As if we needed further evidence that there’s too much money in presidential politics: Barack Obama is buying a half hour of prime time Oct. 29 on CBS, NBC and Fox, at the price of $950,000 to $1 million to each network – a drop in the bucket of the record $150 million Obama raised in September. In Fox’s case, that means Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the start of a World Series game (assuming the game is necessary) by about eight minutes.
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
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
33 Comments
You have to admit it’s pretty cool that so many Americans believe in him that they’ll invest their money in his campaign.
Of course the right wingers are insinuating there is something sinister in the sources of his campaign money…sour grapes.
Get ready for all the bogus cut and pastes…..
The “messiah’, the ‘One’ shall establish the path of non-belief and predictable failure.
Ok, Mary…here is a ‘cut and paste’ from the LA Times, October 8, 2008: (absolutely not ‘bogus’ as you prematurely want to claim)
“The Democratic candidate’s donors also include “Derty Poiiuy,” an individual with a scatological sense of humor who has given $950. “Mong Kong” has contributed $1,065 and lists an address in a nonexistent city. “Fornari USA” gave $800 and listed the address of an apparel store of that name near San Francisco.”
Sounds like something a little fishy going on? False names? Fake addresses? Imaginary cities?
No Raptor, those cities are just down the road from Caliwood, Hollyfornia. :)
Kinda of like the dreamland McCains ideas are from, eh? ;)
No Davos…not something you made up. But facts of illegal donations. Your insult does not deny the fact that anonymous (and therefore illegal) donations have been made.
That much money would sure help alot of homeless kids out there.
I am sure there is nothing shady on McCains list. You know I might just change my vote…nah. As for insults what do you expect with the legions of right-wingers screaming everything from ‘Commie’ to ‘Fascist’ at peolple that don’t agree with there views.
Davos….using the “they started it” line is typical of 3rd graders. Surely you can do better than that?
LOL…more insults…Call me what you will Raptor. Ahhh…this is boring, I think i will go play with the big kids for awhile.
The Times examination of donors who wrote checks of $25,000 or more through September found some notable differences in the industries from which Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain drew their largest contributions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/us/politics/21donate.html?_r=1&oref=login
Not an insult, davos…a simple statement that your ‘they started it’ line is quite immature. You initially insulted a presidential candidate and I called you on it. Your response:
“..what do you expect with the legions of right-wingers screaming everything from ‘Commie’ to ‘Fascist’ at peolple that don’t agree with there views.”
None of which denies the fact that the Obama campaign has been the recipient of illegal, anonymous donations, as listed in the LA Times.
the Solution would be to have 100% public financed campaigns and neither side would ever agree to that.
and I’m sure if you went line by line and did Background checks on every donor your going to find shady people on both sides
Of course this thread header was a Rhonda.
Rhonda, the grand know-it-all of conventional wisdom.
What was it last week–”don’t steal yard signs.”
Wow. What insight! What scintillating analysis into the problems of the 21st century!
“Clean up after your dog” is sure to follow . . .
There is not “too much money in politics”.
All that really matters is that the source of every cent is known.
The reform needed is to bar corporations and other groups (i.e. unions) from giving directly to a campaign. Only individual donations should be allowed, without limit.
The Republicans are jealous because Obama is a populist whose support is broad and attracts people from all classes and walks of life.
Jobs baby jobs!!!
Tom Paine: A week ago to-day Canada held a general election where a candidate may not spend more than 70 cents per voter in his precint and no more than $60,000.000 in total. The Prime Minister was re-elected and spent $60,000.00 to do so and his party less than $17 million to contest 308 seats across 5 time zones. Paper ballots were used and the results from 60,000 polling stations were hand counted by 11:00 PM Pacific Coast Time. Yep. it can be done. This is how it is done in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. No union, company dontations whatsoever nor any donation from individuals over $500.00 and regardless, you still can’t overspend the limit. I mentioned this before, and in Australia and New Zealand you get fined for not voting!
sursum, one difference between the nations you mention and the U.S. is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and how this has been judicially construed as applying to political campaigns. I don’t know how many total votes were cast in the Canadian election, but 60,000 polling stations seems a relatively small number in comparison to the U.S.
avtolle: It is small voter base in comparison, they have 1/10th the population though physically larger than the US. In a Parliamentary Democracy there is no equivalent of a President and all the Cabinet Ministers must be elected to Parliament in the first place, hence there is no national plebicite for the head of Government. 3 of those 4 countries have less that 3 persons per sq. km whereas the US has around 35. I realize different rules apply, I’m just commenting on Tom Paines’ post as to monies spent and how big money is deleted from others’ electioneering process.
Sursum,
How about a compromise? We’ll put strict limits on campaign expenditures for politicians with one exception; the winner for Secretary of the Treasury will be the one who can raise the most in voluntary donations. Let talent prevail!
In a Parliamentary Democracy there is no equivalent of a President and all the Cabinet Ministers must be elected to Parliament in the first place, hence there is no national plebicite for the head of Government.
Nancy Kasssebaum, as part or head of a commitee (I forget which) once proposed, as a way to end some of the gridlock goin on, that the United States a parliamentary style election. Seeing how that gives even more power to the parties, I disagreed then, and disagree now.
Gee. Back when the Republic Party was flush, they equated cash with free speech.
Now that George WMD Bush has flushed ‘em down the toilet, they whine about Democrats coming together with millions upon millions of $86-or-less donations to finance Obama’s election.
The GOP is the party of spoiled whiners and soiled losers.
“Monkeyhawk
Posted October 21, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
Gee. Back when the Republic Party was flush, they equated cash with free speech.
Now that George WMD Bush has flushed ‘em down the toilet, they whine about Democrats coming together with millions upon millions of $86-or-less donations to finance Obama’s election.
The GOP is the party of spoiled whiners and soiled losers.”
Right and wrong, good and bad are always based on the side of the fence one looks from.
In 6 or 7 years the Republicans will be whining when Biden decides he does not have to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
Don’t you think Bill Clinton wishes had known he didn’t need to comply with Congressional subpoenas?
littlejohn: I’d be inclined to think the parties have LESS control because there is more than 2 major, national parties running. Each registered party will receive $1.95 per vote in an election from the Government, with which to do research, party functions and all the other stuff our two parties collect privately for, making their lobbyists of little or smaller impact. Gridlock MUST be a constant threat in a Parliamentbecause I think their last 3-4 elections ended up with minority governments who must therefore work WITH the opposition parties to pass anything at all. I don’t think we can ever make an apples-to-apples comparison, the two sytems are completely different.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back again to bondage.”
” don’t think we can ever make an apples-to-apples comparison, the two sytems are completely different.
Perhaps so> I AGREE IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT
The public’s going to own Obama due to all those hundreds of thousands making small donations.
There is no such thing as “the public,” Phantom. There are in fact multitudes of “publics,” each wanting something different.
That’s the great fallacy of campaigns which tout the “common man:” he’s a myth. There is no single policy which favors “the people.” “The people” are not unitary; they have myriad interests.
LJ,
In a multi-party parliamentary govenment, no one pary usually has the votes to act alone; they have to compromise and form alliances. That’s a skill that our politicians need to develop! All those years of playing hardball have inured them to the essence of democracy.
Phant,
“The public’s going to own Obama due to all those hundreds of thousands making small donations.”
That’s who’s supposed to own the government. Would you rather it be owned by a few rich bastards, as it is now?