[Vitriol]

If we needed any further proof of how much of joke American politics has become, even mainstream media outlets are starting to acknowledge that politicians are bought off before they're even elected. The whole Democrat/Republican thing is an illusion.

Amazing how blatantly contrary this type of activity is to representing the people, but our politicians still maintain a façade that our votes actually matter, even though their agendas are to represent the interests that elected them.


From: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opinio...egion&_r=0

Quote:

Dark Money Helped Win the Senate
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDNOV. 8, 2014

The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?

Nil, of course. The next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has long been the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret campaign spending in Washington, under the phony banner of free speech. His own campaign benefited from $23 million in unlimited spending from independent groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Realtors and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The single biggest outside spender on his behalf was a so-called social welfare group calling itself the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which spent $7.6 million on attack ads against his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. It ran more ads in Kentucky than any other group, aside from the two campaigns.

What is its social welfare purpose, besides re-electing Mr. McConnell? It has none. Who gave that money? It could have been anyone who wants to be a political player but lacks the courage to do so openly — possibly coal interests, retailers opposed to the minimum wage, defense contractors, but there’s no way for the public to know. You can bet, however, that the senator knows exactly to whom he owes an enormous favor. The only name associated with the group is Scott Jennings, a deputy political director in the George W. Bush White House, who also worked for two of Mr. McConnell’s previous campaigns.

The $11.4 million spent anonymously for Mr. McConnell, though, didn’t even make him the biggest beneficiary of secret donations, a phenomenon that grew substantially in this election cycle. In the 2010 midterms, when this practice was just getting started, $161 million was spent by groups that did not disclose donations. In this cycle it was up to at least $216 million, and 69 percent of it was spent on behalf of Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In Colorado, at least $18 million in dark money was spent on behalf of Cory Gardner, the Republican newly elected to the Senate; $4 million was spent on behalf of Senator Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent. In North Carolina, $13.7 million in secret donations was spent for Thom Tillis, the new Republican senator; $2.6 million went to Senator Kay Hagan, who was ousted.

Dark money wasn’t the only type of spending that polluted the cycle; this year there were 94 “super PACs” set up for individual candidates, all of which are attempts to bypass federal limits and allow big givers to support the candidates of their choice. (These donations have to be disclosed.) Of the $51.4 million these groups spent, 57 percent were on behalf of Democrats. Overall, of the $525.6 million in independent expenditures this cycle (excluding party committees), about 57 percent was for Republicans.

That money wasn’t just spent on attack ads. As Nicholas Confessore of The Times reported, it was used for tracking opponents and digging up damaging information, and expanding the ground game to turn out voters. Republicans used the money to set up a “research” group called America Rising, which existed only to sell embarrassing information and footage about Democratic candidates to Republican campaigns and super PACs.

Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money’s influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever.


Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board »

[boinerd]

The government really can't escape corruption I guess.

[The Beast1]

7.6 million isn't a lot of money for some of these larger billionaire individuals.

I wonder if it would be possible to outbid other political ads on every network so the opposing ideals don't get any air time.

[getdownonit]

Did the NYT just figure this out? This isn't news.

[kosko]

Election season is simply just a bail out for the mainstream media. All of this push money finds it was by no surprise into the print and TV mediums that maintain the illusion of democracy via election season propaganda in which issues are never discussed in depth.

[Feisbook Control]

Three thoughts spring to mind:

1. These pinko journalists are sore losers. It's all well and good when their* side plays funny games and win. I say "their" side because there aren't really any sides; the two parties are part of the same bigger "Screw the Middle Class Party". It doesn't matter because in 2, 4, 6, etc. years they'll get to push even more radical leftists ideas and destroy the culture just a little bit more, but they're so impatient that they can't even wait that long.

2. Maybe the Republicans are getting smarter about acquiring and using information, both on the electorate and on their opponents.

3. There is obviously a sinister side to this dark money, but the other point to consider is why anyone would want his political donations publicly known considering the progressive witch hunts that go on. Anyone remember what happened to Brendan Eich? That's going to be standard operating procedure for the left from now on, so why would any businessman want to expose himself to that? Law of unintended consequences, and now progressives are crying about a situation they helped to create.

[Grange]

At at the three-quarter mark of a president's term, why is it a surprise that the other side outspent his party in midterms? This is like blaming the ground for being wet after a rain.

[Collide]

Democrats outspent Republicans this election cycle in total funding, which goes to show that it's not just money that talks.



Hagan spent the most money and was defeated. Why? Mark Udall 2nd highest spending, defeated. How are these candidates getting defeated when they have so much backed money?

Surely money can help influence elections, but given the overall spending it just doesn't add up. The average voters were tired of Obama's policies. Plus, as shady as dark money is, it is a real small chunk in overall funding.



Let's not forget that these midterm elections only grabbed 36.5% of registered voters. The millenials who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 are not the type of people informed or motivated enough to go out and vote in a midterm. For democrats I'm afraid that is a dilemma no amount of money can solve.

[Phoenix]

I don't see why it matters where the campaign funding comes from. I think the two-party system, and the 17th amendment, are much bigger governance issues.
And yes it is a freedom of speech issue: the logical next move if donations are limited, is for the former donors to just buy the ads themselves. To then restrict that would be a plain 1st Amendment violation.

[The Father]

(11-09-2014 11:03 AM)getdownonit Wrote:  

Did the NYT just figure this out? This isn't news.

And, since its a Times article, it was only run when Republicans won, to somehow imply illegitimacy of their victory. LOL. But the numerous errors in Piketty's work? You have to read the London Financial Times for that...

[TheWastelander]

(11-09-2014 11:03 AM)getdownonit Wrote:  

Did the NYT just figure this out? This isn't news.

They only pretend to care when "dark money" benefits people they don't support.

[ChrisPitts]

American democracy is dead. Only real question left is when the charade and system will finally end. Any guesses?

[Dr. Howard]

I don't understand how 'dark money' equals corruption. I would think that if the system was truly corrupt no money would have to be spent that would be on public record. You'd have figurehead a vs. figurehead b on the ballot and they'd run some ads on it, rig the election and be done with it.

I think money has disproportionate influence but I don't think its corrupt to where the whole system can be bought with back room deals...you just need to spend alot of money to steer it.

[Troll King]

Ha, it's funny that they are all butthurt about their side, they are mostly liberals/progressives, losing. When they were winning you didn't hear a peep about it. For example, Obama didn't just outspend his opponents both times around but he also set records for the amount of money spent on an election.

Anyone who has taken a PoliSci class in college knows that pretty much without exception each election, at all levels, is determined by who spends the most amount of money. You want to know who is going to get elected, for the most part you can look at which candidate spent the most amount of money. It isn't 100% but it is close.

[heavy]

Obamacare won the Senate.
-All of the new GOP senators campaigned on repealing it.
-The Dem senators ousted all supported Obamacare.

[Native Baltimoron]

There are two big problems in American politics: state legislatures favor urban interests over rural because they have two popular houses, rather than electing their senates by county and municipality, and incumbents can stay in office essentially forever.

The first is rooted in the "One person, one vote" doctrine codified by the Supreme Court ostensibly under the auspices of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause (probably the most abused part of the Constitution). This will have to be rectified either by Constitutional amendment or gradually overturning the precedent in the courts.

The second can be solved with term limits, but would also be helped by a change in the electorate's attitude toward government. Any representative who fails to represent his constituents' interests should be toast in the next election, but most voters are just hoping for their team to win. "Vote the rats out" should be, by far, the most popular sentiment, especially given the scurrilous nature of contemporary American politicians.