Law Confirmed: First Legislation of Dem. House- End Gerrymandering, Overturn Citizens' United

[lilelvis]

You aren't wrong. But with a Red-gerrymandered landscape and a blue majority, the Dems are in a place to actually want to do something about it. If they were benefiting from widespread gerrymandering yeah no, but the Dems aren't the nationally organised REDMAPers

Because they have less power at the state level and are losing the districting battle, they want to use their little bit of federal power to stop it..
I love it and hope they pull it off, but anyone thinking that they’re trying to do the “right thing” is choking on dem blue balls.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

 

[ocean size]

Because they have less power at the state level and are losing the districting battle, they want to use their little bit of federal power to stop it..
I love it and hope they pull it off, but anyone thinking that they’re trying to do the “right thing” is choking on dem blue balls.

That's what I am saying, their interests currently coincide with doing the right thing, which is great. I don't think it makes dem politicians altruistic saints but all the more reason to support them. And by supporting this nationally, they will lose their districting advantage in regions that are blue strongholds so they at least have some skin in the game- it can't all be for show because if they happen to get a majority in the Senate in two years they will have to follow through.

 

[ScottE]

Because they have less power at the state level and are losing the districting battle, they want to use their little bit of federal power to stop it..
I love it and hope they pull it off, but anyone thinking that they’re trying to do the “right thing” is choking on dem blue balls.

They are doing the right thing (end partisan gerrymandering). You're arguing they are doing it for the wrong reasons (they don't gerrymander as well), not that it isn't the right thing.

I could not care less as to why since the end result us correct. And it's probably a bit from column A and a bit from B. I'm sure some Democrats find the process revolting and I'm sure others are fine with it but realize they are better of getting rid of it.

 

[lilelvis]

Those evil republicans!

 

[lilelvis]

Delete

 

[Trotsky]

If a documentary is considered a campaign donation, then friendly or useful reporting should be as well, regardless of party.

The ridiculousness of the left's attack on corporations not having freedom of speech becomes more clear when you remember that stocks of the New York Times are publicly traded.

Your posts in this thread are some of the most idiotic I've read from you or anyone else.

Documentaries are not considered campaign donations. They are independent expenditures. And a corporation being publicly traded has absolutely no relevance to this discussion at all, unless you think that a corporation with 1,000 shareholders is somehow more insidious than a company of equal size with 10 shareholders.

What I mean is that the influence of dark money wasn't that strong. Not only have the graver predictions for spending not come to pass, the response from the people has been very strong. What do you suppose is the point of diminishing returns on this corporate cash? I think it's lower than we thought it would be. Your example of Greitens is well taken and is one of the worst examples I'm sure, but we all knew he had a ton of cash behind him, a very open secret. Everybody in MO was aware of all the money in that race. I'd have a hard time making a strong argument that the CU ruling closed the deal for him.

also, what. Because we're still saying "what" and I like that.

This doesn't make much sense given the difficulty of quantifying how "strong" said influence could be (and how we're defining "dark money" in the first place). For instance, to borrow another local example, I'm sure that about 50% of the times you visited this website you saw the "tell Josh Hawley to keep up his investigation of untested rape kits" ad. Those ads were entirely outside of campaign finance law, and other than knowing Sheldon Adelson has given a few million to the organization producing them, its funding is nearly completely obscured. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/One_Nation

And your focus on whether CU-related finances "closed the deal" on high profile races and whether returns diminish toward the bottlenecks of said races is off-base for similar reasons that Jack's analyses about donations shifting votes of established political figures is off-base. The point is that the donations and expenditures fuel candidates at the outset of races when campaign money is much more important, before the field narrows and the parties' funding apparatus comes into play, fundamentally distorting and redefining races and offices through the selection of the candidates themselves. While it should be accepted knowledge by now that late-race campaign spending diminishes remarkably for races like, say, the US Presidency, even small amounts at the outset of congressional, state, and local races can be incredibly influential, especially considering many of those offices do not attract a great deal of grassroots donations (citizens tend to donate to Senate races and the like, while organizational donations and expenditures can transform less sexy but extremely important offices, particularly at the state level).

 

[HunterSdVa29]

they wont overturn Citizens United, regardless of what they say
the DNC just voted this summer to overturn it's vote on banning money from oil/gas companies....

they aren't really about that life

also I agree w/ Fawlty, if I got his pt right that is. I don't think the corp money always deters the outcome, but it certainly steers the voting from said candidates which is the real problem

 

[Jack V Savage]

And your focus on whether CU-related finances "closed the deal" on high profile races and whether returns diminish toward the bottlenecks of said races is off-base for similar reasons that Jack's analyses about donations shifting votes of established political figures is off-base.

I agree that there's more to the story than the fact that donations don't shift votes, but given that many people do believe that donations shift votes (see @HunterSdVa29's post right after yours), I think it's important to make that point if we want a serious, honest, factually grounded discussion about the issue.

I've said it before, but my primary concern about campaign finance is that it's incredibly wasteful. Even if you believe that it affects races (rather than simply reflects enthusiasm), it's a zero-sum battle, which is precisely the sort of situation that calls for intervention for the benefit of everyone.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

they absolutely shift votes jack, it's why Climate Change is practically not addressed at all
both sides take money from Gas/Oil companies

 

[Jack V Savage]

they absolutely shift votes jack, it's why Climate Change is practically not addressed at all

The issue here is that you're making an assertion that contradicts the evidence and reflects an incorrect view of human nature and providing no reason to believe it other than the force of your language. Pass.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

The issue here is that you're making an assertion that contradicts the evidence and reflects an incorrect view of human nature and providing no reason to believe it other than the force of your language. Pass.

remind me again what percentage of people are FOR gun control?
legalization of weed?
a liveable wage? less wealth gap? UBI? UHC?

why are none of those things existent in the US, when they are in other major world economies?

 

[Jack V Savage]

remind me again what percentage of people are FOR gun control?
legalization of weed?
a liveable wage? less wealth gap? UBI? UHC?

why are none of those things existent in the US, when they are in other major world economies?

I discussed the weed thing already. Majority public support for it is a recent thing. We discussed the livable wage thing, too. That refers to a MW increase, which we periodically have. Gun control is a weird issue because we have a constitution that is designed to limit what popular support can do and there is a huge mismatch of passion on the issue (that is, people who oppose any gun limitation are way more zealous about it than the people who want some limitations). UBI isn't popular. Generally, you seem to not realize that Republicans exist and hold power in gov't.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I discussed the weed thing already. Majority public support for it is a recent thing. We discussed the livable wage thing, too. That refers to a MW increase, which we periodically have. Gun control is a weird issue because we have a constitution that is designed to limit what popular support can do and there is a huge mismatch of passion on the issue (that is, people who oppose any gun limitation are way more zealous about it than the people who want some limitations). UBI isn't popular. Generally, you seem to not realize that Republicans exist and hold power in gov't.

Sure man, whatever you say
the public's horrid faith/approval rating of Congress in the last decade or so must just be coincidental

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure man, whatever you say
the public's horrid faith/approval rating of Congress in the last decade or so must just be coincidental

"We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think – in fact they do so."

 

[HunterSdVa29]

"We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think – in fact they do so."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

 

[Jack V Savage]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

Er, yeah, Congress approval ratings are low. What does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[Trotsky]

I agree that there's more to the story than the fact that donations don't shift votes, but given that many people do believe that donations shift votes (see @HunterSdVa29's post right after yours), I think it's important to make that point if we want a serious, honest, factually grounded discussion about the issue.

@HunterSdVa29 is not saying, explicitly at least, that politicians' express positions or voting records are being reversed by donations. He is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that future response to new issues, new threats, and new popular waves is being affected by established dependence on and implicit quid pro quo from campaign donations and expenditures. Even if you agree, which I believe that we all do, that the primary effect of campaign finance is to get friendly candidates in the door based on their having existing positions favorable to your interests, it is hard to discount the probability that those persons' future responses to new developments in that area are going to be curtailed by the campaign support. I think this is especially notable in, as Hunter mentioned, the area of climate change: oil and gas spending didn't reverse the positions of existing environmental crusaders in Congress, but it did help insert friendlier figures who then, upon encountering new public issues of entirely new magnitudes (climate change being an increasingly undeniable and dire forecast), may be dissuaded from making good faith judgments on the issue due to their support.

I've said it before, but my primary concern about campaign finance is that it's incredibly wasteful. Even if you believe that it affects races (rather than simply reflects enthusiasm), it's a zero-sum battle, which is precisely the sort of situation that calls for intervention for the benefit of everyone.

In terms of corporate money or expenditures gained in excess of individual campaign donations, I'm not aware of any evidence or arguments that they reflect enthusiasm at all. For instance, around the time of Eisenhower's presidency, millions and millions were being poured into promoting traditional conservative economic platforms, yet such ideas were remarkably unpopular and supported only by the rich and the insane.

 

[machidafan99]

Sure...the Voting Rights Act keeps us all up at night.
Nothing listed would affect my life or anyone I know.

The Dems need to bring some better policies forward than these. The party seems lost. They don't know if the party should be centrist or more extreme.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@HunterSdVa29 is not saying, explicitly at least, that politicians' express positions or voting records are being reversed by donations. He is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that future response to new issues, new threats, and new popular waves is being affected by established dependence on and implicit quid pro quo from campaign donations and expenditures.

I'm referring to this: "it certainly steers the voting from said candidates which is the real problem"

It doesn't, in fact, steer the voting by candidates, and the whole discussion is already poisoned if it starts from that false belief.

Even if you agree, which I believe that we all do, that the primary effect of campaign finance is to get friendly candidates in the door based on their having existing positions favorable to your interests, it is hard to discount the probability that those persons' future responses to new developments in that area are going to be curtailed by the campaign support. I think this is especially notable in, as Hunter mentioned, the area of climate change: oil and gas spending didn't reverse the positions of existing environmental crusaders in Congress, but it did help insert friendlier figures who then, upon encountering new public issues of entirely new magnitudes (climate change being an increasingly undeniable and dire forecast), may be dissuaded from making good faith judgments on the issue due to their support.

So I'd back up a bit at this point. In America specifically, the particular brand of right-wing thought that has dominated in right-wing politics was crafted to a very large part by employees of oil companies. Decades of promotion of an ideology that happens to be favorable to oil companies in part because it was funded by oil companies matters in shaping politics. Funding of individual campaigns doesn't really.

In terms of corporate money or expenditures gained in excess of individual campaign donations, I'm not aware of any evidence or arguments that they reflect enthusiasm at all.

I'm talking about total funding. The fact that it reflects enthusiasm is the chief source of correlation between funding and success.