Who owns our government?

[LilAnn]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150801/us--2016-political_money-16d19d6082.html

One third of all the "campaign cash" for the 2016 election was given by only 60 people. I would love to know what promises those 60 people were given in return for their contributions.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to vote for the contributors rather than the politician. After all, those 60 major contributors are the ones who will own the presidency, anyway.

 

[Jason76]

That's one major objection to democracy in the US. Many people claim it is owned by the rich. In other words, they control all the major advertising. Therefore, only their candidates gain any exposure.

 

[scarlett1125]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150801/us--2016-political_money-16d19d6082.html

One third of all the "campaign cash" for the 2016 election was given by only 60 people. I would love to know what promises those 60 people were given in return for their contributions.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to vote for the contributors rather than the politician. After all, those 60 major contributors are the ones who will own the presidency, anyway.

Personally, I think it makes more sense to have each candidate wear a NASCAR type outfit so that we can see which corporations they are speaking for! They all have a little something good to say, but the rest is basically corporate sponsorship.

 

[BigRob]

The voters clearly "own" the government. You can spend $100 billion pushing a message and if voters do not buy in with you the election is still lost.

No one has "bought" an election - unless you, the voter, have sold your vote.

 

[pwarbi]

That's one major objection to democracy in the US. Many people claim it is owned by the rich. In other words, they control all the major advertising. Therefore, only their candidates gain any exposure.

That's the case in most election campaigns around the world, the rich elite, shall we call them, will have a massive influence on certain political parties, and candidates. People who don't see that and what effect it has on the policies and views of that particular candidate are either blind or stupid.

 

[joshposh]

The voters clearly "own" the government. You can spend $100 billion pushing a message and if voters do not buy in with you the election is still lost.

No one has "bought" an election - unless you, the voter, have sold your vote.

I have to disagree with you. I believe money can buy you into Presidential office. Advertisements cost money. Campaign offices cost money. People's time cost money. It doesn't matter what kind of massage you have and if it is in the best interest of the nation, if you don't have the money to put your message out there and the financial man power to help you do it, you won't get into office. Not by a long shot.

That is why the richest people in America will never be poor because their campaign contributions will shape future policies that will ensure their companies future and wealth to be successful. Hell I use to give kickbacks to managers that use to hire me for contracting work. That is just a small example of how it works. I'll give you XXXX amount to get you into office, but after that I need you to overlook emission laws so that my factories can still be prosperous.

Did anyone here know that both Presidential nominees spend exactly 1 billion dollars on their campaign? Why is it the same figures? Someone is contributing to both sides and covering their bases. It doesn't matter who wins, future policies will be set to their standards to prosper.

 

[joshposh]

Personally, I think it makes more sense to have each candidate wear a NASCAR type outfit so that we can see which corporations they are speaking for! They all have a little something good to say, but the rest is basically corporate sponsorship.

That would be an interesting sight to see. No transparency law in full effect. Can you imagine the President at the podium addressing the nation, and talking about how we need to go to war in Iraq, and there is a big banner in the background listing all of the weapons manufacturers that contributed to his campaign. That would be so grossly incriminating. Or to have the president shoot down talks about banning Obamacare and have the list of all of the Pharmaceutical companies listed behind him that are benefiting from it.

I kind of like the idea. It puts the president as well as the nominees out there for ridicule and motivation questionably.

 

[Jason76]

Some people might believe the population is brainwashed by ads. In that case, the votes of the people don't really amount to much. Others might believe choices exist among the major parties, but real differences are not allowed. In other words, you would never see an extremist agenda among any of them.

 

[pwarbi]

Unfortunately it's the same in every election campaign. When the politicians are fighting for your vote to get them in to power, they will be like a family member to you, telling you what you want to hear, messaging your ego and giving you that belief that you matter, and you can be part of changing the world.

People get brainwashed as we all know that once that candidate as got your vote, they'll then go on to back track on their promises, and just make sure they feather their own nests while the people that voted for them and believed their lies are getting their homes repossessed.

 

[Charles Franklin]

Voting for the people who contribute to campaigns might be a welcome change and have more a direct effect than the farce we have going on right now. Having said that, I don't the contributors would like that idea very much. In order for the "pay to play" system to work, you need people who aren't watching where the money trail is coming from and keep the old way of doing things going.

 

[BigRob]

I have to disagree with you. I believe money can buy you into Presidential office. Advertisements cost money. Campaign offices cost money. People's time cost money. It doesn't matter what kind of massage you have and if it is in the best interest of the nation, if you don't have the money to put your message out there and the financial man power to help you do it, you won't get into office. Not by a long shot.

Yes - campaigns cost money - and serious candidates can raise money. If you have an idea that is so wonderful and has appeal, one might think you could raise a little money off of it.

That is why the richest people in America will never be poor because their campaign contributions will shape future policies that will ensure their companies future and wealth to be successful. Hell I use to give kickbacks to managers that use to hire me for contracting work. That is just a small example of how it works. I'll give you XXXX amount to get you into office, but after that I need you to overlook emission laws so that my factories can still be prosperous.

Did anyone here know that both Presidential nominees spend exactly 1 billion dollars on their campaign? Why is it the same figures? Someone is contributing to both sides and covering their bases. It doesn't matter who wins, future policies will be set to their standards to prosper.

Its not that someone runs and then is told what to do by some big business behind the scenes. The more realistic scenario is that someone who believes in certain things gets support from people that believe the same thing. It should be no surprise that if that person wins the election they govern accordingly.

It is not that they are just beholden to special interests - it is that they vote their own beliefs and the special interests line up accordingly with those that have the same viewpoints.

 

[PLC1]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150801/us--2016-political_money-16d19d6082.html

One third of all the "campaign cash" for the 2016 election was given by only 60 people. I would love to know what promises those 60 people were given in return for their contributions.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to vote for the contributors rather than the politician. After all, those 60 major contributors are the ones who will own the presidency, anyway.

The best strategy would be to count the number of political ads. Whoever broadcasts the most of them has taken the most special interest money. We should vote against those politicians.

Don't listen to or watch the commercials, just count the numbers. Every commercial is a mark against the candidate who endorsed it.

Elections should not be auctions.

 

[dogtowner]

I just don't buy that running ads does anything,
Eric Cantor spent more on steak dinners than Dave Brat spent on all his advertising. Eric is gone.
Content can influence as with Dukakis and the rank picture or Kerry and his sperm picture but examples are few.

 

[PLC1]

I just don't buy that running ads does anything,
Eric Cantor spent more on steak dinners than Dave Brat spent on all his advertising. Eric is gone.
Content can influence as with Dukakis and the rank picture or Kerry and his sperm picture but examples are few.

"sperm picture???"
If running ads doesn't work, why do candidates spend billions running ads? Those TV campaigns aren't cheap.

 

[dogtowner]

"sperm picture???"
If running ads doesn't work, why do candidates spend billions running ads? Those TV campaigns aren't cheap.

Why ? To pay for all the "ads" between terms. By that I mean "the news".