- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I was just reading about some of the money spent on election and if it help get them elected.
Steve Bullock running for US Senate from Montana spent $145 per vote he received and lost, Sarah Gideon running for US senate Maine spent $143 per vote she received and lost.
On the flip side Mark Szuszkiewicz who got elected in the 46 Assembly District in Brooklyn spent $984 for the 17,852 votes he got meaning he spent about a Nickle a voteThis is a feature. It is good that people with money to spend, spend it on public affairs. If the rich weren’t interested in politics, and spent their money on “wine, women and song”, we would have a society that was less free and less vibrant.
Just throwing out this piece of info: congresswoman Ilan Omar spent 2.8 millions dollars at a political consulting firm based in D.C former reelection.
That firm is owned by Ilan Omar’s husband. So in essence she paid herself with political donations for her reelection .
FYI this is all legal to do (law doesn’t bar family members from participating in political events) but it’s just astonishing to hear.Get used to it. The spending will grow exponentially although much of it will be reallocated from traditional print and broadcast media to micro-targeted electronic=/social media. I don’t see any of the six Republican SCOTUS appointees reversing Citizens United which opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending.
There will be an outrageous amount of money spent in Georgia on the two runoff elections. Now that we know who is president, control of the senate comes down to the court packers vs the obstructionists. In way, trump will do his party a favor by conceding.
” I don’t see any of the six Republican SCOTUS appointees reversing Citizens United which opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending.”
Yup. Judicial activism at its worse, and supported by the frum community.
Have we seen this movie before???
“Most autocrats defy voters before they even vote, excluding real rivals from the ballot and swamping the airwaves with one-sided coverage. But when they do hold genuinely competitive votes and the result goes against them, they often ignore the result, denouncing it as the work of traitors, criminals and foreign saboteurs, and therefore invalid….”
U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights Violations
Charliehall: What’s wrong with political spending. Both parties have oodles of money. There is no close correlation between having lots of money and winning elections. While groups such as the Libertarians, the Greens, etc., do suffer for lack of money, if there ideas ever became mainstream they would have no trouble getting money.
Would really prefer a country where rich people spent their money on living well, rather than on being concerned enough with the welfare of all to get involved in politics? Better they spend money on politics that looking for for $1K bottles of wine, caviar, parties costing millions of dollars, etc. Give people like Soros and the Koch brothers credit – no one makes them spend money to discuss public matters, and it is good for society that they do so.
If you really don’t like campaign spending, I suggest you try North Korea. The Kim family has been winning elections, often with over 100% of the vote, for almost 75 years – and without wasting any money on campaign spending.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.