Koch Bros. to spend $900 million to get Republican in the White House

Nick McIntyre | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Nick McIntyre92
PSN: NicholasMcIntyre
Steam: Nick McIntyre
ID: Nick McIntyre
IP: Logged

3,143 posts
 
Quote
David Koch said Saturday that he and his brother Charles plan to support more than one Republican's presidential campaign this year, but they are not ready to announce who they are backing.

"We are thinking of supporting several Republicans," the billionaire Republican supporter said on The Larry Kudlow Show. Koch said the support will likely come in "the primary season, winter and next spring" and will be determined based on the policies the hopefuls back.

"If we're happy with the policies that these individuals are supporting, we will finance their campaigns," Koch told Kudlow.

The brothers are reportedly planning a massive $900 million strategy to put a Republican in the White House in 2016, including a $125 million budget next year for its flagship Americans for Prosperity, in an effort described as "beyond the biggest, boldest, broadest effort AFP has ever undertaken.
Koch himself was a candidate in the 1980 election, when he ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket as Ed Clark's running mate. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/us/politics/quixotic-80-campaign-gave-birth-to-kochs-powerful-network.html

Koch told Kudlow the experience was "wonderful" but since that time, he and his brother have shifted their influence to the Republican ticket, where "we do our best to find outstanding public candidates. We think that we've done a good job in many ways, and we're going to continue to support free market Republicans."

He's often been referred to as a "fiscal conservative and a social liberal," Kudlow pointed out, with Koch agreeing with that assessment.

With social issues, "individuals should conduct themselves in a proper way...and don't force people to do things they don't want to do," said Koch.

This year, Koch said, he'd like to see "a broad range of Republicans" voting for candidates, as long as people of "stature and quality" can be elected.

....yeah, it's DEFINITELY fiscally conservative to spend $900 fucking million dollars on a White House campaign.


This disgusted me.  It's not uncommon knowledge that money fuels our politics, but I still couldn't help but feel my skin crawl while reading this.


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
the marriage between politics and big money in this country is fucking disgusting.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
But when Obama does it, it's okay.


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
Not a surprise at all, unfortunately.

Politics in this country are freaking horrible. You need to market yourself as pro-big money to get anywhere politically in the US.


Nick McIntyre | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Nick McIntyre92
PSN: NicholasMcIntyre
Steam: Nick McIntyre
ID: Nick McIntyre
IP: Logged

3,143 posts
 
But when Obama does it, it's okay.

Don't believe I said that.


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
But when Obama does it, it's okay.
no it wasnt.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
But when Obama does it, it's okay.
no it wasnt.

Why not?
you know good and god damn well why not.

Nope. I'd like you to articulate why it's wrong for people to spend money on campaigns.


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
But when Obama does it, it's okay.
no it wasnt.

Why not?
you know good and god damn well why not.

Nope. I'd like you to articulate why it's wrong for people to spend money on campaigns.
dont twist my words around. it's wrong for political action committees and lobbyists to donate disproportionately large sums of money to the politicians of their choice because it weakens the ability of the common man to influence the races and it incentivizes the politicians to ignore the common will in favor of the will of the power elite.

dont play coy with me. its unbecoming.
Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 09:31:04 PM by Azumarill


Lord Starch | Ascended Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Lord Starch
IP: Logged

1,278 posts
 
They could be potentially wasting a lot of money. There's a pattern where the party in office switches almost with each new president. People have already expressed their dislike for the Obama administration and like always, the party in power is to blame for problems. Regardless it's pretty unfair since the candidate with the most money tends to do well in the race. It's disappointing


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
But when Obama does it, it's okay.
no it wasnt.

Why not?
you know good and god damn well why not.

Nope. I'd like you to articulate why it's wrong for people to spend money on campaigns.
Cause a tiny group of people have a greatly disproportionate influence the outcome of elections, and then all future people who wish to be elected will rely on that money. So it's a vicious cycle where you need more and more big corporate backing to win elections, because you need more and more money to respond to the fact that the people you're competing against get more and more money. 2012's Presidential election has had the highest campaign costs yet.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
dont twist my words around. it's wrong for political action committees and lobbyists to donate disproportionately large sums of money to the politicians of their choice because it weakens the ability of the common man to influence the races and it incentivizes the politicians to ignore the common will in favor of the will of the power elite.

dont play coy with me. its unbecoming.

I'm not twisting your words around; I'm asking you to justify your statement. How does a massive donation influence the common man's ability to influence the races? It doesn't change the voting power of each individual. How would you regulate campaign finances if you had the power to do so?


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
dont twist my words around. it's wrong for political action committees and lobbyists to donate disproportionately large sums of money to the politicians of their choice because it weakens the ability of the common man to influence the races and it incentivizes the politicians to ignore the common will in favor of the will of the power elite.

dont play coy with me. its unbecoming.

I'm not twisting your words around; I'm asking you to justify your statement. How does a massive donation influence the common man's ability to influence the races? It doesn't change the voting power of each individual. How would you regulate campaign finances if you had the power to do so?
the massive donations by the power elite are easy to get (pandering), outweighing the effort a politician needs to put out to create an equitable pool of donations through grassroots organization. the contributions that people like the kochs can make are a perfect example. if it werent easier to pander to the PACs, then the politicians would focus more on grassroots funding, which they quite obviously don't do.

i cant create a perfect solution, but i would ban all forms of public campaign contributions (kicking PACs and lobbyists out of Washington) and set aside a reasonable government-funded stipend for a brief campaign period (less than 6 months). no tv ads. each major party gets the same amount of funding and the smaller parties would get equitable funding as well. id set up government-backed websites publicly exposing candidates' voting records and accounts of all of their statements on each "hot topic" (like ontheissues). public turnout would be drummed up by having tightly regulated, substantive televised debates on each hot button issue.

ideally, i would abolish political parties altogether, but the logistical strain involved in such an act is beyond my ability to decipher.

im not the guy for the job, and there's a lot i could do to fix my existing ideas, but there's a serious problem with politicians being in the pockets of big money, and we have to address it somehow.

i dont know what kind of game you're playing here. im beginning to think you're playing devil's advocate.
Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 09:50:55 PM by Azumarill


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
there's more i could do and a lot i could do to fix my existing ideas, but there's a serious problem with politicians being in the pockets of big money, and we have to address it.

Definitely. I would like to see all donations go into a pool to be allocated equally, but I'm not really sure how that would look, and I think it would reduce the amount of donations (though the government could subsidize it). Or maybe pool all of them, but give the candidates a percentage of each one donated in their name or party. For example, if I donated $1,000 to Clinton, she would get, say, 10% of that, then the rest would be sent to the pool. If there were 4 democratic candidates, then she would get the 10%, plus 25% of that remaining 90%, so $325, whereas the other democratic candidates would get $225 each. If Clinton wasn't chosen as the candidate, all of her remaining funds would be put back into the primary candidates' pool and the process would renew.


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
there's more i could do and a lot i could do to fix my existing ideas, but there's a serious problem with politicians being in the pockets of big money, and we have to address it.

Definitely. I would like to see all donations go into a pool to be allocated equally, but I'm not really sure how that would look, and I think it would reduce the amount of donations (though the government could subsidize it). Or maybe pool all of them, but give the candidates a percentage of each one donated in their name or party. For example, if I donated $1,000 to Clinton, she would get, say, 10% of that, then the rest would be sent to the pool. If there were 4 democratic candidates, then she would get the 10%, plus 25% of that remaining 90%, so $325, whereas the other democratic candidates would get $225 each. If Clinton wasn't chosen as the candidate, all of her remaining funds would be put back into the primary candidates' pool and the process would renew.
pooling public donations is an intuitive idea that i hadnt considered before. i like it.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
pooling public donations is an intuitive idea that i hadnt considered before. i like it.

I imagine neither party would support it, and they'd defend it with the first amendment, though I think it doesn't interfere with free speech because of the percentage cut each party or candidate would get, and the actual numbers for each candidate could be publicized, as another metric of public opinion (though obviously it's skewed against small donations).


Nick McIntyre | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Nick McIntyre92
PSN: NicholasMcIntyre
Steam: Nick McIntyre
ID: Nick McIntyre
IP: Logged

3,143 posts
 
pooling public donations is an intuitive idea that i hadnt considered before. i like it.

I imagine neither party would support it, and they'd defend it with the first amendment, though I think it doesn't interfere with free speech because of the percentage cut each party or candidate would get, and the actual numbers for each candidate could be publicized, as another metric of public opinion (though obviously it's skewed against small donations).

Isn't the First Amendment what the Supreme Court Justices (Bought-And-Paid-For) declared when ruling the unlimited spending shit?


Dan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Daniel Fortesque
IP: Logged

2,359 posts
 
How do you get money out of politics?


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
How do you get money out of politics?
You appeal to corporate backers, and then they give you lots of money to buy your loyalty and get you elected. Simple as that.


Dan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Daniel Fortesque
IP: Logged

2,359 posts
 
How do you get money out of politics?
You appeal to corporate backers, and then they give you lots of money to buy your loyalty and get you elected. Simple as that.
I meant how do you stop the influence of money on politics.


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
How do you get money out of politics?
You appeal to corporate backers, and then they give you lots of money to buy your loyalty and get you elected. Simple as that.
I meant how do you stop the influence of money on politics.
Wait. Ah, I thought you meant how people got money from politics...

Well, I guess you could add strict limits for how much money individuals/corporations can give to a candidate. That'd be a great idea, but *no*. Enough of the legislators are bought out to the point where making such legislation would be impossible.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
pooling public donations is an intuitive idea that i hadnt considered before. i like it.

I imagine neither party would support it, and they'd defend it with the first amendment, though I think it doesn't interfere with free speech because of the percentage cut each party or candidate would get, and the actual numbers for each candidate could be publicized, as another metric of public opinion (though obviously it's skewed against small donations).

Isn't the First Amendment what the Supreme Court Justices (Bought-And-Paid-For) declared when ruling the unlimited spending shit?

Yeah, but I still think it's feasible.


 
Luciana
| Mythic Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Luciana
IP: Logged

13,232 posts
 
Meanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.

Oh how I wish America wasn't so far behind.


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
Meanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.

Oh how I wish America wasn't so far behind.
Stop making me jelly. :^(


King pesto | Ascended Posting Frenzy
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Sargon of Akkad
IP: Logged

382 posts
 
Obviously the problem is that people have money and are allowed to use it.


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
Meanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.

Oh how I wish America wasn't so far behind.
the daily show did a funny bit about this

YouTube


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
Obviously the problem is that people have money and are allowed to use it.
You're seriously defending this? This is exactly what allows the extremely corrupt and self-serving people to get into power.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,686 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Not Comms Officer | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: CAESAR JIHADIVS
ID: CAESAR JIHADIVS
IP: Logged

4,725 posts
Khilafah420
Meanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.
Same.
For candidates or for parties?

Or both?