xkcd

by **kiklion** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:01 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Romney's donor situation creates two principle issues, by my understanding:
(1) Having few people donating more money means they're going to reach the donation limit much easier. Once that happens, you can't get any more money from them, and if those are the only people donating, you're going to run out of funds. SuperPACs make this a bit different of course, but even still, having money available to your campaign directly is far more useful than it is to have available to a PAC supporting you.
(2) Once people donate to you, for all intents and purposes you've guaranteed that they will vote for you. If a candidate could spend $100,000 to get 100,000 people to each donate $1, it'd be worth it (assuming no better options, and ignoring opportunity costs), because they'd be essentially "buying" 100,000 votes, and breaking even at the same time. So if the majority of your donations are from a small handful of people, you haven't really "banked" that many votes. It's why Obama's campaign loves to tout how many small donors they have.

While I do believe this is true for individual donations (I'd be damned if I had the money to donate to two different people in the same race), for 'businesses' I have seen them often donate to multiple people in the same race to curry favor should one of them win. Explicitly I have seen this happen with a few Union clients of mine. I believe the amount is low enough to not need to be reported somewhere? I only believe that because I noticed the donation amount was odd.

by **Ghostbear** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

I believe those fall under the PAC (super or not) rules, though I'm not an expert on campaign finance stuff.

by **quantumcat42** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm UTC

Santorum surges among California GOP voters

by **Sockmonkey** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:07 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Diadem wrote:His 'the trees are the right height' remark is actually kind of endearing. I know nothing about Michigan, but I can imagine that's the kind of peculiar remark about a state that only a local would get.

I'm from Michigan and I don't really get it. We do have nice forests, but... uhh... size doesn't matter?

Yeah it's pretty bogue. :mrgreen:

In any case, most of us here in Michigan haven't been enthusiastic about our state since the auto industry went pfft. Except when the Red Wings make the playoffs of course.

by **Whammy** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:15 am UTC

sardia wrote:A couple points, his lack of money is tied to his lack of charisma. He has tapped out his big donors, and he has trouble getting donations from people who gives less than 200$. Aka, he's unable to get large numbers of people to donate, thus signaling lack of charisma.
My other point is that money and superpacs matter. Gingrich would have been dead if Sheldon billionaire hadn't saved him twice with 5 million bucks. In addition, you say that no amount of money will make Romney more likable. I say it doesn't matter, what's more important is telling everyone how much worse the other guys are. That's how Romney crushed Newt in Florida, and that's his game plan for Michigan onwards. I dunno what he plans to do about his low popularity.

...do I need to pull out the exit polling from a few pages back that discussed that? That how most people stated they:

1)Made up their decision at least a month or so before the election
2)That advertising played little role in their decision
3)That the debates were the most important factor
4)And as someone pointed out voter turnout was lower in pro-Romney areas compared to last election yet higher in the pro-Gingrich areas? So if the goal was to keep people from coming out to vote for the others, it didn't help.

With all that in mind, I would say it's safer to say Romney won primarily cause Gingrich had bad debate performances the week before, his history of racial comments regarding Hispanics probably hurting the population of them in Florida (Hispanics probably don't enjoy Spanish being called "the language of the ghetto", for example), etc etc. In short, Florida was a good state for Romney, while South Carolina was a good state for Gingrich. Santorum and Paul didn't bother campaigning in there, yet still got within margin of error for their results when compared to pre-election polls. That also puts into question how effective the negative ads are.

Furthermore, Santorum crushed Romney in the Minnesota and Missouri contests (it was a bit closer in Colorado). Now granted in terms of delegates and all that, those being caucuses, it doesn't actually mean much, but it's given Santorum momentum and a chance at the spotlight that's now making him effectively tied with Romney in Michigan. Since he already tied with Romney once in Iowa, and the Romney vs. Others Spending margin was much larger in that race, it puts into question how 'helpful' the money is. Right now, if there is anything that is going to hurt Santorum in the Michigan race, it'll be those social issues and his comments regarding women and religion and all that. But we'll have to see what happens.

LaserGuy wrote:It's also worth noting that the study you cite does in fact predict an effect of campaign finance--0.3% swing in the vote per 100k (I'm guessing more than the other guy) in a Congressional campaign. Depending on how this scales at the presidential level, this could be a significant effect: Naively, if we say it scales as 435 districts x 100k each, I think you'd find that either party would be pretty happy if they could get an extra 0.3% of the vote for every 40 million they spent. Obviously it can't overcome a bad candidate, but the last few elections have been close enough that if either party is getting a swing of a few percentage points from advertising, that could be enough to push their candidate into the presidency.

I wouldn't be so quick to say we can just 'aggregate' it like that since there are some differences in Congressional vs. Presidential (biggest being more people really, really care about Presidential elections). Unfortunately it's harder to do a similar study with the presidential campaign since, what, the only time we have the same two 'candidates' going up against each other multiple times is Nader vs...everyone else? And we can all agree Nader's lack of money doesn't have anything to do with him losing XD. But yes, I do know the study shows only a very slight swing based on money, but for most races that is an insignificant amount and, again, I don't think it necessarily aggregates like you suggest.

I'll also be fair and state we'll have to wait a few election cycles to really say anything conclusive about the role of SuperPacs and all that. I think the major point I'm wanting to make is that, just based on what we're seeing with the Republican primary right now and then comparing it to the rhetoric people used in the aftermath of Citizen's United about "SuperPACs" and about how they would "destroy democracy" and etc etc.,....it's been rather underwhelming don't you think? XD.

by **Ghostbear** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:23 am UTC

Whammy wrote:1)Made up their decision at least a month or so before the election
2)That advertising played little role in their decision
3)That the debates were the most important factor
4)And as someone pointed out voter turnout was lower in pro-Romney areas compared to last election yet higher in the pro-Gingrich areas? So if the goal was to keep people from coming out to vote for the others, it didn't help.

1. And what blankets the air waves the month or so before the election?
2. Have you ever known anybody to say "Yep, I'm totally affected by advertising" ? Nobody ever thinks it affects them. Yet companies keep using it. I'll let you take a guess at which group is being willfully ignorant.
3. Doesn't prevent advertising from being another important factor.
4. Wouldn't that indicate that the advertising was successful in the areas that were pro-Romney, by keeping turnout in them low by discouraging Gingrich supporters from voting? Florida is a big state with multiple media markets. Which there is some evidence supporting that:

538 wrote:That’s a 14 point increase in [Gingrich's] unfavorablity in the area where Mr. Romney was advertising most heavily. And since a large share of Mr. Romney’s ads were negative and attacked Mr. Gingrich, it isn’t surprising that we might see these effects.

Whammy wrote:With all that in mind, I would say it's safer to say Romney won primarily cause Gingrich had bad debate performances the week before, his history of racial comments regarding Hispanics probably hurting the population of them in Florida (Hispanics probably don't enjoy Spanish being called "the language of the ghetto", for example), etc etc.

How do you think those people found out about Gingrich's history of racially insensitive comments?

Whammy wrote:Furthermore, Santorum crushed Romney in the Minnesota and Missouri contests (it was a bit closer in Colorado). Now granted in terms of delegates and all that, those being caucuses, it doesn't actually mean much, but it's given Santorum momentum and a chance at the spotlight that's now making him effectively tied with Romney in Michigan. Since he already tied with Romney once in Iowa, and the Romney vs. Others Spending margin was much larger in that race, it puts into question how 'helpful' the money is. Right now, if there is anything that is going to hurt Santorum in the Michigan race, it'll be those social issues and his comments regarding women and religion and all that. But we'll have to see what happens.

First, Romney basically ignored Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri- he didn't invest heavily in any of them, having taken them for granted. Those states are probably the best example of how money matters, because it's the first time the spending comparisons have been at relative parity during the fight for the nomination. Mentioning them hurts, not helps, your argument. As well, Michigan is seeing fairly comparable spending sums, at least compared to before:

Whammy wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to say we can just 'aggregate' it like that since there are some differences in Congressional vs. Presidential (biggest being more people really, really care about Presidential elections).

So if money has a big influence in congressional elections, but not presidential, we should not care about the outcome? Congress is one third of the major branches of the US government. The results of those elections are hugely important, and the influence of money in them is something I would be very concerned about.

Whammy wrote:Unfortunately it's harder to do a similar study with the presidential campaign since, what, the only time we have the same two 'candidates' going up against each other multiple times is Nader vs...everyone else? And we can all agree Nader's lack of money doesn't have anything to do with him losing XD. But yes, I do know the study shows only a very slight swing based on money, but for most races that is an insignificant amount and, again, I don't think it necessarily aggregates like you suggest.

Do you think that if Nadar had ten times as much funding, that he couldn't have gotten, say, 10% of the vote? And that if he had gotten more of the vote, even in losing, that that wouldn't have affected other groups political decisions? A 0.3% swing in the vote would have changed nearly 400,000 votes in 2008 (turnout of 131.2 million), and could have flipped Missouri or North Carolina. In 2000 it would have flipped four states (Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin), and could have changed the winner. "Insignificant for most races" isn't really sufficient to make it acceptable; it needs to be insignificant for all races. Or are you OK with rich people buying an election when it's close?

Whammy wrote:I'll also be fair and state we'll have to wait a few election cycles to really say anything conclusive about the role of SuperPacs and all that. I think the major point I'm wanting to make is that, just based on what we're seeing with the Republican primary right now and then comparing it to the rhetoric people used in the aftermath of Citizen's United about "SuperPACs" and about how they would "destroy democracy" and etc etc.,....it's been rather underwhelming don't you think? XD.

Then ignore the hyperbole, and ask yourself: do you trust our political process more than before Citizen's United, or do you trust it less? We've also already seen one election cycle where they did play a significant part: 2010. Republican SuperPACs hugely outspent democratic supporting ones. Sure, momentum was in the republican's favor anyway, but they almost certainly have had less of a landslide without their superPACs.

by **Lucrece** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:57 am UTC

Hispanics in Florida were hardly moved to vote for Romney because of what Gingrich says. Something tells me you don't understand the clout of Cuban American politics and their effect on Florida politics as a whole.

Cuban Americans voted for Romney because local popular politicians like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen endorsed Romney. Illeana was the first Cuban American congresswoman in Florida, the most senior female GOP congresswoman, and among the Cuban American trailblazers in the Republican party. Anti-communist moderate Republican with a wide reach across the Cuban American culture. She's particularly involved in local educational drives, having been a former head of a Miami Dade County school.

Hispanics in Florida also don't function like those in California -- Cubans have special immigration perks and social programs ("Plan 8"), so they don't give a damn about illegal immigration. Venezuelans, Argentinians, and Colombians are the other sectors of the Hispanic vote. Common link? They're not from Central America, and they for the most part do not engage in entering the country illegally. They go through the process, and often look down to Mexican counterparts whom they resent for giving Hispanics an image of disregard for foreign law.

In that way, the Hispanic population in Florida is largely Republican. In fact, if it weren't for the immigration issue, Mexican immigrants would also be Republican -- Hispanics trend as social conservatives and are higher on the religiosity scale, with an increasing Evangelical movement starting to supplant the Catholic roots.

The only area where Hispanics in Florida are partly breaking is through the youth vote, which is more split to the benefit of Democrats. Even then, being a Republican is part of the Cuban American cultural identity. And as of late? Growing on Venezuelans given the distaste for the leftist movements now espoused by Chavez. They provide the leftist extreme to polarize an entire generation of Venezuelans against the narrative of socialism (of which Chavez completely perverts, should you look at his meteoric rise to wealth post-presidency and that of his fellow partisans and cronies).

by **Whammy** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:44 am UTC

I'm spoiling my entire post cause it's kind of long XD.

Spoiler:

by **Lucrece** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:14 am UTC

Dividing Cubans and Puerto Ricans was pointless. Neither has immigration concerns. So by that breakdown alone, you got about 65+% of Latino voters who don't have immigration concerns in the forefront. Missing the other 30%.

by **Whammy** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:11 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Dividing Cubans and Puerto Ricans was pointless. Neither has immigration concerns. So by that breakdown alone, you got about 65+% of Latino voters who don't have immigration concerns in the forefront. Missing the other 30%.

...Cubans and Puerto Ricans were 50%, not 65%. Second, did you miss this part?:

9. Candidates’ immigration positions still matter in Florida. In a poll conducted January 16–23, 70 percent of Florida’s registered Latino voters stated that they would be more likely to support a candidate seeking to pass the DREAM Act, while only 6 percent would be less likely.

And then when you dig into the data, you find this:

4. Generally speaking, what are the most important issues facing the Latino community that you think Congress and the President should address?
Number one issue in Florida? Immigration (43%).

So yes, immigration is an important issue in Florida. Of course, statements like "Spanish is the language of the ghetto" isn't so much an immigration as it a culture issue anyway.

by **Lucrece** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:19 am UTC

That question means little. More likely to support a candidate carrying that policy. What was the result on willingness to withdraw support from a candidate that voted against him? It's one thing to say "I will support someone more if he holds this positive position", but Romney still managed to crush Gingrich despite being staunchly and openly opposed to amnesty and the Dream Act.

by **Whammy** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:06 am UTC

That was also an asked question, and the willingness to withdraw support is more split, but still in favor of "less support" for a candidate saying :

30. Recently, a candidate running for President has said - quote "We should not penalize immigrant children who came to this country illegally. The DREAM Act is important to give immigrant youth an opportunity go to college and earn citizenship in America and I will pass it." end quote. Would that statement make you more likely to support the candidate, less likely to support the candidate, or would you not care what they said about immigration policy?

More Likely: 29%
Less Likely: 37%
Don't Care: 16%
It Depends/Don't Know: 17%
Refused: 2%

And looking at an exit poll, it does show Hispanics went to Romney (54%) and split among the other three. Unfortunately none of the other results are separated by ethnicity so can't make any other statements on them.

But anyway, I'll be willing to admit Gingrich's statements about Hispanics weren't a decisive issue. I was more of just trying to suggest alternate reasons for Romney's win, and just as an example of the decline Gingrich had between SC and Florida. But since the data seems mixed, I'll drop the issue. *shrug*.

by **Ghostbear** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:04 am UTC

Whammy wrote:1.News media talking about the election? Debates? There was a lot more than just ads at play here.
2.Yes actually, we do have some people who said that in the exit polls, but it is a fair point that motivations are a little hard to measure. Just simply asking is about the most precise we can get outside of a lab environment though, so it's about the best we can get.
3.No, it does not, but generally speaking it was of little to no importance to most people.
4.Ahhhh, now this is something I can work with. It's an interesting analysis, but, well...

Let me reiterate again that caveats abound in such a simple analysis. These caveats pertain first to the challenges of using survey data to isolate the effects of news media. But even if we take the survey results at face value, it’s also important to remember that advertising is not the only element of the “information environment” surrounding voters. As research by the political scientists Kevin Arceneaux and Gregory Huber has noted, media markets that witness a lot of television advertising usually experience other kinds of campaign activity — like voter contact — making it difficult to attribute any shifts in the polls solely to advertising.

At this point, I would say there is suggestive evidence that Mr. Romney’s advantages in advertising helped him win in Florida – but it qualifies as circumstantial. The longer the campaign goes on, and the longer Mr. Romney’s advertising advantage persists, the more data we will accumulate to test these effects.

So to say negative ads were THE reason Romney one is jumping the gun a little, and by extension, his simply having more money than the others. Again, Santorum and Paul kept up consistent results in the lead up, and then won with similar percents as their polls had suggested even though they ignored the state. It might simply be Romney just ignored them and decided to not try and court their bases, but still...

You're making a very serious logical error here Whammy, I think. You're saying that because we can't explain all of the outcome from advertising, that advertising (and hence, money) don't matter much. I never said that the ads were "THE" reason that Romney won Florida. Evidence suggests that they played a part, and your quote from further in the analysis does not change that, because it's just noting the difficulties in ascribing everything to one thing. To respond to the numbered points:

1. Yes, debates, news, etc., they exist, I do not deny that, and I do not deny that some information goes out through them. Do you think that all that information comes from them? I'm not saying that everything is decided by money, but some of it. Saying that people could have also gotten that information elsewhere is pointless, since data on that advertising concentration indicates that a good deal of them did not get it elsewhere. It's not enough to say that some information came elsewhere to make money not influential: you need to argue that all of it comes from elsewhere. Otherwise, money matters for those parts. How many uninformed voters out there are there- people that rarely (if ever) watch the news, read newspapers, etc.? Those people are going to see those advertisements though, when they catch the latest in their favorite TV show, when they spend some time on Facebook, when their brain catches a bit of a billboard on their way to work...

2. No. No no no no! You can't trust people to honestly say "Yes, that commercial definitely influenced my decision making process". Most people are influenced by advertising- companies spent $131 billion on it in 2010. Asking people how effective ads were in determining their choices is not going to get you accurate results, because you'll end up getting something similar (though not the same) as the Bradley effect. In this case, many people won't even realize that advertising has influenced them (people have a stark opposition to feeling like they're being manipulated, so if you make it too obvious you get the opposite intended result).

3. Again, you can't just take people's word at "No, I'm totally not affected by advertising" because that's what people want to think about themselves. Just saying that people said the debates were the most important factor in determining their result does not prevent money (whether spent on ads or elsewhere- for that matter, how much does a good debate coach cost? How much does it cost to pack the crowd with your supporters? Those all depend on money.) from being a major influence. The economy is often argued to be the most important factor in presidential elections: does that mean nothing else matters? Of course not.

4. (Already responded to above)

As for people learning about Gingrich's comments, again: just because they could have heard it on the news, they could have read it on the internet, they could have listened to it on the radio, that does nothing to prove that some, perhaps many, learned of it from advertising.

Whammy wrote:Romney outspent everyone in Iowa and effectively tied with Santorum though so maybe there is some kind of intervening variable going on? I can't find the numbers on the spending in those three states though so even if Romney was 'ignoring' them doesn't mean he was outspending people =P. And if Santorum is now catching up with Romney, it's most likely due to the momentum from his little hat-trick there and getting his message out; it's his turn in the spotlight to be the "conservative alternative" to Romney. Gingrich had his with South Carolina, but once he was in spotlight a lot of dirt came out, he said and did stupid things ("Paychecks for food stamps" anyone?)...pretty much following the pattern of every other non-Romney person in this campaign so far.

Yes, Romney outspent everyone in Iowa, heavily and got essentially a tie with Santorum. That ignores the candidate traits though, and just assumes that the two of them are otherwise equally good "fits" for the Iowa electorate. The Iowa republican electorate, of course, is well known for being heavily socially conservative. Romeny has had to spend a lot of the campaign season fending off criticisms that he is not a true social conservative. Santorum is revilled throughout the left for being a near perfect embodiment of all the ideals of social conservatism. Romney didn't do much retail campaigning in Iowa, and in fact ignored the state up until about December, when he decided he might have a chance of winning it. Santorum visited every county in Iowa, and was heavily invested (in time and in his campaign's available funds) in retail campaigning. Santorum saw a last minute huge swing of momentum in the polls for him in Iowa- in primaries, momentum tends to be rather significant.

All of the advantages were in Santorum's column for Iowa, with the exception of money. Money was able to force him to a near tie. Think on that for a moment.

Whammy wrote:1. .3% for 100k is not what I'd call a "big" influence.

2. I was not and, for future purpose of this discussion, will try to avoid making a 'should' statement. I'm only trying to look at this from a political science standpoint. And from that standpoint, we know Congressional elections rarely draw the same amount of attention as Presidential elections. And that difference, I could argue, means the effect of money would be even less pronounced in a presidential election. Why? Cause we are watching them. The media picks apart every single last detail they can get their hands on. I mean come on, they were sitting on the edge of their seats for Romney's tax forms for crying out loud! Not a day goes by I don't see a story about PACs playing on the news, talking about how much each PAC spent and blah blah blah. And post-Citizen's United distrust of campaign spending and all that, I'd say people are even more willing to be critical.

Yes, I'd say if Nadar had more funding he could have gotten the votes, because most likely it's cause more people were donating to him and, by extension, his message was more popular and appealing to people. If a PAC just gave him the money? No, I'd doubt it.

And again, I doubt we can simply take that .3% swing in Congressional elections and apply it to a Presidential one, possibly for reasons I stated above (more scrutiny). Also, you're making the assumption the only reason a candidate has more money is cause of "rich" people. The money easily could have come from individual donations, and I'd say that's the more likely since PACs run by a business or company tend to give money to multiple candidates to 'hedge their bets', so to speak. Here's what I'd suggest, and maybe someone knows if there is a study already on this; let's look at some of the closer races and just see if there was a significant difference in the amount of money spent between the candidates.

Also, I'd appreciate not making a judgement on my values; I'm simply interested in discussing the effect of SuperPACs and money on elections, and I simply take the (obviously less popular with people) position that the role of money is, well, overstated. Is it a factor? Yeah, but just having more money doesn't mean you win. It can make it easier to win because you can get your message out easier, and it can serve as a proxy measure of people's support for you if you're getting more donations than the other guy. But if a bunch of rich friends are bankrolling your campaign, and that's all, you're probably not going to win. There are things more important than money.

You're missing what I said again: you can't just argue that it's not a big influence, you have to argue that it's zero, otherwise you are fine with the idea of people (rich or not- fair enough on the comment about the use of the word rich) buying elections when they're close. If it has a small influence, that's still an influence, and it's still an aberration of the will of the people, which is exactly the opposite of how a republic should function. And again, just because people are being more critical does not mean that the influence is lost. Your method of determining if money matters is completely illogical: looking at the difference in spending in close elections will by itself tell you absolutely nothing. There are so many other factors you would have to take into account to even begin to be able to deduce anything by it: how strong was each candidate? Who had policies that better aligned with the electorate? Who had a higher name recognition before hand? What was the political for the electorate? How energetic were the voters? How energetic were the voters for each candidate? How did they each get their money? There's probably a dozen other factors that would make a huge difference that I haven't even thought of. That kind of study, that you described, would be absolutely useless for determining anything about money in politics.

As for Nader, you're missing many of the benefits money can bring: name recognition, perceptions of electability, the ability to shift the debate to specific topics they're good at, candidate definition (Romney's ads defined Gingrich completely negatively, for instance), and so on. If you just tossed (i.e. one big check from a non-voter, or whatever) $100 million at Nader early enough in 2000, I guarantee you he would have done significantly better, because of those factors.

As for donors "hedging their bets" I'm going to say, no, that's not realistic- most people are going to be fairly staunchly for one side or the other, they aren't going to donate $500 to Romney and $500 to Obama to play it safe. This article shows that about 25% of superPAC donations to date (from just five people) are all being made by those people strictly along party lines. When Adelson donates $5 million to an Obama PAC, you can tell me "I told you so", until then I think you're making a completely naive assumption.

Your last paragraph is all but agreeing with everything I said: that money does have an influence on elections. You just said so, then you said it makes it easier to win elections. I'm not arguing that you can put some otherwise unelectable person (such as myself!) in a race and say "Here's $1 billion, go become president". I'm saying you can take two relatively comparable candidates (such as Romney and Gingrich- you might laugh, but at their core, they're about equally weak for the sake of a republic nomination contest) and when you give more money to one, the results on the election are rather easy to see.

Whammy wrote:I can't ignore hyperbole; perception of the role of money is just as important as the actual effect of money. Also, the hyperbole presents a hypothesis to test, which I can't resist at least looking at ^_^.

Now to step back a moment and address my opinions. After reading the actual Citizen's United decision...I kind of had to agree with it. Regardless of the effect of PACs or what not, I believe the decision had a point; freedom of speech can not be restricted simply because it's coming from a group of people and because said group has money. If I, as an individual, spent $100 million dollars running ads and printing flyers and holding rallys on an issue you wouldn't stop me, would you? Well, we don't lose our rights just because we group together (heck, the ability to do that is a right!), so if a bunch of my friends and I want to create an organization to support an issue, why shouldn't we be allowed to spend $100 million on it? And, obviously, an election is an issue that we may have an opinion on. We may not like it, but that's freedom of speech for you.

As for the 2010 elections, no, I wouldn't say that the SuperPACs are the reason for the landslide. It's not like we don't already have a history of such large landslides:

You didn't answer my question: do you feel more confident in our political system now, yes or no? You might think that's completely tangential to the decision, but part of their reasoning in the ruling was that the change would not decrease the public's confidence in our democracy. You also can't say "It's speech, therefor it's untouchable"- there are numerous limitations on free speech for the greater public good. The classic example of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, slander, libel, lying in advertising, language use on broadcast television before a certain time, insider trading, revealing state secrets... We restrict free speech all the time, and for some damn good reasons!

If you're OK with letting anyone spend as much money as they want on an election for the sake of speech, would you be OK with them overturning campaign donation limits? It's $2,500 per person as I recall, and part of the ruling was that money is speech: by limiting donations, they're limiting speech. What about the rules against campaigns coordinating with PACs? That would be done through speech- that's another limitation. Protecting the democratic process should be one of the foremost concerns for a republic, and I do not endorse something that undermines it. I do not agree with the two determinants needed to reach the conclusion (money = speech, and corporations = people), and I do not agree with the conclusion. You can't just say "all speech should be free, period, as per the 1st Amendment, therefor so should campaign spending" and ignore the hundreds of years of limitations on speech for the good of everyone.

As for 2010, you're misrepresenting what I said. I did not say they would have not had a landslide, I'm saying they would have had less of a landslide. There's a huge difference in those two statements.

by **folkhero** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:15 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:You're missing what I said again: you can't just argue that it's not a big influence, you have to argue that it's zero, otherwise you are fine with the idea of people (rich or not- fair enough on the comment about the use of the word rich) buying elections when they're close. If it has a small influence, that's still an influence, and it's still an aberration of the will of the people, which is exactly the opposite of how a republic should function.

You can't buy a vote, and you can't literally buy an election. What you can buy is a bit of media, through which you have an opportunity to change the mind of potential voters. Why does a potential voter need to be protected from certain kinds of speech? If Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reily get to talk about politics and political issues with the resources of GE and NewsCorp behind them, why shouldn't I get the same opportunity to do the same with small chunks of media I buy or rent? When a voter consumes some media and changes their mind about an issue, when is it an aberration and when is it an informed change of opinion?

Ghostbear wrote:You also can't say "It's speech, therefor it's untouchable"- there are numerous limitations on free speech for the greater public good. The classic example of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, slander, libel, lying in advertising, language use on broadcast television before a certain time, insider trading, revealing state secrets... We restrict free speech all the time, and for some damn good reasons!

Do those specific exceptions to free speech give the government carte blanche to restrict any other type of speech they find unacceptable, or does one of those exceptions set a specific precedent for restricting political speech?

Ghostbear wrote:You didn't answer my question: do you feel more confident in our political system now, yes or no?

I cant speak for anyone else, but I do feel more confident knowing that (for example) small political non-profits won't be censored just because their movie makes a candidate look bad.

by **Ghostbear** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:30 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:You can't buy a vote, and you can't literally buy an election. What you can buy is a bit of media, through which you have an opportunity to change the mind of potential voters. Why does a potential voter need to be protected from certain kinds of speech? If Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reily get to talk about politics and political issues with the resources of GE and NewsCorp behind them, why shouldn't I get the same opportunity to do the same with small chunks of media I buy or rent? When a voter consumes some media and changes their mind about an issue, when is it an aberration and when is it an informed change of opinion?

Money buys name recognition, it buys positive or negative associations with that name (or another name), it buys phone bank operators, it buys campaign mailers, it buys advertisements, it buys campaign staff, it buys advisors, it buys a debate coach, it buys donations (yes, in this case money can buy money), it buys transportation to debates, it buys transportation to everywhere else, it buys get out the vote efforts... Money won't literally buy an election, but it'll buy everything you need to win it. Also, fun thought: if money is speech because it can be used to purchase mediums to express speech, why is money not votes, as it can be used to purchase mediums to acquire votes?

Also also, you can buy votes- I remember when I was younger, hearing about a big stir from one politician's campaign or another offering cigarettes to any homeless person that'd go to the polls (after concluding that those people were likely to vote for their candidate). Or even more literally: how many people do you think wouldn't be willing to vote for whoever you wanted them to vote for in exchange for $1 billion? I'd do it, though I'd feel dirty about it.

Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reily are part of the press, which are generally offered a greater degree of protection with speech. Yes, defining "the press" is going to be a murky subject, but that's what we have courts for.

folkhero wrote:Do those specific exceptions to free speech give the government carte blanche to restrict any other type of speech they find unacceptable, or does one of those exceptions set a specific precedent for restricting political speech?

It does not give the right to restrict unacceptable speech. It gives the right to speech within a certain topic within a certain time frame (regardless of the "positions" of that speech) in order to protect society (in this case, through protecting the integrity of our democracy). What's the difference between restricting untruthful advertising and restricting political speech? What's the difference between preventing people from donating more than $2,500 to a candidate and preventing them from spending $1,000,000 in ads supporting that candidate?

It's not that political speech is hard to define: we still have to do that after Citizens United, to prevent coordination between campaigns and superPACs.

folkhero wrote:I cant speak for anyone else, but I do feel more confident knowing that (for example) small political non-profits won't be censored just because their movie makes a candidate look bad.

That's your confidence in the interpretation of the 1st amendment (aka, the government itself), not your confidence in our ability to democratically elect people (aka, our ability to create that government).

by **folkhero** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Money buys name recognition, it buys positive or negative associations with that name (or another name), it buys phone bank operators, it buys campaign mailers, it buys advertisements, it buys campaign staff, it buys advisors, it buys a debate coach, it buys donations (yes, in this case money can buy money), it buys transportation to debates, it buys transportation to everywhere else, it buys get out the vote efforts... Money won't literally buy an election, but it'll buy everything you need to win it.

Right, like I said it buys the opportunity to change a potential voter's mind. The phone bank callers, the mailers the TV adds and the performance in a debate have to actually make an argument that changes someone's mind or the resources are of no use. Censoring speech because it has a chance of convincing someone of something regarding politics goes against the letter and the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

As for name recognition, what's wrong with paying for some name recognition? The incumbent naturally starts off with a huge advantage. The mainstream media will carry water in the name recognition department for certain candidates that they think might win, and will ignore or only dismissively mention any candidates they find 'fringe,' and don't tell me they don't love being in that kingmaker position. What's so bad about evening things up for the challengers and the candidates that the media has already dismissed?

Ghostbear wrote:Also, fun thought: if money is speech because it can be used to purchase mediums to express speech, why is money not votes, as it can be used to purchase mediums to acquire votes? Also also, you can buy votes- I remember when I was younger, hearing about a big stir from one politician's campaign or another offering cigarettes to any homeless person that'd go to the polls (after concluding that those people were likely to vote for their candidate). Or even more literally: how many people do you think wouldn't be willing to vote for whoever you wanted them to vote for in exchange for $1 billion? I'd do it, though I'd feel dirty about it.

Dude, it's a secret ballot, just take the money and vote for whomever you were going to vote for anyway. Also, buying votes is flatly illegal.

Also, just to clear things up, I'm not saying money = speech, just as paper and bindings aren't speech on their own. Money used to produce and disseminate speech is (and should be) protected speech, just as books are considered protected speech because they are a method of storing and disseminating speech.

Ghostbear wrote:Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reily are part of the press, which are generally offered a greater degree of protection with speech. Yes, defining "the press" is going to be a murky subject, but that's what we have courts for.

Oh, good the government will tell me, "you have freedom of the press because we determined who the press is and we massively restrict everyone that we determined wasn't in it." That's not at all Orwellian doublespeak.

Ghostbear wrote:
folkhero wrote:I cant speak for anyone else, but I do feel more confident knowing that (for example) small political non-profits won't be censored just because their movie makes a candidate look bad.

That's your confidence in the interpretation of the 1st amendment (aka, the government itself), not your confidence in our ability to democratically elect people (aka, our ability to create that government).

I feel better about our ability to democratically elect people when voters aren't treated as though they need to be protected from certain types of political speech.

by **Whammy** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:57 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:You're making a very serious logical error here Whammy, I think. You're saying that because we can't explain all of the outcome from advertising, that advertising (and hence, money) don't matter much. I never said that the ads were "THE" reason that Romney won Florida. Evidence suggests that they played a part, and your quote from further in the analysis does not change that, because it's just noting the difficulties in ascribing everything to one thing. To respond to the numbered points:

1. Yes, debates, news, etc., they exist, I do not deny that, and I do not deny that some information goes out through them. Do you think that all that information comes from them? I'm not saying that everything is decided by money, but some of it. Saying that people could have also gotten that information elsewhere is pointless, since data on that advertising concentration indicates that a good deal of them did not get it elsewhere. It's not enough to say that some information came elsewhere to make money not influential: you need to argue that all of it comes from elsewhere. Otherwise, money matters for those parts. How many uninformed voters out there are there- people that rarely (if ever) watch the news, read newspapers, etc.? Those people are going to see those advertisements though, when they catch the latest in their favorite TV show, when they spend some time on Facebook, when their brain catches a bit of a billboard on their way to work...

2. No. No no no no! You can't trust people to honestly say "Yes, that commercial definitely influenced my decision making process". Most people are influenced by advertising- companies spent $131 billion on it in 2010. Asking people how effective ads were in determining their choices is not going to get you accurate results, because you'll end up getting something similar (though not the same) as the Bradley effect. In this case, many people won't even realize that advertising has influenced them (people have a stark opposition to feeling like they're being manipulated, so if you make it too obvious you get the opposite intended result).

3. Again, you can't just take people's word at "No, I'm totally not affected by advertising" because that's what people want to think about themselves. Just saying that people said the debates were the most important factor in determining their result does not prevent money (whether spent on ads or elsewhere- for that matter, how much does a good debate coach cost? How much does it cost to pack the crowd with your supporters? Those all depend on money.) from being a major influence. The economy is often argued to be the most important factor in presidential elections: does that mean nothing else matters? Of course not.

4. (Already responded to above)

As for people learning about Gingrich's comments, again: just because they could have heard it on the news, they could have read it on the internet, they could have listened to it on the radio, that does nothing to prove that some, perhaps many, learned of it from advertising.

I never said advertising didn't matter; I said it wasn't the most important factor, which you were implying when you said Romney's crushed Newt because of it. It may have been a part of the strategy, but it wasn't the only part and I contest that it was the most important part is all.

The reason I had to mention all the other sources of information is because I'm trying to make the point that the advertisements aren't the only way people can receive information on candidates and politics, thereby diluting the effects the advertisements may have on them. And yes, you can ask people what influenced them; yes, the accuracy may not be perfect and the level of measurement isn't necessarily the most precise either, but it's about the best we got right now till we can go back and really sit down and study the election. Tis sadly one of the weaknesses of political science; can't study anything till long after it's happened *sighs*.

Yes, Romney outspent everyone in Iowa, heavily and got essentially a tie with Santorum. That ignores the candidate traits though, and just assumes that the two of them are otherwise equally good "fits" for the Iowa electorate. The Iowa republican electorate, of course, is well known for being heavily socially conservative. Romeny has had to spend a lot of the campaign season fending off criticisms that he is not a true social conservative. Santorum is revilled throughout the left for being a near perfect embodiment of all the ideals of social conservatism. Romney didn't do much retail campaigning in Iowa, and in fact ignored the state up until about December, when he decided he might have a chance of winning it. Santorum visited every county in Iowa, and was heavily invested (in time and in his campaign's available funds) in retail campaigning. Santorum saw a last minute huge swing of momentum in the polls for him in Iowa- in primaries, momentum tends to be rather significant.

All of the advantages were in Santorum's column for Iowa, with the exception of money. Money was able to force him to a near tie. Think on that for a moment.

Let's look at the pre-election polls real quick:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1588.html

Average Poll Result Romney: 22.8 Average Poll Result Santorum: 16.3
Final Election Result Romney: 24.5 Final Election Result Santorum: 24.6

Then you go look at the line tracking the polling data between 4/21/2011 to the day of the elections. In order for your situation to show the influence of money, Romney would have had to have been near the bottom of the pack and then just suddenly, when he started paying attention to it, just became the top and Santorum would have had been on top since the start...oh wait, that's the complete opposite of what happened! At the last minute Santorum got a massive boost for some reason or another and ended up tying with Romney, who had been rather steady in his polling numbers for months! Romney won within a margin of error for his polling numbers; Santorum went over it. So contrary to what you're saying, it seems more as if Romney's money helped him keep what he already had, not catch up with Santorum and force a tie. It was the candidate with less money who caught up to the one with more money to force a tie.

You're missing what I said again: you can't just argue that it's not a big influence, you have to argue that it's zero, otherwise you are fine with the idea of people (rich or not- fair enough on the comment about the use of the word rich) buying elections when they're close. If it has a small influence, that's still an influence, and it's still an aberration of the will of the people, which is exactly the opposite of how a republic should function. And again, just because people are being more critical does not mean that the influence is lost. Your method of determining if money matters is completely illogical: looking at the difference in spending in close elections will by itself tell you absolutely nothing. There are so many other factors you would have to take into account to even begin to be able to deduce anything by it: how strong was each candidate? Who had policies that better aligned with the electorate? Who had a higher name recognition before hand? What was the political for the electorate? How energetic were the voters? How energetic were the voters for each candidate? How did they each get their money? There's probably a dozen other factors that would make a huge difference that I haven't even thought of. That kind of study, that you described, would be absolutely useless for determining anything about money in politics.

As for Nader, you're missing many of the benefits money can bring: name recognition, perceptions of electability, the ability to shift the debate to specific topics they're good at, candidate definition (Romney's ads defined Gingrich completely negatively, for instance), and so on. If you just tossed (i.e. one big check from a non-voter, or whatever) $100 million at Nader early enough in 2000, I guarantee you he would have done significantly better, because of those factors.

No, I don't have to prove it's zero influence; your making the assumption the only reason a candidate has more money is because some rich guy is giving it to him when in most cases the reason someone has more money is because THE PEOPLE are giving them more money. How can you claim the people are subverting the will of 'the people'? The reason then we'd look at spending in close elections then would show something; we can assume support between the two candidates are similar enough in size and strength and that their campaigns were rather similar, thus holding all those other variables more constant. Of course the fact you just were able to list off the top of the head so many other variables than money that might influence an election kind of shows my point, doesn't it? Money. Alone. Doesn't. Win. Elections. If I simply gave you two random names and a number of how much they raised, do you think you could tell me who would win the election? No. If I mentioned that all the money came from campaign donations by individuals donating $1 each could you? Yes, but that's cause each $1 then is a representation of support, not just because he has a $1.

As for Nader, $100 million probably would have helped him, although since that would have been during the primaries and Bush and Gore themselves didn't even spend that much, and since people would have been shocked that Nader's campaign was financed by one guy, and Nader himself favors public funding so he wouldn't have dared taken the money. But since he didn't even get near that much even with all his grassroot campaigning (did get 2.7% of the popular vote, which is good for a third party candidate that wasn't Teddy Roosevelt or Ross Perot) and media exposure (apparently the media was OBSESSED with why he was running in this election https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/burden2005.pdf ) shows maybe the reason Nader didn't do well was, well, people simply didn't like his message.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/2005 ... bigpic.pdf <---Source for the amount spent in the primaries that year, which was linked from this: http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/2005 ... essum.html

$343.1 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 2000

As for donors "hedging their bets" I'm going to say, no, that's not realistic- most people are going to be fairly staunchly for one side or the other, they aren't going to donate $500 to Romney and $500 to Obama to play it safe. This article shows that about 25% of superPAC donations to date (from just five people) are all being made by those people strictly along party lines. When Adelson donates $5 million to an Obama PAC, you can tell me "I told you so", until then I think you're making a completely naive assumption.

No, an individual may not hedge their bets by giving to more than one party, but organizations and corporations do.

Goldman Sachs: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topreci ... cycle=2012 : Contributes more towards Republicans but also gives money towards Democrats
Microsoft: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topreci ... cycle=2012 : Contributes rather evenly
JP Morgan: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topreci ... cycle=2012 : Same as above
Citigroup: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topreci ... cycle=2012 : Slight lead to Democrats, but over all even.

Actually, let's make this shorter:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Notice most of them, even if they lean one way, give some to other sides as well. And notice all the ones on the fences. Although I do find it surprising so many of them are Democratic leaning. Huh. Although, most of those seem to be unions so that shouldn't be surprising. Maybe we should be talking more about how unions are subverting the will of the people? XD

Your last paragraph is all but agreeing with everything I said: that money does have an influence on elections. You just said so, then you said it makes it easier to win elections. I'm not arguing that you can put some otherwise unelectable person (such as myself!) in a race and say "Here's $1 billion, go become president". I'm saying you can take two relatively comparable candidates (such as Romney and Gingrich- you might laugh, but at their core, they're about equally weak for the sake of a republic nomination contest) and when you give more money to one, the results on the election are rather easy to see.

Actually, I can laugh cause Romney has been consistently hovering around 25% or so approval from Republicans for most of the race. Gingrich collapsed at the very beginning, did nothing for months, and then got a brief surge of popularity once most of the field had dropped out (and good debate performances) and all the anti-Romney votes went to him basically, did poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, won South Carolina (a highly conservative state that enjoyed some of his more inflammatory comments), lost Florida, then disappeared again. Romney...basically staying at where he's been at.

You didn't answer my question: do you feel more confident in our political system now, yes or no? You might think that's completely tangential to the decision, but part of their reasoning in the ruling was that the change would not decrease the public's confidence in our democracy. You also can't say "It's speech, therefor it's untouchable"- there are numerous limitations on free speech for the greater public good. The classic example of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, slander, libel, lying in advertising, language use on broadcast television before a certain time, insider trading, revealing state secrets... We restrict free speech all the time, and for some damn good reasons!

If you're OK with letting anyone spend as much money as they want on an election for the sake of speech, would you be OK with them overturning campaign donation limits? It's $2,500 per person as I recall, and part of the ruling was that money is speech: by limiting donations, they're limiting speech. What about the rules against campaigns coordinating with PACs? That would be done through speech- that's another limitation. Protecting the democratic process should be one of the foremost concerns for a republic, and I do not endorse something that undermines it. I do not agree with the two determinants needed to reach the conclusion (money = speech, and corporations = people), and I do not agree with the conclusion. You can't just say "all speech should be free, period, as per the 1st Amendment, therefor so should campaign spending" and ignore the hundreds of years of limitations on speech for the good of everyone.

The courts have already ruled on campaign donation limits; they are constitutional cause controlling giving money directly to a candidate is a government interest since, well, that would be very easy to use for corruption purposes (such as bribing candidates). In the case of donations, simply the act of giving donations is considered the speech; the amount is irrelevant to that action. And the rules against coordinating with PACs is easy to justify as it prevents candidates from simply using a loophole to get around other campaign laws.

And guess what! Citizen's United DID NOT RELY ON CORPORATIONS=PEOPLE (that was only mentioned once in a dissenting opinion) or MONEY=SPEECH, and besides, the whole argument for that is simply that money is a necessary tool in order to engage in speech, unless the preferable situation is that people rely on the charity of a TV network to play a political ad. It relied on the simple fact that your rights as an individual are not lost simply because you are in a group, and that limiting the rights of a person or group simply because of the amount of money they have is an unreasonable restriction. The media is probably the best example of the whole thing; media is a corporation(s). Limiting the rights of a corporation to engage in political speech would harm the ability of the media to even exist in the first place as the media obviously makes statements regarding politics and expresses opinions on politics (aka pundits). As you stated in your response to folkhero stated, defining what "the press" is can be murky, and therefore I'd rather fall on the side that favors speech as the freedom of speech and the press is, at least in my view, the most fundamental right a democratic society can have.

As for 2010, you're misrepresenting what I said. I did not say they would have not had a landslide, I'm saying they would have had less of a landslide. There's a huge difference in those two statements.

Yeah...but neither is correct. Did you not even look at the report? It said MONEY HAD NO INFLUENCE. In close races, the person with LESS MONEY WON. In other races, it was effectively THE SAME. The money has been accounted for; it did nothing. The landslide was really a landslide spurred on by a bad economy, a conservative movement, backlash against controversial measures such as the Healthcare bill and the stimulus, etc etc.

by **Lucrece** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:22 pm UTC

Whammy wrote:That was also an asked question, and the willingness to withdraw support is more split, but still in favor of "less support" for a candidate saying :

30. Recently, a candidate running for President has said - quote "We should not penalize immigrant children who came to this country illegally. The DREAM Act is important to give immigrant youth an opportunity go to college and earn citizenship in America and I will pass it." end quote. Would that statement make you more likely to support the candidate, less likely to support the candidate, or would you not care what they said about immigration policy?

More Likely: 29%
Less Likely: 37%
Don't Care: 16%
It Depends/Don't Know: 17%
Refused: 2%

And looking at an exit poll, it does show Hispanics went to Romney (54%) and split among the other three. Unfortunately none of the other results are separated by ethnicity so can't make any other statements on them.

But anyway, I'll be willing to admit Gingrich's statements about Hispanics weren't a decisive issue. I was more of just trying to suggest alternate reasons for Romney's win, and just as an example of the decline Gingrich had between SC and Florida. But since the data seems mixed, I'll drop the issue. *shrug*.

That question was horribly phrased and it casts doubt on the poll itself. It is awfully leading. It could've simply stated the purpose of the bill instead of assigning emotional value via phrasing like "important to immigrant youth".

by **Whammy** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:25 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Whammy wrote:That was also an asked question, and the willingness to withdraw support is more split, but still in favor of "less support" for a candidate saying :

30. Recently, a candidate running for President has said - quote "We should not penalize immigrant children who came to this country illegally. The DREAM Act is important to give immigrant youth an opportunity go to college and earn citizenship in America and I will pass it." end quote. Would that statement make you more likely to support the candidate, less likely to support the candidate, or would you not care what they said about immigration policy?

More Likely: 29%
Less Likely: 37%
Don't Care: 16%
It Depends/Don't Know: 17%
Refused: 2%

And looking at an exit poll, it does show Hispanics went to Romney (54%) and split among the other three. Unfortunately none of the other results are separated by ethnicity so can't make any other statements on them.

But anyway, I'll be willing to admit Gingrich's statements about Hispanics weren't a decisive issue. I was more of just trying to suggest alternate reasons for Romney's win, and just as an example of the decline Gingrich had between SC and Florida. But since the data seems mixed, I'll drop the issue. *shrug*.

That question was horribly phrased and it casts doubt on the poll itself. It is awfully leading. It could've simply stated the purpose of the bill instead of assigning emotional value via phrasing like "important to immigrant youth".

Woops, I made a mistake first off. Those poll results were for this question:

29. Recently, a candidate running for President has said - quote: "The DREAM Act is a handout that rewards criminal activity by illegals with special benefits. If the Congress passes the DREAM Act, I will veto it." end quote. Would that statement make you more likely to support the candidate, less likely to support the candidate, or would you not care what they said about immigration policy?

The results for question #30 were:

More Likely: 70%
Less Likely: 6%
Don't Care: 13%
It depends/Don't Know: 9%
Refused: 1%

And while your point about the quotes being misleading has some truth to it, I think they are valid. After all, they are asking if they would support a candidate who said X about Y policy...and politicians like to use loaded and emotional language. That statement, for example, seems to fit pretty well with comments Romney has made regarding the DREAM Act.

But like I said, I'll admit I was probably off with the Hispanic comment thing *shrug*. I still don't think the Hispanic population doesn't care about immigration, but it's probably on the list somewhere.

by **Lucrece** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:50 pm UTC

Romney has made statements rejecting the Dream Act and unequivocally rebuffing amnesty. The only contender that publicly supported the Dream Act and immigration reform was, surprisingly enough, Gingrich. Although, perhaps not surprisingly enough given that Gingrich is a clever demagogue aware of how rapidly growing the Hispanic population is.

by **Malice** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:30 pm UTC

I find it disquieting that, through SuperPACs, a handful of millionaires can massively influence the entire primary. Forget even the advertisements for a minute--Gingrich's angel investor saved his campaign from disgrace and ruin on two separate occasions with an influx of funds. There's no denying that Gingrich's continued presence in the election has in turn had profound effects on the nature of the primary--in fact, the argument could be made that without Gingrich, Santorum might have had an even stronger lead and sustained it for longer, instead of losing ground to Mitt "That is the sound of inevitability, Mr. Anderson" Romney.

Even if you accept that corporations are people, money is speech, and so corporate money should be protected speech--that still doesn't mean corporate money shouldn't be limited just as much as individual donations. In what worldview is the system in which a dozen millionaires can freely inflict their speech on the political process while the rest of the nation is limited to 2500 per preferable to one in which everybody, rich or poor, gets to donate in a way that matters equally?

by **Vaniver** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:05 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Although, perhaps not surprisingly enough given that Gingrich is a clever demagogue aware of how rapidly growing the Hispanic population is.

It's not clear to me that amnesty is going to help all that much with conservative Hispanics, or is a good long-term strategy for the Republican party.

Malice wrote:In what worldview is the system in which a dozen millionaires can freely inflict their speech on the political process while the rest of the nation is limited to 2500 per preferable to one in which everybody, rich or poor, gets to donate in a way that matters equally?

I agree; all donations should be unlimited.

by **Whammy** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:10 am UTC

Malice wrote:I find it disquieting that, through SuperPACs, a handful of millionaires can massively influence the entire primary. Forget even the advertisements for a minute--Gingrich's angel investor saved his campaign from disgrace and ruin on two separate occasions with an influx of funds. There's no denying that Gingrich's continued presence in the election has in turn had profound effects on the nature of the primary--in fact, the argument could be made that without Gingrich, Santorum might have had an even stronger lead and sustained it for longer, instead of losing ground to Mitt "That is the sound of inevitability, Mr. Anderson" Romney.

Even if you accept that corporations are people, money is speech, and so corporate money should be protected speech--that still doesn't mean corporate money shouldn't be limited just as much as individual donations. In what worldview is the system in which a dozen millionaires can freely inflict their speech on the political process while the rest of the nation is limited to 2500 per preferable to one in which everybody, rich or poor, gets to donate in a way that matters equally?

Except that millionaires can't donate to a candidate millions of dollars:

http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimits1112.pdf

We're confusing donations and contributions to a candidate with "independent expenditures". The former are restricted and do exactly what you just said you wanted. The "millions of dollars going to Gingrich" you're talking about was money going to the Winning Our Future SuperPAC, which is a SuperPAC not in coordination with Gingrich but supports him. Nothing is stopping YOU, as an individual, from donating $5 million to an independent SuperPAC that happens to support a candidate you support (well, legally at least).

And before anyone says anything yes I understand that the "independent relationship" between Newt Gingrich and Winning Our Future is one of those "Oh we don't work together *wink wink*" sort of things. Still, the fact Newt had to get bailed out twice and is STILL losing badly (after all, he did poor in every state but South Carolina) shows even money can't save a horrible candidate like him ^_^.

by **Lucrece** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:04 am UTC

I don't think he lost because conservatives thought he was a horrible candidate. He loses because he's not only spiteful, but also polarizing.

Despite all the theater liberal mouthpieces are putting up about surprise leads by other candidates that only serve the purpose of wanting to not see Romney run, or show him weak at least, conservatives will vote for him because people vote on the impression of whom everybody thinks is electable.

This is what happened with Hillary Clinton, Democrats just thought she had baggage that could be a liability, and so they voted for the new guy who ran a good campaign and took social networking by storm. Conservatives will vote for whichever guy the media polls tells them has a good chance of defeating Obama.

That's all that matters in the way we run our politics like sports teams: even if you dislike the man, he bears the right insignia. And Romney, whatever his shortcomings in ideological consistency, has an R next to his name -- that's all he needs to get the Republican vote.

by **lutzj** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:58 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:That's all that matters in the way we run our politics like sports teams: even if you dislike the man, he bears the right insignia. And Romney, whatever his shortcomings in ideological consistency, has an R next to his name -- that's all he needs to get the Republican vote.

I guess nobody told Taft.

by **Whammy** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:59 am UTC

Yeah, him being a spiteful and polarizing candidate would be why he's a horrible candidate. We can safely assume of course more hardcore Republicans will probably vote for whoever wins the primary, but the hardcore base isn't going to be enough to win an election obviously. There's the less hardcore base who may be put off by the whole primary, and then the independents who are fine with Romney but may be hesitant to vote at all or vote Obama if someone more polarizing like Gingrich would win. However, I think we all have to agree Santorum or Gingrich are more conservative than Romney is, and that leads to one of the big themes of this race right now: are Republicans willing to compromise a little and choose a more moderate candidate, or are they going to bunker down even more on the right-wing side of the party and go for ideological purity by nominating a more conservative person.

In short, are they going to repeat the Goldwater-candidacy of 1964? Although the sad thing is, from what I'm looking up on Goldwater, even he would be better than some of the conservatives today >_> (at least social issues wise).

by **Lucrece** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:47 am UTC

Goldwater is WAY better than Romney. He also has no place in modern Republican party politics. He's a Huntsman or Johnson. Too supple and not smug, libruhl hating enough.

by **Malice** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:54 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Malice wrote:In what worldview is the system in which a dozen millionaires can freely inflict their speech on the political process while the rest of the nation is limited to 2500 per preferable to one in which everybody, rich or poor, gets to donate in a way that matters equally?
I agree; all donations should be unlimited.

See, I would prefer that we make an effort to curb the plutocracy. "The law, in its infinite wisdom, allows all men, rich or poor, to use the vast wealth they may have access to in order to personally and profoundly influence the democratic process."

Whammy wrote:Except that millionaires can't donate to a candidate millions of dollars:

http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimits1112.pdf

We're confusing donations and contributions to a candidate with "independent expenditures". The former are restricted and do exactly what you just said you wanted. The "millions of dollars going to Gingrich" you're talking about was money going to the Winning Our Future SuperPAC, which is a SuperPAC not in coordination with Gingrich but supports him. Nothing is stopping YOU, as an individual, from donating $5 million to an independent SuperPAC that happens to support a candidate you support (well, legally at least).

I think it's clear that the SuperPACs are not in any way, shape or form "independent", and that there is functionally no difference between allowing them and allowing unlimited personal donations directly to candidates. You can argue (and I will disagree) that all political donations should be unlimited; but you cannot in good conscience argue for the status quo, where individuals are limited in order to provide an even playing field, except for the SuperPAC loophole.

And your last sentence there is kind of my point: there's nothing stopping me from donating 5 million dollars except that I don't have five million dollars. All individuals should have an equal opportunity to influence the process; allowing donation levels that the vast majority of the population cannot match creates the situation we have now, where a few wealthy people are able to exert massive influence on the proceedings.

And before anyone says anything yes I understand that the "independent relationship" between Newt Gingrich and Winning Our Future is one of those "Oh we don't work together *wink wink*" sort of things. Still, the fact Newt had to get bailed out twice and is STILL losing badly (after all, he did poor in every state but South Carolina) shows even money can't save a horrible candidate like him ^_^.

Money doesn't have to literally be able to buy the election to have an influence; the mere fact that Gingrich is in the race at all is enough to show that money can vastly influence the process. Without his single investor, Gingrich would almost certainly have dropped out, which would have changed subsequent vote totals, prevented him from appearing at debates, largely kept him out of the media, and changed the perception and tenor of the race. No one person should be able to do that; it's fundamentally undemocratic.

by **folkhero** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:01 am UTC

Malice wrote:Money doesn't have to literally be able to buy the election to have an influence; the mere fact that Gingrich is in the race at all is enough to show that money can vastly influence the process. Without his single investor, Gingrich would almost certainly have dropped out, which would have changed subsequent vote totals, prevented him from appearing at debates, largely kept him out of the media, and changed the perception and tenor of the race. No one person should be able to do that; it's fundamentally undemocratic.

What if, instead of a rich sugar daddy, Gingrich had a brilliant campaign manager that allowed him to stay in the race? Would that single person's influence be fundamentally undemocratic?

by **IcedT** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:07 am UTC

folkhero wrote:
Malice wrote:Money doesn't have to literally be able to buy the election to have an influence; the mere fact that Gingrich is in the race at all is enough to show that money can vastly influence the process. Without his single investor, Gingrich would almost certainly have dropped out, which would have changed subsequent vote totals, prevented him from appearing at debates, largely kept him out of the media, and changed the perception and tenor of the race. No one person should be able to do that; it's fundamentally undemocratic.

What if, instead of a rich sugar daddy, Gingrich had a brilliant campaign manager that allowed him to stay in the race? Would that single person's influence be fundamentally undemocratic?

Unless that brilliant campaign manager is keeping Gingrich afloat by periodically throwing $5 million his way, the comparison is moot.

by **Lucrece** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Banning superPAC's would do little to curb rich people from influencing politics. Plutocrats still exert control over the mediums of communication, and there's nothing stopping a rich guy with power over Billboards from talking with a politicians and saying, "Send one of your people at 9am to make a request for a Billboard, and I'll conveninently have a 2-3 minute shortlived offer window where my price for a Billboard drops to negligible cost. My secretary will make sure to pretend like your guy was at the top of the line/had made a reservation for the time slot."

That is, you can't prevent rich people from using their money to influence an election. Super PAC's are just one of more loopholes/ambiguous activities people will exploit to see their interests asserted -- something will take the place of the super PAC when it becomes illegal.

What you can do to counter the power of money is working on a better educational system that makes sure every citizen is trained to be vigilant of the ways in which they're messaged to. Advertisements have little effect when people develop an ethic of staying informed as opposed to taking a soundbyte's word for it.

by **lutzj** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:43 am UTC

IcedT wrote:Unless that brilliant campaign manager is keeping Gingrich afloat by periodically throwing $5 million his way, the comparison is moot.

In the first example:

Person A devotes enough resources to person B's campaign that B wins an election.

In the second example:

Person A devotes enough resources to person B's campaign that B wins an election.

Where is the meaningful disanalogy here?

by **Garm** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:00 am UTC

lutzj wrote:
IcedT wrote:Unless that brilliant campaign manager is keeping Gingrich afloat by periodically throwing $5 million his way, the comparison is moot.

In the first example:

Person A devotes enough resources to person B's campaign that B wins an election.

In the second example:

Person A devotes enough resources to person B's campaign that B wins an election.

Where is the meaningful disanalogy here?

Yes. 5 million dollars buys a shitload of media. A brilliant campaign manager who can't afford any sort of media buys doesn't work the next election cycle. You have to compare the $5 Million with a brilliant campaign manager who has enough budget to act according to his brilliance. Without at least a portion of that money, the campaign manager can't actually manage shit.

From my perspective none of the campaigns of the GOP candidates are particularly well run. That could be a product of poor management or poor candidates. Every time Mitt, Newt, or Rick opens their mouth plants wither. I'm sure the same could be said of Ron but a) he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut, b) he'd be marginalized anyway so who gives a crap.

by **Vaniver** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:21 am UTC

Malice wrote:See, I would prefer that we make an effort to curb the plutocracy. "The law, in its infinite wisdom, allows all men, rich or poor, to use the vast wealth they may have access to in order to personally and profoundly influence the democratic process."

It surprises me how little people spend on politics, even with SuperPACs. I mean, rich people often give bigger gifts to college sports teams.

Malice wrote:All individuals should have an equal opportunity to influence the process

Everybody gets one vote, but equal influence is impossible and tyrannical. Should popular people have to reduce their Facebook friend counts so their political status updates don't unduly influence too many people?

Malice wrote:Without his single investor, Gingrich would almost certainly have dropped out, which would have changed subsequent vote totals, prevented him from appearing at debates, largely kept him out of the media, and changed the perception and tenor of the race. No one person should be able to do that; it's fundamentally undemocratic.

You realize that Gingrich is one person, right? It is fundamentally undemocratic that he has so much influence over his run?

Guys: a brilliant campaign manager spends a pittance on an ad that runs at 2 AM in one county, but is so noteworthy that every news station talks about it during prime time the next day.

by **Ghostbear** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:50 am UTC

Whammy wrote:I never said advertising didn't matter; I said it wasn't the most important factor, which you were implying when you said Romney's crushed Newt because of it. It may have been a part of the strategy, but it wasn't the only part and I contest that it was the most important part is all.

The reason I had to mention all the other sources of information is because I'm trying to make the point that the advertisements aren't the only way people can receive information on candidates and politics, thereby diluting the effects the advertisements may have on them. And yes, you can ask people what influenced them; yes, the accuracy may not be perfect and the level of measurement isn't necessarily the most precise either, but it's about the best we got right now till we can go back and really sit down and study the election. Tis sadly one of the weaknesses of political science; can't study anything till long after it's happened *sighs*.

You're still making the same logical error as before: "It was not the most important factor, therefor we don't need to worry about it". Advertising doesn't need to be the most important factor to be able to distort an election. There are other sources of information, but advertising is another source of information. You've conceded that it is a factor- if it is, than some votes are determined by it, so again: if you accept that it is a factor, then you're OK with it being able to change close elections. Are you?

EDIT: Forgot this part- if the best data we have available on advertising is unreliable, then you don't make a case based off of that data. "It's the best we got" isn't enough: the data has to be useful and reliable. People's opinions on whether they're affected by advertising will not be reliable, and thus, will not be useful.

Whammy wrote:Let's look at the pre-election polls real quick:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1588.html

Average Poll Result Romney: 22.8 Average Poll Result Santorum: 16.3
Final Election Result Romney: 24.5 Final Election Result Santorum: 24.6

Then you go look at the line tracking the polling data between 4/21/2011 to the day of the elections. In order for your situation to show the influence of money, Romney would have had to have been near the bottom of the pack and then just suddenly, when he started paying attention to it, just became the top and Santorum would have had been on top since the start...oh wait, that's the complete opposite of what happened! At the last minute Santorum got a massive boost for some reason or another and ended up tying with Romney, who had been rather steady in his polling numbers for months! Romney won within a margin of error for his polling numbers; Santorum went over it. So contrary to what you're saying, it seems more as if Romney's money helped him keep what he already had, not catch up with Santorum and force a tie. It was the candidate with less money who caught up to the one with more money to force a tie.

Completely flawed source: you're using data from when Romney was already advertising in Iowa! The advertising is already baked into his polling numbers. The average poll results given only includes polls as far back as December 21. In order for my situation to show the influence of money, it'd have to have exactly what happened happen: a candidate who was a poor fit for a state's electorate was able to spend and invest money over many months building up their brand, their perception of electability, and destroying those of their opponents is able to tie a candidate who is a good fit for the state's electorate, with good ground campaigning skills.

Advertising and money isn't all about getting votes: it's also about denying votes to your opponent- do you see the trend for the other candidates in those polls? They rise, then they fall. Gingrich rose to 25-30% about a month before the caucus, then got hit by advertising from Romney's PAC and immediately sunk back down. You don't think that's the influence of money?

Whammy wrote:No, I don't have to prove it's zero influence; your making the assumption the only reason a candidate has more money is because some rich guy is giving it to him when in most cases the reason someone has more money is because THE PEOPLE are giving them more money.

Did you miss my source on how 25% of all superPAC funding in this election cycle has come from five (5) individuals? This is exactly what is happening.

Whammy wrote:As for Nader, $100 million probably would have helped him, although since that would have been during the primaries and Bush and Gore themselves didn't even spend that much, and since people would have been shocked that Nader's campaign was financed by one guy, and Nader himself favors public funding so he wouldn't have dared taken the money. But since he didn't even get near that much even with all his grassroot campaigning (did get 2.7% of the popular vote, which is good for a third party candidate that wasn't Teddy Roosevelt or Ross Perot) and media exposure (apparently the media was OBSESSED with why he was running in this election https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/burden2005.pdf ) shows maybe the reason Nader didn't do well was, well, people simply didn't like his message.

So money would have helped Nader then, yes? Ignore his policies, his stances, or his statements- $100 million going to a 3rd party candidate (magically, if need be) would make a big difference. Is it any surprise that the best performing non-major party candidate (Perot) in generations also happened to be a billionaire?

Whammy wrote:No, an individual may not hedge their bets by giving to more than one party, but organizations and corporations do.
[...]
Notice most of them, even if they lean one way, give some to other sides as well. And notice all the ones on the fences. Although I do find it surprising so many of them are Democratic leaning. Huh. Although, most of those seem to be unions so that shouldn't be surprising. Maybe we should be talking more about how unions are subverting the will of the people? XD

And I don't see much comparable amount of support for two competing candidates- they're giving to candidates on both sides that support their positions. I don't see any hedge betting. As for unions: can you find an example of me saying that union involvement in campaigns is any better? Good luck.

Whammy wrote:Actually, I can laugh cause Romney has been consistently hovering around 25% or so approval from Republicans for most of the race. Gingrich collapsed at the very beginning, did nothing for months, and then got a brief surge of popularity once most of the field had dropped out (and good debate performances) and all the anti-Romney votes went to him basically, did poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, won South Carolina (a highly conservative state that enjoyed some of his more inflammatory comments), lost Florida, then disappeared again. Romney...basically staying at where he's been at.

Romney's support has been consist, and so has his access to money. Gingrich's access to money has not been. Huh, I see a trend here, do you?

Whammy wrote:And guess what! Citizen's United DID NOT RELY ON CORPORATIONS=PEOPLE (that was only mentioned once in a dissenting opinion) or MONEY=SPEECH, and besides, the whole argument for that is simply that money is a necessary tool in order to engage in speech, unless the preferable situation is that people rely on the charity of a TV network to play a political ad.

"Likewise, the majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation’s ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak. One of the main changes to First Amendment law, announced by the majority, was the expansion of corporate rights recognized by the Court." (Here) I'm going to say that your interpretation of Citazens United is flawed.

Whammy wrote:Yeah...but neither is correct. Did you not even look at the report? It said MONEY HAD NO INFLUENCE. In close races, the person with LESS MONEY WON. In other races, it was effectively THE SAME. The money has been accounted for; it did nothing. The landslide was really a landslide spurred on by a bad economy, a conservative movement, backlash against controversial measures such as the Healthcare bill and the stimulus, etc etc.

You're reasoning is still completely flawed. The person with less money winning does not prevent money from being a significant influence. Especially when the money we're talking about is not the money that the candidates spent. You're ignoring the potential personal advantages of each individual candidate, incumbency, the electorate that made up their district or state... You're saying that money wasn't the sole determinant: so what? I have never said it was.

lutzj wrote:Person A devotes enough resources to person B's campaign that B wins an election.
[...]
Person A devotes enough resources to person B's campaign that B wins an election.

Where is the meaningful disanalogy here?

This is actually very easy: the resources being devoted. One is a human resource (time, energy, effort, application of intellect) the other is a monetary resource (money). They're quite different.

by **Malice** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:48 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Banning superPAC's would do little to curb rich people from influencing politics. Plutocrats still exert control over the mediums of communication, and there's nothing stopping a rich guy with power over Billboards from talking with a politicians and saying, "Send one of your people at 9am to make a request for a Billboard, and I'll conveninently have a 2-3 minute shortlived offer window where my price for a Billboard drops to negligible cost. My secretary will make sure to pretend like your guy was at the top of the line/had made a reservation for the time slot."

That is, you can't prevent rich people from using their money to influence an election. Super PAC's are just one of more loopholes/ambiguous activities people will exploit to see their interests asserted -- something will take the place of the super PAC when it becomes illegal.

Perhaps I can't prevent it; but I can make it harder and more transparent. Your scenario has as its basis somebody not just wealthy but already in control of media, spending as much effort/time arranging for a cheap Billboard as it currently takes anybody to write a check for a SuperPAC. I'd say that's absolutely an improvement, especially as it may be illegal (how does the law treat donations of goods and services to campaigns?), which is something you can't say about the SuperPACs.

Vaniver wrote:
Malice wrote:All individuals should have an equal opportunity to influence the process
Everybody gets one vote, but equal influence is impossible and tyrannical. Should popular people have to reduce their Facebook friend counts so their political status updates don't unduly influence too many people?

You're right--equal influence is impossible and tyrannical. That's why I said "equal opportunity to influence".

Show me a person who can singlehandedly destroy or sustain a candidate in the race via their Facebook page. Because clearly I need to friend them so I don't miss out.

Also, the difference between speaking to Facebook friends and donating to a campaign is that, by following you, your Facebook friends want to hear you speak; your former speech has earned you listeners. Nobody's asking for a bajillion pro-Gingrich ads except Gingrich.

Malice wrote:Without his single investor, Gingrich would almost certainly have dropped out, which would have changed subsequent vote totals, prevented him from appearing at debates, largely kept him out of the media, and changed the perception and tenor of the race. No one person should be able to do that; it's fundamentally undemocratic.
You realize that Gingrich is one person, right? It is fundamentally undemocratic that he has so much influence over his run?

As a voter I get to reject Gingrich if I don't like him. If he gets elected on a wave of votes and donations from around the country, I can accept that as part of living in a democracy. But I can neither reject nor accept Sheldon Adelson, because he's not running and he gets millions of dollars more say in the campaign than any other individual. That is fundamentally undemocratic.

by **lutzj** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:This is actually very easy: the resources being devoted. One is a human resource (time, energy, effort, application of intellect) the other is a monetary resource (money). They're quite different.

It's very easy to convert access to talent into money and vice-versa. What would you think about a brilliant campaign supporter whose only impact on the campaign is the securing of $5 million in donations from other party members?

by **Ghostbear** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:It's very easy to convert access to talent into money and vice-versa. What would you think about a brilliant campaign supporter whose only impact on the campaign is the securing of $5 million in donations from other party members?

But in that case you're hiring them for their human talents that get those donations. In the other case, someone is just giving you that money- because they like you personally, or your policies, or something else. They're still very different resources- in the pre Citizen's United world, that person would have to do a lot of campaign work to get you that $5 million, because it'd have to come from a lot of people (if it's going directly to the campaign, it'd take a minimum of 2,000 people). In the current setup, it only needs one person (two people have individually donated at least $5 million so far in the current cycle, and it's still gearing up).

The resources being "donated" to the campaign are still hugely different, even if one of them is able to be converted into money.

by **Lucrece** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:44 pm UTC

by **lutzj** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
lutzj wrote:It's very easy to convert access to talent into money and vice-versa. What would you think about a brilliant campaign supporter whose only impact on the campaign is the securing of $5 million in donations from other party members?

But in that case you're hiring them for their human talents that get those donations. In the other case, someone is just giving you that money- because they like you personally, or your policies, or something else. They're still very different resources- in the pre Citizen's United world, that person would have to do a lot of campaign work to get you that $5 million, because it'd have to come from a lot of people (if it's going directly to the campaign, it'd take a minimum of 2,000 people). In the current setup, it only needs one person (two people have individually donated at least $5 million so far in the current cycle, and it's still gearing up).

The resources being "donated" to the campaign are still hugely different, even if one of them is able to be converted into money.

I'm still not seeing the functional difference between $5 million of labor and $5 million of dollars.

Who is online