual voters.

I don't know how much more of this I can take--and here's five more months to go!

One thing is for sure...whichever candidate is elected will be hated, distrusted and openly resisted by a little less than half the people in the country. And we'll expect him to "lead"? Not possible in my opinion.

[Guest]

As long as the incumbent candidate enters the race with a campaign "war chest" of hundreds of millions of dollars, the opposing candidate absolutely has to compete to raise the same kind of money.

Both parties' "war chest" should be required to start out empty on the day they formally announce their candidacy, in my estimation.

January 13, 2012

WASHINGTON – President Obama and the Democratic Party have raised more than $240 million for his re-election, swamping his rivals' fundraising as the president races to build a war chest to defend against the eventual Republican nominee and deep-pocketed GOP "super PACS."

Obama collected more than $42 million during the closing three months of the year (2011), his campaign announced Thursday, while more than $24 million went to the Democratic National Committee, to help build a national campaign infrastructure ahead of the November election.

The fundraising puts Obama roughly on par with the amounts raised by President George W. Bush at this point in his 2004 re-election effort. But this year's contest is markedly different.....

Obama, DNC amass $240 million campaign war chest (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-12/obama-campaign-fundraising/52521796/1)

[Guest]

The television political ads are a good reason for the "MUTE" button on the remote control. I do not listen to either side's political ads.

As long as I have my friend, RichieLion to guide me on the right path, I am sure I will vote for the right (far right) candidate :22yikes:

[Guest]

The Supreme Court allowing Super Pacs.

[Guest]

As long as the incumbent candidate enters the race with a campaign "war chest" of hundreds of millions of dollars, the opposing candidate absolutely has to compete to raise the same kind of money.

Both parties' "war chest" should be required to start out empty on the day they formally announce their candidacy, in my estimation.

January 13, 2012

WASHINGTON – President Obama and the Democratic Party have raised more than $240 million for his re-election, swamping his rivals' fundraising as the president races to build a war chest to defend against the eventual Republican nominee and deep-pocketed GOP "super PACS."

Obama collected more than $42 million during the closing three months of the year (2011), his campaign announced Thursday, while more than $24 million went to the Democratic National Committee, to help build a national campaign infrastructure ahead of the November election.

The fundraising puts Obama roughly on par with the amounts raised by President George W. Bush at this point in his 2004 re-election effort. But this year's contest is markedly different.....

Obama, DNC amass $240 million campaign war chest (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-12/obama-campaign-fundraising/52521796/1)

The difference in the two campaigns is President Obama raised 43% of his money from donors contributing $200 or less, while Mitt Romney only raised 10% of his money from donors contributing $200 or less.

It cost Romney 76 million dollars in the primary to defeat a serial adulterer and a former senator who lost his seat by 18 points. Money all spent on negative ads against the two. Romney never talked about his record as Governor of Massachusetts in his ads, or explained what positions he takes. He will continue to raise money from his millionaire and billionaire supporters by promising them huge tax cuts and less regulation, so they will be free to pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.


President Obama winning battle for small donors - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-07/metro/32083275_1_small-donors-campaign-finance-institute-obama-fund-raiser)

[Guest]

yep you just keep telling yourself good ol' boy Obama has only donations from the little people....do you really think that is close to being one half true? What about the hollywood mega thousand dollar per plate dinners?
What about the super pacs that support Obama?

It is obvious someone has bought the party smoke job. Obama has as many wealthy supporters as Romney.....don't let on anybody told you that.:D

btk

[Guest]

I always like to blame the STUPID PEOPLE, they're the ones that don't think like I do.

[Guest]

Louis Brandeis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis)

That decision kind of brings the power of international corporations into the US political process through the right of free speech. Quite a puzzle when you see that the champion of free speech--Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis-- also fought against big business' corruption of political affairs. These ads are mass consumerism at its worst-- just applied to campaigns. Mass consumerism was another target of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis.

Cannot see how President Obama or Mitt Romney could win without the use of the huge war chests that allow these kind of ads' continual bombardment of our air waves. So, I cannot really blame the Republican and Democrat candidates.

[Guest]

Negative campaigning has gone on since the inception of our voting system so that much is not so different. What has progressively increased is the amount of campaign money spending, the reality that technology allows a wider distribution of campaigning, a biased news media who have lost their moral and ethical compass, too long a protracted timeline in which to campaign and most damaging campaigns that have added outright lying to their negativity.

Who is to blame? There is enough blame to go around but the voters must collectively protest their dissatisfaction with the campaign process, its lengthy timeline,and most of all the reject negativity in ads and demand factual accounting of the concerns and issues of voters to filter out the lies.
Because unless we remain the silent majority this will continue.

Personally all I need are 4-6 television debates covering concerns such as the economy, defense, taxes, spending and the candidates bona-fides.

In the end I blame us most of all because we ought to be marching in the streets protesting the detoriation of our election system.

[Guest]

Negative campaigning has gone on since the inception of our voting system so that much is not so different. What has progressively increased is the amount of campaign money spending, the reality that technology allows a wider distribution of campaigning, a biased news media who have lost their moral and ethical compass, too long a protracted timeline in which to campaign and most damaging campaigns that have added outright lying to their negativity.

Who is to blame? There is enough blame to go around but the voters must collectively protest their dissatisfaction with the campaign process, its lengthy timeline,and most of all the reject negativity in ads and demand factual accounting of the concerns and issues of voters to filter out the lies.
Because unless we remain the silent majority this will continue.

Personally all I need are 4-6 television debates covering concerns such as the economy, defense, taxes, spending and the candidates bona-fides.

In the end I blame us most of all because we ought to be marching in the streets protesting the detoriation of our election system.

What can you do practically though? I tape stuff through the cable company-Prism-- and then fast forward through all the political ads and most of the product ads. Unless Arbitron, Nielsen or other such TV viewing research companies catch onto this practice of fast forwarding through negative political ads, what can one person do? There's online petition's but I doubt if these have any kind of real impact on politicians unless the media itself takes up one of these causes.

[Guest]

Louis Brandeis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis)

That decision kind of brings the power of international corporations into the US political process through the right of free speech. Quite a puzzle when you see that the champion of free speech--Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis-- also fought against big business' corruption of political affairs. These ads are mass consumerism at its worst-- just applied to campaigns. Mass consumerism was another target of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis.

Cannot see how President Obama or Mitt Romney could win without the use of the huge war chests that allow these kind of ads' continual bombardment of our air waves. So, I cannot really blame the Republican and Democrat candidates.Great historical "catch".

Personally, I've often thought that the Supreme Court should largely rule on the Consitutionality of the cases they choose to hear. That is, they shoudn't be in the business of "making law from he bench". But when there are cases like Citizens United, when it's crystal clear that the framers of the Constitution could not possibly have anticipated the inadequacies of the Constitution in the context of the present day, then I think it's time for the Court to make law that is not pure constructionist.

Said another way, when the Court can clearly see that a constructionist interpretation of the law effecting a ruling would not be in the best interests of the people, then they should rule accordingly...just like the lower appeals out had ruled which they overturned with the Citizens United decision. That is, the Court should be constructionist except in cases when common sense says the result will be destructive.

I think Citizens United was one of those cases when the Court should have varied from their ideology and used some common sense.

[Guest]

...Who is to blame? There is enough blame to go around but the voters must collectively protest their dissatisfaction with the campaign process, its lengthy timeline,and most of all the reject negativity in ads and demand factual accounting of the concerns and issues of voters to filter out the lies....
The problem is that The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court let the cat out of the bag, let the genie out of the corporate bottle. With that decision--that any amount of political campaigning by corporations, unions, even foreign countries is free speech under he Constitution, there can be no further laws passed or rules changed that can limit such spending. It's now free speech, and that is fundamental to our society, culture and government. What the Supreme Court failed to consider in their "decision with constructionist blinders on" is the damage their decision will have on our future electoral process.

[Guest]

The difference in the two campaigns is President Obama raised 43% of his money from donors contributing $200 or less, while Mitt Romney only raised 10% of his money from donors contributing $200 or less.

It cost Romney 76 million dollars in the primary to defeat a serial adulterer and a former senator who lost his seat by 18 points. Money all spent on negative ads against the two. Romney never talked about his record as Governor of Massachusetts in his ads, or explained what positions he takes. He will continue to raise money from his millionaire and billionaire supporters by promising them huge tax cuts and less regulation, so they will be free to pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.


President Obama winning battle for small donors - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-07/metro/32083275_1_small-donors-campaign-finance-institute-obama-fund-raiser)

yep you just keep telling yourself good ol' boy Obama has only donations from the little people....do you really think that is close to being one half true? What about the hollywood mega thousand dollar per plate dinners?
What about the super pacs that support Obama?

It is obvious someone has bought the party smoke job. Obama has as many wealthy supporters as Romney.....don't let on anybody told you that.:D

btk

If you check the link, you will find it is the Boston Globe saying this not me.
Shouldn't they be big Romney supporters, since they are his former constituents?

[Guest]

The difference in the two campaigns is President Obama raised 43% of his money from donors contributing $200 or less, while Mitt Romney only raised 10% of his money from donors contributing $200 or less.......

President Obama winning battle for small donors - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-07/metro/32083275_1_small-donors-campaign-finance-institute-obama-fund-raiser)

Largest Hedge Fund Political Donations Go to Democrats

April 20, 2010 -- While hedge fund managers might be presumed to be eager to help the GOP beat back Wall Street reform, the reality is that the biggest of the big-time spenders funneled their donations primarily to Democrats, the party that holds Congress and the White House.

According to an analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics for ABC News, the five biggest hedge fund donors all gave almost all their donations to Democrats.

The most any individual can contribute in aggregate to candidates, party committees and PACs, in any one election cycle, is $115,500. For some hedge fund managers, that would barely amount to what they make per hour. Hedge funds make money for big investors by trading a wide range of securities, often using leverage and selling short -- betting that a stock, bond or even a mortgage security will fall in value.

So which hedge fund managers are making the most political contributions, and to whom are they giving?

The CRP ran some numbers to help ABCNews.com find out. ......

Here's a rundown of who did make the list:

*With $94,100 in contributions over the past year, Jim Simons is the single largest political donor among hedge fund managers. The founder of quantitative hedge fund powerhouse Renaissance Technologies gave almost all of that total to Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid of Nevada, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and New York's Charles Schumer. Dodd is in charge of the committee working on a financial reform bill.

*Former Goldman Sachs star trader Eric Mindich, who a few years ago pulled off one of the largest hedge funds startups in history, doled out $89,600, all to Democrats,......"

Largest Hedge Fund Donors Show Bipartisan Support, though Democrats Collect More - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/largest-hedge-fund-donors-show-bipartisan-support-democrats/story?id=10425809#.T9Ud_u3jqBI)

[Guest]

Are you sick, disgusted, tired and aggravated by the continual humdrum of attack ads that we're seeing. They seem inescapable.

Who do we blame for this pox on our electoral system?

-- The framers of the Constitution, who didn't have the foresight to anticipate things like TV, the seemingly unlimited amounts of money that special interests are willing to spend to get their candidate elected, the political advisors to the candidates who advise the effectiveness of negative or attack advertising?

--The conservatives on the Supreme Court who reversed the Citizens United case from a federal appeals court on a straight vote along ideological lines?

--Or maybe the candidates themselves for approving the attack advertising through their silence?

I don't know who's to blame, maybe all of the above. But it seems that the cat is now out of the bag. The Citizens United decision will forever change political campaigning for the benefit of wealthy special interests and to the detriment of individual voters.

I don't know how much more of this I can take--and here's five more months to go!

One thing is for sure...whichever candidate is elected will be hated, distrusted and openly resisted by a little less than half the people in the country. And we'll expect him to "lead"? Not possible in my opinion.

I'd love to blame the Supreme Court for the damned super pacs. But I can't. The power of the Court and it's ability to check and balance cannot be exercised by restricting it to a narrow, traditional interpretation of the Constitution. The maddening decisions, very often decided by a single vote, on expected 'party' lines can't really be the problem either. This delightfully frustrating situation has existed since the 1790's. And the pendulum keeps swinging.

For once, we can't blame the politicians either. Survival depends on matching the opponent's war chest. The 'good news' is maybe there's no such thing as too much exposure. What's false will be reported by the opposition, then clarified by the candidate, then clarified by the opposition... kind of like siting in a barber chair where there are mirrors front and back. Crazy, but this is probably better than heading down to the trading post in Cheyenne and voting for some guy named Calvin Coolidge whom you couldn't pick out of a lineup.

Also 'good' is that all the big money comes out of the pockets of obscenely wealthy folks and goes straight into the economy. That's a lot better than still sitting in Cayman accounts. (The exception here is for those obscenely wealthy folks who also own TV stations in swing states.)

So I guess I will direct my energy to something more important than supporting a Constitutional amendment to limit campaign financing.

[Guest]

Today's elections are tame compared to elections in the past when you could slander and libel your opponents with abandon and most politicians did.

There's more checks and balances and laws against outright slander and libel today.

Please read your history if you don't believe me.

[Guest]

There's a simple solution.

If Citizen's United stated that corporations are people and, therefore, have Free Speech, it only follows that they have the REST of the freight that 'people' have to deal with.

That is, if your "person" slanders or libels someone, you risk going to jail. Since the corporation isn't "physically" a person, the board running the corporation can be considerd the brains and, therefor, responsible.

If you started giving the CEOs the perp-walk to jail instead of fines that do nothing but hit a balance sheet, you'll see more responsible behavior. Right now, there's no risk whether it's when you make up crap to denigrate a political opponent or kill a dozen people when your offshore rig blows up.

If the CEO of BP was up on 11 charges of manslaughter, things might change. If a $20B fine wasn't the worst the company was looking at, things might change.

[Guest]

There's a simple solution.

If Citizen's United stated that corporations are people and, therefore, have Free Speech, it only follows that they have the REST of the freight that 'people' have to deal with.

That is, if your "person" slanders or libels someone, you risk going to jail. Since the corporation isn't "physically" a person, the board running the corporation can be considerd the brains and, therefor, responsible.

If you started giving the CEOs the perp-walk to jail instead of fines that do nothing but hit a balance sheet, you'll see more responsible behavior. Right now, there's no risk whether it's when you make up crap to denigrate a political opponent or kill a dozen people when your offshore rig blows up.

If the CEO of BP was up on 11 charges of manslaughter, things might change. If a $20B fine wasn't the worst the company was looking at, things might change.It's even worse than CEO's escaping culpability. The former CEO of British Petroleum is a great example.Tony Hayward, BP's CEO before and during the Deep Water Horizon oil spill was paid a $17 million severance bonus. Hayward is presently senior independent non-executive director of Corus Group, appointed in April 2002, and a non-executive director of Tata Steel. Hayward is a member of Tata's Health, Safety and Environment committee. As of 22 July 2011, Hayward has been hired by Glencore International to oversee environment and safety. On 8 September 2011, Hayward's venture firm, Vallares, merged with the Turkish oil firm Genel Energy to create a $4.5 billion company with operations in northern Iraq.In the meantime, only one BP employee has been arrested, an American engineer who is accused of destroying e-mails. He was fired by BP.

So, we kill 3,000 kids and spend a trillion dollars to stabilize and democratize Iraq. We don't get any oil--or even a discount on their oil. But the guy who was responsible for fouling our gulf is able to sweep in and get filthy rich in Iraq? What is wrong with this picture?