Please vote tomorrow!

here's a slightly interesting viewpoint. I live in the chicago area (IL). R - Rauner was running against D - Quinn (incumbent). Obama rallied and raised money and endorsed Quinn (D - duh).

In the beginning of the race, I saw commercials from both. Quinn commercials said nothing but how bad Rauner is (no mention of Quinn's name even). Rauner commercials said nothing but how good he is (no mention of Quinn's name, duh). So all the commercials played and the only name on TV was Bruce Rauner.

Guess who won? Psychologists have known for a long time that name recognition alone sells products and wins elections. I'm glad that in 2014 SOME of our politicians seem to be catching on.

As for Quinn and his team, $50M and you can't figure out how to get your own name on TV? For shame...

Donebrokeit wrote: I voted last year and move out of Maryland, where do I get my sticker? Paul

We moved to MD, and, apparently, brought some Southern Redness with us.

Come onnnnnnnnn keystone pipeline! Woo!

Thats all I have to say about this election, beyond you guys ALLOW business to have too much control via money. Set spending limits for elections. Done.

pinchvalve wrote: In reply to Cone_Junkie: Please explain how many people died giving women the right to vote? I don't recall the great suffrage wars. So women at least, get a pass on that point.

Pinchvalve. I don't see which of Cone_junkies posts you are referring too here. Did I miss something this statement doesn't compute with my reading of the thread.

HiTempguy wrote: Come onnnnnnnnn keystone pipeline! Woo! Thats all I have to say about this election, beyond you guys ALLOW business to have too much control via money. Set spending limits for elections. Done.

Freedom of Speech (via campaign donations) is fairness personified.

Everyone has an equal chance to pull this money in. Remember though it's equality of opportunity not of outcome.

I was interested in how hard the Koch Brothers were getting slammed while the Democrats raised more money and have their own versions of the Koch's but their names don't get dragged through the mud.

I'm pretty sure George Soros generally uses his money to support the opposite of what the Koch Brothers use theirs to support.

ebonyandivory wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: Come onnnnnnnnn keystone pipeline! Woo! Thats all I have to say about this election, beyond you guys ALLOW business to have too much control via money. Set spending limits for elections. Done.

Freedom of Speech (via campaign donations) is fairness personified. Everyone has an equal chance to pull this money in. Remember though it's equality of opportunity not of outcome. I was interested in how hard the Koch Brothers were getting slammed while the Democrats raised more money and have their own versions of the Koch's but their names don't get dragged through the mud.

Fair for the rich. Otherwise, no.

I'm so glad I lived in a state with very little commercials. I can still recite all of the Linda McMahon ones from her constant barrage of the airwaves in CT twice....

"Hi, I'm Linda McMahon. I'm a woman. No Really I am.. I mean I'm not joking... Seriously guys.. stop laughing I care about women.."

Funny how that works eh?

For some reason, it doesnt stop our politicians from being politicians and from people in Canada being able to express themselves or their opinions. The ability to spend money has nothing to do with your freedom of speech.

This will end badly.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: In reply to Cone_Junkie: Please explain how many people died giving women the right to vote? I don't recall the great suffrage wars. So women at least, get a pass on that point.

Pinchvalve. I don't see which of Cone_junkies posts you are referring too here. Did I miss something this statement doesn't compute with my reading of the thread.

Back on page 2, and this is one of the rare occurances I'll side with cone_junky. He was referencing that many fellow Americans have died to give him the opportunity to vote, so he does.

For some reason, probably too much drinking, pinchvalve appears to have taken a racial stance towards that when there isn't one. Fellow Americans have been dying since the 1700's to give us, at present day, the right to vote. Race and gender have absolutely nothing to do with what was said by CJ.

It would be great if they could get something accomplished, but if you watched the Roosevelt specials, nothing has changed and gridlock is nothing new.

"I then told him to hold on and went to my shed and got the other signs out of the trash and gave them to him. He and I got a good laugh and he said he would be happy to dispose of them for me. Needless to say he got my vote."

That's just TERRIFIC ! ! ! Were that to happen to me, I have a corner lot as well, I would vote for that candidate too. My very first time voting! I would go out and vote for that person and urge everyone that I ran into at the Polls to do so as well. Telling them the story.

T.J. wrote: In reply to KyAllroad: If you want to take the money out of politics, the only way to do it is to take the power away from the government. As long as the government has the power it does, the money will find its way there to influence/control it. If the government had little power to much of anything, then the big money would stay out of it since there would be no return on their investment.

That's not true because weakening government increases disorganization and order. It also decreases the safety of the people that live in the country. Plenty of the countries in the Middle East and Africa that have very heavy violence are the ones that have corrupt, weak governments.

The problem here is that we have laws that allow the wealthy to buy political influence. We simply have to get money out of politics.

So, you are suggesting that the US is not corrupt? Balony. That is Utopian foolishness.

Strengthening government does not increase organization and order. Government thrives on chaos. If chaos does not exist in a natural state, government will create chaos in order to have something to govern. More chaos= more power.

Wealthy people buy influence everywhere, regardless of the size, strength, or quality of the government.

People forget our system was designed to have gridlock. The idea that somewhere in the past it all flowed smoothly is false. No one party needs to control everything, that's when things go badly. Gridlock is good, as generally it means only the important stuff goes through and one party can't corrupt the system. Of course you need people that work together and are at least somewhat civil.

racerdave600 wrote: People forget our system was designed to have gridlock. The idea that somewhere in the past it all flowed smoothly is false. No one party needs to control everything, that's when things go badly. Gridlock is good, as generally it means only the important stuff goes through and one party can't corrupt the system. Of course you need people that work together and are at least somewhat civil.

This exactly.

The answer to all your questions lies here:

Ready for a surprise? Money DOES equal access in Washington

Joshua Kalla at Yale University and David Broockman at the University of California, Berkeley, are out today with the results of a novel field experiment that measured how campaign donations – even the prospect of them – alter the behavior of members of Congress and their staff.

To do so, they recruited the help of a real political group, the liberal organization CREDO Action, and embedded the experiment into a real lobbying effort during last summer’s August recess, when the group sought to secure co-sponsors for a chemical-banning bill.

Here’s how it worked: Last summer, a group of CREDO fellows e-mailed congressional offices seeking meetings to discuss the measure, sending one of two different form letters.

The first e-mail had the subject line: “Meeting with local campaign donors about cosponsoring bill.” The body of the e-mail said that about a dozen CREDO members “who are active political donors” were interested in meeting with the member of Congress in his or her home district to discuss the legislation.

The second e-mail stripped out the donor references and instead said “local constituents” were looking to meet the member of Congress.

In both cases, CREDO organizers noted that if a House member was not available, the group sought to meet with the most senior staffer available.

The e-mails went out to 191 members of Congress – all members of the same political party – who had not already co-sponsored the bill. (The study’s authors do not disclose which party the members represented, but it’s safe to assume they were Democrats, considering CREDO’s political orientation.) Each office was randomly assigned one of the two e-mails, with about two-thirds getting the request from constituents and one-third getting the request from donors.

It’s worth noting that all those who met with congressional offices were real CREDO members or political donors, none of whom knew they were part of an experiment.

The results: Only 2.4 percent of the offices made the member of Congress or chief of staff available when they believed those attending were just constituents, but 12.5 percent did when they were told the attendees were political donors.

Also, nearly one in five of the donor groups got access to a senior staffer, while just 5.5 percent of the constituent groups did. That means the donors had more than three times the access to top staffers than the constituents.

In reply to Xceler8x:

So lie and claim you're a campaign donor on every correspondence with them?

I don't understand everyone's issue.

Money influences. Umm...that is no surprise whatsoever. Is anyone here surprised by that? Why did they need some big study to prove a point which didn't need proving?

The bigger issue is whose money is it?

The knee jerk response always seems to be "those filthy rich people", or "rotten corporations", or "damned Republicans". The common thread is "not me". This is not true.

The truth is, politicians don't give a damn whose money they accept. They will accept it, and it will influence. If it comes from the NRA, Greenpeace, Manuel Noriega, or your neighborhood kitten protection league, makes no difference.

An additional truth is that there are FAR more wealthy members of Congress who are Democratic than Republican (though they'd like you to think otherwise). Check it out. There are also more wealthy red States than blue.

So, if you don't personally have money, align yourself with someone who does. Join a party, a charity, or a PAC. Spend your money at businesses that support your values, a Union, whatever.

THATS what makes it a free speech issue. EVERYONE has equal access to someone with money, if they choose to use it and let their voices be heard.

I'll confess, I don't do it. I don't choose to get involved like I could.

But I also don't complain about it and blame those filthy rich thieves. It's a choice I have made.

In reply to Mr_Clutch42:

See SVreX's response above.

KyAllroad wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: Freedom of Speech (via campaign donations) is fairness personified. Everyone has an equal chance to pull this money in. Remember though it's equality of opportunity not of outcome. I was interested in how hard the Koch Brothers were getting slammed while the Democrats raised more money and have their own versions of the Koch's but their names don't get dragged through the mud.

Fair for the rich. Otherwise, no.

Wrong. We all have the opportunity to be rich and have influence over politicians with our money.

I'm just too lazy to earn enough money to sway an elected official to see things my way. But I certainly don't hold it against those that aren't as lazy as me.

SVreX wrote: I'll confess, I don't do it. I don't choose to get involved like I could. But I also don't complain about it and blame those filthy rich thieves. It's a choice I have made.

Booooooo! Personal responsibility sucks. Make it stop!

ebonyandivory wrote: Wrong. We all have the opportunity to be rich

Listen, I'm far closer to "rich" than most people. But I know this statement is 100% false. I know we're all taught that the "American Dream" is equal opportunity, but that's bullE36 M3 and you know it. Upward mobility in class is incredibly difficult. The kid born to a 17 year old growing up in a E36 M3ty school district with parents that plunk him in front of the TV at a year old and only speak to him to yell at him does not have the same opportunity as the kid born to well off, older, involved parents. That kid does not have the opportunity to be rich, statistically speaking.

To claim otherwise is willful ignorance.

In reply to dculberson:

But he DOES have the opportunity to associate with wealthy people.

I live in one of the bottom 10 poorest communities in the country. The strength of the poor and minority voting block is pretty amazing. Don't underestimate it.

But there is still money involved. It flows through churches, minority businesses, politicians, NGAs, government offices, etc. And they ABSOLUTELY know how to use it. In many ways, much more effectively than their wealthy counterparts.

It's a "groupthink" kind of approach, rather than an individualistic approach. But it is very effective.