| National
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
443903 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 09:28:52
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: a possible solution... |
|
|
i sent this to some people this morning who are trying to figure out what to do about all this...
good morning everyone…i woke up thinking about this, about what we might be able to do to prevent such a travesty from ever happening again…i realized it all comes down to $$$…the only reason a convicted felon, an amoral, lying, grifting moron such as rump could ever be elected to any public office, let alone the presidency, is that he was propelled into office by the huge sums of money “donated” by corporations and the very rich…the reason that these wealthy election tilters were able to put their huge sums of money behind rump, is that there is no constraint on them being able to contribute to PACs, political action committees…the actions over the past 30 years or so by the scouts to recognize corporations as people, led to the roberts court, in 2010, voting 5-4 to rule that corporations have the same constitutional right as individuals to spend money to influence elections…this singular decision has tilted the election playing field so much it is basically vertical today, with corporations and the super wealthy looking down at the common people from their lofty tower, controlling who gets the reins of power…and because so many of the wealthy and large corporations are highly conservative, the repugs have gained an enormous advantage…of course the wealthy have always had this type of advantage, but the blessing of scotus to create PACS has cranked the flood gates wide open…
so it seems to me, the best way to try to restore some kind of level playing field in our election processes, is to address this power that the scotus has given the very rich…the amount anyone one should be able to give a PAC needs to be capped, at a level that no one can donate more than a few thousand dollars, so crazed egomaniacs like elon musk cannot donate millions of dollars to promote their own dreams and ambitions, to the detriment of the masses…somehow a lawsuit needs to be crafted that addresses this huge problem…it would be really hard, because the rich and corporations have access to the best lawyers and the courts’ ears, but yet, i think it might have a chance…there are a lot of good lawyers too…raskin, schiff, mccaskill…it’s a long list…the way the law is currently written, it is grossly unfair…
"Thanks to the Roberts Court, Corporations Have More Constitutional Rights Than Actual People”
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/thanks-roberts-court-corporations-have-more-constitutional-rights-actual-people/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443934] [443917] [443914] [443916] [443919] [443940] [443941] [443964] [443955] [443943] |
|
443934 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 21:49:37
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a possible solution... |
URL: http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/national/messages/443866.html |
|
I'm replying to your post because I posted something
on Nov 1st and agaon Nov 7th
Date: November 07, 2024 at 14:49:45
From: pamela
Subject: Re: posting again from Nov 1st post
URL: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/05/nx-s1-5175799/the-
influence-of-super-pacs-and-dark-money-on-this-years-
campaigns
The influence of super PACs and dark money on this
year’s campaigns
November 5, 20244:24 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
By
Connor Donevan
,
Mary Louise Kelly
,
Courtney Dorning
Billions of dollars have been spent on the 2024
election — and that cash hasn’t just come from everyday
Americans.
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
This election, like the one before it and the one
before that and the one before that, will be the most
expensive election in U.S. history. OpenSecrets is a
nonpartisan group that tracks election spending. It
estimates the 2024 federal election cycle will cost
nearly $16 billion. It was around 15 billion back in
2020. Well, Daniel Weiner is director of the Brennan
Center for Justice's elections and government program.
He tracks the influence of money in elections. And I
talked to him about what role money has played in this
presidential election. Hey there, Daniel.
DANIEL WEINER: Hey there. It's a pleasure to be with
you.
KELLY: So go to that number I just cited - $16 billion
spent in this federal election cycle. What pops into
your head?
WEINER: What pops into my head is that's a lot of
money, but I am most interested on where that money is
coming from. There is a big difference between $16
billion coming from millions of Americans in small
increments versus just a significant portion of it
coming from a handful of billionaires. What we have
seen is that the trend is towards more and more of that
money coming from the very wealthiest donors.
KELLY: And tease out for me why. What has changed in
this election cycle?
WEINER: A couple of things have changed. So the
largest, overarching trend is that, since a decision
called Citizens United in 2010 swept away a lot of
limits on campaign fundraising and spending, more and
more groups like super PACs, which can raise and spend
unlimited amounts of money, have played a prominent
role in U.S. elections. In the meantime, the laws that
remained on the books, which were supposed to, for
instance, keep those super PACs from collaborating with
candidates, have gone largely unenforced.
So you have a situation now, for instance, with former
President Trump's campaign, where he has actually
outsourced quite a bit of that campaign to super PACs
funded by folks like Elon Musk. Kamala Harris also has
a lot of billionaire backers, although she is following
a more traditional model, where, still, the
organization taking the lead is her traditional
campaign committee because that has had very successful
fundraising on its own.
KELLY: To the question of what all this money buys -
we've mentioned Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Trump says,
if elected, he would name Musk to a new efficiency czar
position. How unusual is that?
WEINER: Well, I think it's important to not overstate
how unusual it is because you have to remember, we have
a long tradition in this country of major donors
getting things like ambassadorships...
KELLY: Right.
WEINER: ...Right? - which both parties have done. What
is unusual is the potential for a donor to take a role
that would have so much direct oversight over matters
in which the donor has a direct financial interest.
Remember, Musk is a major government contractor. His
companies like SpaceX have billions of dollars of
federal contracts.
KELLY: Talk to me about what you were seeing on the
Democratic side. I'm remembering that, back when she
was a senator, Kamala Harris was prone to speaking out
against corporate cash and political action committees.
She spoke out against so-called dark money, anonymous
contributions. In this presidential campaign, she has
not seemed that bothered about benefiting from outside
money. What do you...
WEINER: Well...
KELLY: ...See when you look at that?
WEINER: I see that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are
fighting a very close election. And in the climate that
we have, I don't think either side is going to leave
anything on the field. More and more, on both sides,
the super PACs supporting them are relying on donations
from dark-money groups that do not disclose their
donors - that are basically funneled through the super
PAC. What's fascinating...
KELLY: But you don't see hypocrisy there in a political
candidate who was happy to call out dark money until it
was directly benefiting her presidential campaign?
WEINER: I would say that I think that there is going to
be a willingness to use any legal lever possible across
the board. I just don't think it's realistic, until you
change the rules, that either side is going to
unilaterally disarm.
KELLY: Can you ever get money out of politics? Or when
I talk to you four years from now, are we likely to be
saying once again, this has just been the most
expensive election in U.S. history?
WEINER: Well, and interestingly, this may not be the
most expensive election in U.S. history - this election
we thought was going to break all records and now may
be on track to actually clock in about where 2020
clocked in. But then you have to factor in inflation.
So here's what I want to say. I think getting money out
of politics is the wrong question. The question is,
where does the money come from?
So what I would like to see - and although the Supreme
Court has made this harder, it is not impossible - I
would like to see an election where there are more
small donations and where, you know, most of the money
- at least most of the big money - is transparent. In
the medium term, that is what I think we could achieve.
And, you know, I do think it's significant that,
however Kamala Harris is raising money now, she has
made those sorts of reforms a central promise of her
campaign.
KELLY: Daniel Weiner, director of the Brennan Center
for Justice's Elections and Government Program. Thanks
so much.
WEINER: It was a pleasure. Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF ELMIENE SONG, "MARKING MY TIME
(BADBADNOTGOOD EDIT)")
Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our
website terms of use and permissions pages at
www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an
NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form
and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy
and availability may vary. The authoritative record of
NPR’s programming is the audio record.
More Stories From NPR
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443917 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 11:58:51
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a possible solution... |
|
|
I think you made some excellent points. Both sides and
in the middle have complained about the lack of limits
on corporate money and dark pak money.
I do think there is enough support from the population
to make changes, but whether the population can combat
the amount of money that would fight them on that, and
the current courts who seem corrupted by their "perks"
for siding with them, that's a hard task indeed.
Worth the fight, but that's not going to be an easy one
to take on.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443914 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 11:18:17
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Democrats Spent $9 More Per Vote Than Republicans — And Kamala Still L |
URL: Democrats Spent $9 More Per Vote Than Republicans — And Kamala Still Lost |
|
kamala got more big donations and outspent trump heavily. it didn’t work.
money can’t overcome a bad candidate from a party that ignores the
people
Democrats Spent $9 More Per Vote Than Republicans — And Kamala Still
Lost
Democrats spent $24 for every Harris vote, and Republicans spent $15 for
every Trump vote
By Luke Rosiak
Nov 7, 2024 DailyWire.com
Facebook
X
Mail
96
Comments
US Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris
speaks to reporters after attending a church service at Greater Emmanuel
Institutional Church of God in Christ in Detroit, Michigan, on November 3,
2024.
(Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images)
Vice President Kamala Harris and her allies outspent former President
Donald Trump and Republicans by nearly $600 million, a disjunction that
did not translate into victory.
Harris and allied outside groups spent around $1.7 billion, compared to
$1.1 billion by Trump and allies, according to OpenSecrets. Based on the
number of votes tallied thus far, that means Democrats spent $24 for
every Harris vote while Republicans spent $15 for every Trump vote.
It’s not the first time Trump defeated a candidate who outspent him In
2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign and its allies outspent Trump by 78%.
In 2020, Joe Biden’s side outspent him by 49%. The figures suggest that
big money operations may no longer be the key to securing victory in a
presidential election.
Post-election news reports said that despite Harris raising more than $1
billion — in addition to more than $600 million from outside sources — the
campaign is now $20 million in debt.
The Harris campaign spent $430 million on media buys and production,
and $26 million on text messages, according to Federal Election
Commission filings. More than $100 million each was disbursed to Gambit
Strategies, Bully Pulpit Interactive, and Dupont Circle Strategies.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most of Harris’s outside spending — about $400 million — came from
Future Forward USA, according to OpenSecrets. The group, designed to
accept contributions larger than the campaign could legally accept, was
funded by multi-million dollar donations from people like LinkedIn founder
Reid Hoffman, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, Google’s Eric
Schmidt, and Ilinois’ Jay Pritzker. A union representing government
workers also chipped in $1 million.
Elon Musk’s America PAC, by comparison, spent some $130 million on
Trump’s behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443916] [443919] [443940] [443941] [443964] [443955] [443943] |
|
443916 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 11:34:18
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Democrats Spent $9 More Per Vote Than Republicans — And Kamala... |
URL: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/nx-s1-5173712/2024-election-ad-spending-trump-harris |
|
close, but quite slanted...here's a better sourced article on ad spending...point is, big money from the wealthy and corporations needs to removed rfrom politics...
More than $10 billion has been spent on ads in the 2024 election
November 1, 202411:03 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday
Domenico Montanaro - 2015
Altogether, $10.5 billion has been spent on campaign ads in the 2024 election cycle, on races from president down to county commissioner, according to data compiled by the ad-tracking firm AdImpact and analyzed by NPR.
That total is up $1 billion from four years ago.
Democrats have outspent Republicans, $5 billion to $4.1 billion, from the beginning of the cycle, starting in January 2023. (Independent, third-party and nonpartisan groups account for the rest.)
Loading...
Twenty-three states this cycle have seen more than $100 million spent. But one state tops them all: Pennsylvania. An astonishing $1.2 billion has been spent on ads in the state, the first time in U.S. history that a single state has seen more than $1 billion in ads.
Loading...
Pennsylvania has been a political hotbed in this cycle. In addition to the presidential campaign, which has dumped in $576 million in ads, there are also competitive Senate and House races in the state. The Senate contest has seen $344 million, and that’s not even the most money spent on a Senate race. That honor belongs to Ohio, where about $518 million in ads have run.
Across the country, about $3 billion has been spent on the presidential election, including the primaries. That’s slightly lower than 2020, but that was skewed by former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg spending $586 million in ads for his failed Democratic primary effort. That was almost as much as the $651 million that President Biden’s campaign spent in the primary and general election against former President Donald Trump.
About $2.6 billion of this year’s total has gone to general election efforts, which started unofficially after Super Tuesday in March.
Since March 6, Democrats — including the Biden and Harris campaigns, as well as outside groups supporting them — have outspent Republicans, $1.6 billion to $956 million.
The presidential campaign has been concentrated in seven states. Almost $4 out of every $5 spent for the presidential election has gone to Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada.
Democrats have outspent Republicans in each of the seven states. The most, $578 million, went to none other than Pennsylvania. Each party spent more than a quarter of all their ad money in the Keystone state.
Loading...
The amount of money spent in the presidential election is remarkable compared to 2020, considering how much smaller the field of competitive states is and that Florida is out of the ad-spending picture.
In 2020, $371 million was spent in the general election on Florida, an expensive place to buy ads because of its multiple media markets. This year, only $4 million has been spent there.
In 2020, the most money spent was on Georgia. It was hotly contested in the presidential election and had a Senate runoff. But with all races combined in Georgia in 2020, $787 million was spent, almost half-a-billion dollars less than the spending seen in Pennsylvania this year. Georgia has seen the third-most spending specifically in the presidential election this year, $304 million, behind Pennsylvania and Michigan ($376 million).
The biggest spenders in this election include the presidential campaigns, committees trying to elect candidates to the Senate and House, as well as several outside groups.
Here are the top 10 spenders:
1. Harris for President (D) $513 million
2. FF PAC (D) $441 million
3. MAGA Inc. (R) $360 million
4. WinSenate (D) $353 million
5. Trump for President (R) $327 million
6. Senate Leadership Fund (R) $224 million
7. House Majority PAC (D) $207 million
8. Congressional Leadership Fund (R) $201 million
9. Biden for President (D) $111 million
10. Harris Victory Fund (D) $111 million
Loading...
The ads with the most money behind them are from outside groups:
$36 million: FF PAC
More money has been spent on this ad, running since Oct. 22, than on any other. It’s from the pro-Harris outside group, FF PAC. It highlights a man who says he’s “a lifelong Republican” and voted for Trump twice, but is now voting for Harris.
$26.7 million: MAGA Inc.
This ad focuses on Harris’ record as a prosecutor and tries to paint her as a San Francisco liberal. It has run on heavy circulation since Oct. 9 in five of the seven swing states: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
These are the top-two ads from the campaigns:
Harris campaign: economy contrast
This contrast ad focuses on what Harris wants to do for the economy compared to Trump. The Harris campaign has spent $19 million on this ad and has run it widely.
Trump campaign: cutting taxes
The Trump campaign has left the heavy lifting in the ad race to MAGA Inc., the principal outside group supporting his candidacy. The most the campaign has spent on a single ad has been this digital ad about ending taxes on Social Security benefits and tips.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443919] [443940] [443941] [443964] [443955] [443943] |
|
443919 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 15:42:04
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Democrats Spent $9 More Per Vote Than Republicans — And Kamala... |
|
|
i don't think it was the money. i think most folks
ignored the lies and innuendos about trump. i still
didn't know how to vote when i had the sheet in my hand
but said a prayer and voted for trump. i could not vote
for harris because of her abortion stand, but i liked
much else
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443940] [443941] [443964] [443955] [443943] |
|
443940 |
|
|
Date: November 09, 2024 at 06:02:08
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: guess you missed this, Charles |
URL: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/trump-federal-abortion-ban/index.html |
|
Trump says he would veto a federal abortion ban if elected again
" —
Former President Donald Trump said Tuesday he would veto a federal abortion
ban if he is elected again.
“Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any
circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide
based on the will of their voters (the will of the people!)” Trump wrote in an all-
caps post on his Truth Social platform during the CBS vice presidential debate
between his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443941] [443964] [443955] [443943] |
|
443941 |
|
|
Date: November 09, 2024 at 09:01:05
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: guess you missed this, Charles |
|
|
i think he said leave it to the states. that makes some
sense. now Missouri has passed a law permitting
abortion. those who do it have to live with their
conscience and anwser to god for it. i have read stories
from those who have suffered after their abortions. it
is not a simple situation
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443964] [443955] [443943] |
|
443964 |
|
|
Date: November 10, 2024 at 08:10:50
From: shadow, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: guess you missed this, Charles |
|
|
"...those who do it have to live with their conscience
and anwser to god for it."
I'm afraid you have some surprises coming, charlie, and
some errors to answer for, when you are with The Divine
on the other side... No doubt you will seek validation of
your view that a baby is always ensouled at conception,
to know you were right...and while The Divine is always
massively compassionate, and shows you exactly why and
how you came to erroneous conclusions you have, I know
that when you are told that it's true, that babies are
ensouled at all different, varying times in pregnancies,
often not until the first breath...I'm pretty sure your
genuine hunger for Spiritual Truth, and realizing you
supported legislation that resulted in many women's
*actual deaths,* because you self-righteously believed
your own interpretation...based on what you remember
*from your own infancy*...to be God's Truth...that you're
going to go through quite a bit, over that...
I can only tell you that I forgive you, for whatever
that's worth...because, as evidenced by so many words
you've shared here, you've been quite incapable of
considering that anything other than your truth might be
possible... But I think once you've been gently told by
God that that just isn't true, you're going to go through
quite a lot of emotional difficulty realizing the level
of suffering for women that your beliefs, and your voting
choices, resulted in...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443955 |
|
|
Date: November 10, 2024 at 00:45:53
From: Kat, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: guess you missed this, Charles |
|
|
Absolutely true Chas. Besides the government is in our lives too much as
it is. Federal government best hang on for the clean sweep after Musk
does his deed.
Harris couldn’t even talk w/o teleprompter. That happened on one short
interview ( the only kind she could handle). She kept saying 32, 32,32…
waiting for the prompter to come back on. makes one wonder. It done &
over with thank God!
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443943 |
|
|
Date: November 09, 2024 at 10:37:15
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: guess you missed this, Charles |
|
|
Every woman has to do what their conscience tells them
in a free nation. The are free to NOT have an abortion
as well. They're free to consult their own councilors
and clergy and family members on the question. They are
free to get medical care and medical advice for a failed
pregnancy, as well..instead of having to die due to it.
Free to decide if their growing baby has developmental
issues so bad that it will not survive, to not have it
suffer.
The point is, it's not the government's job, or the
politicians in it, to decide a soul's path as each
situation is very different.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |