Posted on 04/16/2015 2:14:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Six months ago, I would have told you that April 15, the date when campaigns report their first-quarter fund-raising tallies, could be one of the most interesting early milestones of the Republican primary season.
I think I even told my boss, admittedly with hyperbole, that the Q1 report of a year preceding a presidential election was the most important fund-raising report in American politics.
In 2007, it was when we learned that Barack Obama could match the supposedly inevitable Hillary Rodham Clinton in fund-raising, and that John McCain wasn’t a real front-runner for the Republican nomination (although he managed to claw back to win it), despite his second-place G.O.P. showing in 2000.
But this year, April 15 has come and gone without much news at all.
Rather than exploratory committees and campaigns, top Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker have started super PACs and other groups allowing them to solicit unlimited contributions. None will have to file disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission until July.
The uneventful passing of April 15 is only the most subtle indication of the way super PACs are transforming the presidential nominating process. They have given candidates the ability to raise colossal sums from small but wealthy bases of support. Along with Internet fund-raising, super PACs are helping to form an alternative campaign finance model that is eroding party control over the primary process. Which types of candidates will benefit remains to be seen.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So, we’ll get more weirdos, amnesty, and less consensus.
Heck, they aren't even worried about Clinton's Foundation whose foreign intake makes it all look like chump change.
Anyone loves super PACS, until their candidate loses, then they bellyache about it. IMHO, I am sick of advertisements absolutely everywhere. No really, I get the point regarding the ads without it being embedded in almost every website. Also, when I have been called asking me to vote for someone, I have even warned them if they keep calling me, I may very well vote for the other guy. I am annoyed as can be with how in your face the advertisements are getting during election time.
The Dems are willing to get big money” out of politics because they know they receive lockstep media support. This fawning “campaign commercial” coverage is easily worth a a half billion dollars to the dem presidential candidate. This complete support permeates every aspect of the media from news, to entertainment to even sports reporters. Big money contributions are the only way Republicans can compete against this.
Excellent point.
But the Left wants BOTH.
Meanwhile, in a related story, Shrillary plans on raising $2.5 billion for her campaign and one of the first things she’ll propose after winning is a ban on Super PAC’s.
She’s bruising to bury the conservative voices.
Translation: the ability of the GOPe to ensure that a RINO gets the nomination is eroding, and that alarms the Dems.
Both parties!
: )
I suppose Foundations funded by foreign countries that donated during Hillary’s term as Secretary of State are just Peachy! Notice how this suddenly becomes a big issue after Ted Cruz raised some money?
Buried at the end of a very long article- just before the full text of his letter:
FAA investigating Florida mailman's landing of gyrocopter on U.S. Capitol lawn "...............At the root of Hughes' disdain is the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court decided campaign contributions were a form of "political speech" and struck down limits on how much corporations and unions could give to political contenders. The decision changed the game. Campaign spending went through the roof. In Hughes' mind, there was a parallel spike in favor-dealing and the government is now practically owned by the rich. Hughes likes to point out that nearly half the retiring members of Congress from 1998 to 2004 got jobs as lobbyists earning some 14 times their congressional salaries.
But nobody seems to care.
Hughes thinks the answers are out there, and they're nonpartisan. He points to reform thinkers like political activist Cenk Uygar and Harvard legal theorist Lawrence Lessig, who launched a political action committee to end political action committees. The motto: "Embrace the irony."..........................
.....LETTER....
.....Sincerely,
Douglas M. Hughes
www.TheDemocracyClub.org
_______________
_______________
I find it extremely interesting that Mr. Hughes chose to do this after Hillary launched her 2016 presidential campaign and near the end of Obama's 2 terms.
I remember the days when Bill Clinton’s campaigns were funded with Roger Clintons drug sales. I worked for one of Bill’s largest contributors in Northwest Arkansas. His brother and Roger were best buddies and they ran drugs through the Mena airport.
There is too much money in campaigning, but I don’t know what the answer is unless a Cap is put on it and enforced.
Really?
You showed up on FR in 2010. Where were you?
Seems you would have been posting during all the Clinton presidency corruption.
After the last election I wouldn’t even watch the news I was so disheartened. I simply didn’t know about Free Republic before 2010. I was delighted to find it and have recommended it to all my friends.
I see.
And you think there is too much money in campaigns?
I do. But in the current situation, candidates have no choice but to raise a lot of money. The current climate demands it, but if there were spending Caps, it might level the playing field and not be so corrupt with influence peddling.
Influence peddling.
That’s called politics.
Beyond who’s running for office, and how good they are, these campaigns win or lose on how much money they can get.
It may not be what we all like but this is the digital age, not the weekly paper being taken by horseback to the surrounding towns.
If you want your candidate to get his voice (and yours) and positions (and yours) out there and combat the lies that are being said about them and their campaign, you need A LOT OF $$$$$$$$$.
It’s free speech.
I don’t want someone telling us that we have to give equal time (be fair) with our ideological foes with net neutrality, and I don’t want someone telling us that we need to limit our financial support to our ideological allies (because as we’ve seen there are ways.... the IRS and Lois Lerner “ways.”).
You’re right. I think our next President is going to take net neutrality off the table. I don’t know of anyone who thinks it’s a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.