Most people are eager to see Election Tuesday arrive so that all the campaign ads will disappear. However, the general population doesn’t include the advertising and media businesses reaping the profits to make the political propaganda world.
The midterm election will result in a record $3.1 billion spent for all the candidate clamor, 14.5 percent higher than in 2004, USA Today estimated. This total is even more significant because $1 billion was spent on the presidential race in 2004.
Posted by Angie Holladay
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
22 Comments
I’d like to see that total broken down into parties.
It all goes to show that this election is even more important than many people realize. Do we “stay the course” with this legislative group? Or do we want to see changes made in ALL areas?
In perspective, in our $13 trillion economy, the $3.1 billion in campaign expenditures amounts to only 0.024% of the U.S. GDP. Since we just hit a population of 300 million, $3.1 billion amounts to $10.33 per capita, which is about what I spend on a 30 lb box of (scoopable) cat litter (the comparison in intentional) or a decent bottle of table wine. At least you will feel better after the bottle of wine, as compared to viewing the political commercials.
In total perspective, it’s a trivial amount of money, but most of the polital commercials are nearly as irritating as the Head-On commercials.
The Republican political ads of late have been dirtier than your used cat litter!
Auto dealers are spending a ton of money in Kansas.They dont like Kline because Kline enforces the law.Abortionist George Tiller is spending a ton of money in Kansas, Tiller doesnt like Kline because Kline enforces the law.Rajive Goyle is probably going to spend $100,000 on a state Representative race, but I am betting he will still lose to Bonnie Huy.If money is important, why doesnt the Eagle show us where all of Goyle’s out of state money is comming from? At least 90% of Goyles funding is from East Coast liberals.
sorryRajeev Goyle is the ACLU liberal running against Huy
now paul, you say that like it’s a bad thing! lol
Charles Koch is spending a ton of money in Kansas. Why is that Paul?
By the way, is giving information to a right-wing talk-show host enforcing the law?
Again, I ask why be so worried about out-of-state donors? If it was the Repubs getting this money, would Paul be so against it?
Tiarht gets money from out-of-state – is he also to be questioned? Oh yeah, that’s right, Tiarht doesn’t answer any questions from anybody. he is above the law.
Didn’t Tiahrt get money from Foley, DeLay, and Jack Abramoff?
yes he did Ben and that’s only the money that we know about.
Tiarht has also defended Foley, Delay and Abramhoff – so what does that say about the man’s character?
After the election, will shilly Paul F. Rosell be leaving us too? We can hope! This is as good an arguement as any for the public finance of campaigns. Set a reasonable standard for who should get this financing. No fake or totally hopeless candidates Then give each candidate the same amount of money to campaign with. Audit their expenditures. No outside contributions allowed. It is way past time to get out of the person with the most money wins.
JR
An interesting proposal. How do you propose to provide those dollars? How much? Would a candidate with means able to spend his/her own money? Would persons or groups be able to run ads of their own pro/con particular candidates?
I’m curious as to the details you would propose.
GMC
We already fund the Presidential campaign. Hence the little box you check that does not lower your refund or increase your tax bill. Candidates can either take or leave this matching fund. Most leave it as it restricts their collection of contribution. That is a good start.
The private groups and pacs? I don’t know what you do about that. That gets into free speech.
As to a candidate and their own money? Again, free speech comes into play.
But the airwaves, radio and television belong to the people. Gotta be a way to use that to balance things.
See? This would level the playing field and allow folks that are not independently wealthy or beholden to special interests to run for office. Too, it would FORCE candidates to interact with their constituents in the form of town halls and debates as opposed to TV ads.
The internet provides SOME change and relief. For now.
“But the airwaves, radio and television belong to the people.”
In theory, perhaps, but in practice, the studios and transmitters belong to private businesses, who are free to use them as they choose. That free speech thing again.
Personally, I NEVER check off on the campaign fund. (and BTW, candidates almost universally accept it, as I understand it) And I fear that true full public financing will simply make the public even less engaged than they are now. And what do you do with the candidate who says “screw it – I’ll raise my money privately” and refuses public money?
I’d vote for full immediate disclosure. Only individuals (not business or unions) can contribute, and candidates can take in and spend as much as they like – as long as they disclose where they got it and where they spend it.
That ought to be our first start. And yes, the internet can do that, with weekly reporting of where the money came from, and where it was spent. It would also require a media that reported just who the donors are, and what their interests are.
You and I are, once again, in agreement; this time on campaign finance. Yes, let all “natural persons” contribute directly to the campaigns of their choice; corporate, PAC, unions, et al. cannot so contribute. Full disclosure of contributions and how the same are spent would be mandatory; weekly at a minimum, perhaps 3 business days (as large employers are now required to deposit their federal 941 taxes) for large donations, say greater than $100,000.
My 4:26 PM post was concurring in GMC’s comments, lest there be confusion.
Vaughn, great idea. As a lawyer you are extremely knowledgeable about corporate “persons”, i.e. legal-fiction “persons”.
I think that we need a system that recognizes corporations for what they are: systems run by people, i.e. human persons. I also believe that we should de-privilege judges, congressmen and other elected officials, to make them personally accountable for their words and decisions, i.e. civilly liable. Why? Because if they were held to this accountability, they’d THINK MUCH MORE BEFORE THEY ACTED.
It’s a straightforward principle: if you can be held personally liable, your decision-making is different from that which occurs when you presume, according to law, that you are personally immune from and indemnified against the laws that are applied to MOST people.
heart, I understand your frustration. However, unless there is some “privilege” granted to those in the categories you list, there would be a plethora of civil litigation arising over “political” decisions, further clogging the courts, even if most such actions would be dismissed eventually. I, for one, think the political arena is already being being subject to too much litigation. Fraud in elections? Sure, litigate this issue. Defamation, for example, arising from intemperate remarks made on the floor of the Senate, e.g.; I don’t think so.
Hypothetical: Judge X makes a ruling which upsets a great number of people, such that an action is brought to hold the judge accountable therefor. Judge Y dismisses the action, finding that the Constitutional requirement of an independent judiciary is violated by the original litigation. Following appeals upholding Judge Y, litigation is brought against Judge Y by the same group. What benefit is there to this?
As to members of congress, and other elected individuals, the great power is that of the ballot box; vote them out.
Sadly I agree Vaughn. I place a lot of blame on voters. It would be easy to get debates broadcast on PBS for example but how many voters would watch? People like quick easy answers; they don’t want to do homework.
The link below is to an article concerning some 10,000 lawyers being positioned for tomorrow’s election:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2632261&page=1
The article also contains information about a challenge to 6,000 voters filed in New York state by lawyers for the GOP Friday afternoon.
This is what I mean by the political process being subjected to too much litigation.
If the 7,000 lawyers for the Dems are merely there to make sure no irregularities occur, that is, to ensure lawfully registered voters are permitted to vote, and that all votes are counted, that’s fine; but it would seem to me that this function could be served by nonlawyers. As to the 3,000 other lawyers involved, some are there (in certain states with close elections) on behalf of the GOP; and, I guess from skimming the article, the balance are in various U.S. Attorneys’ offices to handle complaints.
Helluva mess, methinks.
Vaughn, how do we equalize personal (human) responsibility? In medieval Europe, kings and popes were sovereign. “We didn’t make a mistake, God did.” You can’t take legal action against us. Too bad you can’t sue God.
I hate to say this, but immunity for government officials is a con job. Unless you say that God provides for their immunity, so blame God for His errors, and live with them.