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.htmlKoch 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.
But when Obama does it, it's okay.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 08:54:42 PMBut when Obama does it, it's okay.no it wasnt.
Quote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:16:13 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 08:54:42 PMBut when Obama does it, it's okay.no it wasnt.Why not?
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 09:20:13 PMQuote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:16:13 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 08:54:42 PMBut when Obama does it, it's okay.no it wasnt.Why not?you know good and god damn well why not.
Quote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:23:23 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 09:20:13 PMQuote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:16:13 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 08:54:42 PMBut 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.
Quote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:30:00 PMdont 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?
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.
Quote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:45:32 PMthere'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.
Quote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:53:01 PMpooling 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).
How do you get money out of politics?
Quote from: Daniel on May 23, 2015, 10:26:24 PMHow 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.
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 23, 2015, 10:29:11 PMQuote from: Daniel on May 23, 2015, 10:26:24 PMHow 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.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 23, 2015, 09:55:49 PMQuote from: Azumarill on May 23, 2015, 09:53:01 PMpooling 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?
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.
Obviously the problem is that people have money and are allowed to use it.
Quote from: Luciana on May 24, 2015, 12:06:27 AMMeanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.Same.
Meanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.
Koch Bros. to spend $900 million to get Republican in the White House
