Billionaire Gives $5 MILLION to Gingrich Campaign

[GannonFan]

I disagree with the Court rulings that somehow corporations are "people"...

Do you mean that broadly, or only in the context of political free speech? The concept that corporations are "people" under the law has been extremely beneficial and ensconsed in American law for almost 200 years now - or, in other words, about 195 years before the Citizens case actually educated people that this is the prevailing view of the courts as it pertains to corporations.

[kalm]

How much time do they devote to fundraising vs. legislating? How much does the average congressman have to raise per day in order to be competitive? I think voters can still make good voting decisions while that money gets put to better use in the economy.

This will read as far more "know it all douchey" than I intend - for that I apologize in advance but...

As the one poster on this board who has worked for an incumbent member of Congress (on their re-elect effort) I assure you... they spend more time legislating BY FAR. In a given week, I was lucky if I got 3-5 hours of call time. I would sit in scheduling meetings with the district staff and they'd budget 85% of the Reps time to legislative... I got what was left. A few morning fundraisers, one evening a month, and a few pockets of call time each week. We got it done in that time - I also raised plenty on my own, but it was a pain in the ass.

This is one of those things where perception and reality have nothing to do with each other. I think you are under the impression (and I'm sure there's a Taibbi article that makes this claim) that all members do is whore for money... and occasionally represent their constituents... it's completely bogus. It has nothing to do with party either... the vast majority of members spend about 75-85% of their time taking meetings with constituent groups, working in committee, voting on the floor and receiving briefings - the rest is left to "campaign activity" which usually means a trip over to the DNC or RNC building and grinding out calls to donors (usually inviting them to an event... most pols can't or won't do straight cash calls) and then it's back to the official grind 3 hours later. (pols are also amazing in their ability to get out of call time)

Trust me when I say that while there are reps who truly love raising money (they are usually legends around the hill - at least among us hacks) the vast majority do it as little as they have to - and just want to get back to work.

As for how much per day? depends on the district. let's go with an extreme example on the high side and one on the low. take a freshman rep in a swing district for example - in a decent sized media market: you'd need to raise about $3 million to fend off the other side - especially if they are targeting you (and they probably are) which works out to around $4,000 a day. Every day. However, the max donation is $5,000 from individuals (2 $2500 donations in truth) and PACs can give $10,000 (2 $5000 donations). You can also raise $4,000 from other candidate committees.

So, you need 28k/wk. In theory. To run the hottest of Congressional races... It's not too terribly hard, given where the limits are, and if you're willing to work hard.

A safe incumbent can get by with $750k. or about $1,000/day... that's spit in the ocean... get PAC max and a couple of $500 donations and you are set for the week.

Not douchey at all, and thank you because that's why I asked the question. And I actually got put on that mind set by Bernie Sanders.

[kalm]

I disagree with the Court rulings that somehow corporations are "people"...

Do you mean that broadly, or only in the context of political free speech? The concept that corporations are "people" under the law has been extremely beneficial and ensconsed in American law for almost 200 years now - or, in other words, about 195 years before the Citizens case actually educated people that this is the prevailing view of the courts as it pertains to corporations.

Corporations are not people. Corporations can be extremely beneficial to America if they are regulated as such.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

However, the max donation is $5,000 from individuals (2 $2500 donations in truth) and PACs can give $10,000 (2 $5000 donations). You can also raise $4,000 from other candidate committees.

So how does a guy legally donate $5 million to a PAC that will almost certainly all go to Gingrich?

He isn't.

He's giving money to a super pac that is supporting gingrich, but that for legal purposes is not coordinating with gingrich. Now, if you want to roll your eyes at that... probably reasonable to do so, given that gingrich has indicated time and again that he knows what they are up to... it's hard to prove coordination, but generally campaigns are scared enough of the bad headlines that they eschew even the appearance of impropriety.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

So how does a guy legally donate $5 million to a PAC that will almost certainly all go to Gingrich?

The way I understand it, it's legal if Gingrich chooses to eschew federal funding. Stupid, I know....

not accurate at all.

All federal matching funds do is bind you to overall spending limits on Presidential campaigns... the individual donor limits are limits on the DONORS not the campaigns.

The matching funds program is so paltry that very few campaigns even bother with it anymore - it's destined to become a relic - which is as it should be... subsidizing campaigns is not the job of the government. (especially since it doesn't DO what it is intended to do - get money out of campaigns)

[AZGrizFan]

So how does a guy legally donate $5 million to a PAC that will almost certainly all go to Gingrich?

He isn't.

He's giving money to a super pac that is supporting gingrich, but that for legal purposes is not coordinating with gingrich. Now, if you want to roll your eyes at that... probably reasonable to do so, given that gingrich has indicated time and again that he knows what they are up to... it's hard to prove coordination, but generally campaigns are scared enough of the bad headlines that they eschew even the appearance of impropriety.

Ya think?

[kalm]

So how does a guy legally donate $5 million to a PAC that will almost certainly all go to Gingrich?

He isn't.

He's giving money to a super pac that is supporting gingrich, but that for legal purposes is not coordinating with gingrich. Now, if you want to roll your eyes at that... probably reasonable to do so, given that gingrich has indicated time and again that he knows what they are up to... it's hard to prove coordination, but generally campaigns are scared enough of the bad headlines that they eschew even the appearance of impropriety.

You're in too deep TTBF, pull out!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

He isn't.

He's giving money to a super pac that is supporting gingrich, but that for legal purposes is not coordinating with gingrich. Now, if you want to roll your eyes at that... probably reasonable to do so, given that gingrich has indicated time and again that he knows what they are up to... it's hard to prove coordination, but generally campaigns are scared enough of the bad headlines that they eschew even the appearance of impropriety.

Ya think?

funny thing is - until these superpacs came about - the wall of silence was generally pretty real...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

He isn't.

He's giving money to a super pac that is supporting gingrich, but that for legal purposes is not coordinating with gingrich. Now, if you want to roll your eyes at that... probably reasonable to do so, given that gingrich has indicated time and again that he knows what they are up to... it's hard to prove coordination, but generally campaigns are scared enough of the bad headlines that they eschew even the appearance of impropriety.

You're in too deep TTBF, pull out!

pfft... the same way Z knows all the flaws in banking/credit union regs that are exploited by the less than scrupulous elements in his industry - such is life in a line of work

[AZGrizFan]

You're in too deep TTBF, pull out!

pfft... the same way Z knows all the flaws in banking/credit union regs that are exploited by the less than scrupulous elements in his industry - such is life in a line of work

Sadly, yes.

[kalm]

Corporations are not people, money is not speech. As Bernie Sanders suggests here, you can't have these things and a functioning democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-berni ... 19573.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

Corporations are not people, money is not speech. As Bernie Sanders suggests here, you can't have these things and a functioning democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-berni ... 19573.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Continued tripe and nonsense. Money was flooding into campaigns, and will continue to flood into campaigns, with or without Citizens. And again, people seemed to be "shocked" that corporations are treated as people under the law in many respects, as if this is something new, and as if this is something that hasn't been the case for at least 200 years now. Our history classes are apparently not terribly effective. Again, overblown posturing trying to tie all that is wrong in the world to one, simple to understand, yet terribly misguided since it's a lot more complicated, position. That's a lot more damaging to a functioning democracy than any Court ruling is.

[Ivytalk]

Corporations are not people, money is not speech. As Bernie Sanders suggests here, you can't have these things and a functioning democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-berni ... 19573.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I DO believe in spooks! I DO believe in spooks! I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO!!!"

[kalm]

Corporations are not people, money is not speech. As Bernie Sanders suggests here, you can't have these things and a functioning democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-berni ... 19573.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Continued tripe and nonsense. Money was flooding into campaigns, and will continue to flood into campaigns, with or without Citizens. And again, people seemed to be "shocked" that corporations are treated as people under the law in many respects, as if this is something new, and as if this is something that hasn't been the case for at least 200 years now. Our history classes are apparently not terribly effective. Again, overblown posturing trying to tie all that is wrong in the world to one, simple to understand, yet terribly misguided since it's a lot more complicated, position. That's a lot more damaging to a functioning democracy than any Court ruling is.

It's gotten worse. The potential roi for investing in a politican hurts capitalism.

BTW, has anything changed over those 200 years regarding the way corporate rights and duties are regulated? How about the scope of their power?

[Ivytalk]

Continued tripe and nonsense. Money was flooding into campaigns, and will continue to flood into campaigns, with or without Citizens. And again, people seemed to be "shocked" that corporations are treated as people under the law in many respects, as if this is something new, and as if this is something that hasn't been the case for at least 200 years now. Our history classes are apparently not terribly effective. Again, overblown posturing trying to tie all that is wrong in the world to one, simple to understand, yet terribly misguided since it's a lot more complicated, position. That's a lot more damaging to a functioning democracy than any Court ruling is.

It's gotten worse. The potential roi for investing in a politican hurts capitalism.

BTW, has anything changed over those 200 years regarding the way corporate rights and duties are regulated? How about the scope of their power?

kalm, you should read Bradley Smith's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal (page A19) on the left's hysterical overreaction to, and willful misinterpretation of, the Citizens United ruling. You might even learn something.

Then again, maybe not.

[kalm]

It's gotten worse. The potential roi for investing in a politican hurts capitalism.

BTW, has anything changed over those 200 years regarding the way corporate rights and duties are regulated? How about the scope of their power?

kalm, you should read Bradley Smith's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal (page A19) on the left's hysterical overreaction to, and willful misinterpretation of, the Citizens United ruling. You might even learn something.

Then again, maybe not.

I did! I learned a lot!. For one, I learned that WSJ hacks should do better research. He brings up the De Fazio Art Robinson race as an example.

http://whoisartrobinson.defazioforcongress.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



DeFazion got money cause his opponent was a clown and nobody wanted him as a representative.

The author's point that it didn't change anything, glosses over the fact that spending increased a shit ton in the last election and the fact that the candidate who raises the most money wins about 90% of the time.

Even if he were right that the complaints amount to Dem's losing elections despite how much money they raised, and that's a stretch, looking through the grey colored lens of my awesome non-partisanship, that's still not a good thing for the country as a whole.

[Vidav]

To be fair I didn't read a single post in this thread. So if this is off base from where the conversation is, tough shit. However I recently read a bit in Freakonomics about how campaign spending doesn't influence elections nearly as much as you might think. Kind of interesting stuff.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/ ... cs-quorum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

To be fair I didn't read a single post in this thread. So if this is off base from where the conversation is, tough shit. However I recently read a bit in Freakonomics about how campaign spending doesn't influence elections nearly as much as you might think. Kind of interesting stuff.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/ ... cs-quorum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That could be true although didn't freakonomics come out awhile back? Spending seems to have really ramped up the last few years, and yes admittedly before Citizens United. But campaign results are only part of the equation. The other part is how that spending affects legislation and keep in mind that many of the larger donors back both horses.

[Vidav]

To be fair I didn't read a single post in this thread. So if this is off base from where the conversation is, tough shit. However I recently read a bit in Freakonomics about how campaign spending doesn't influence elections nearly as much as you might think. Kind of interesting stuff.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/ ... cs-quorum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That could be true although didn't freakonomics come out awhile back? Spending seems to have really ramped up the last few years, and yes admittedly before Citizens United. But campaign results are only part of the equation. The other part is how that spending affects legislation and keep in mind that many of the larger donors back both horses.

The book did come out a while ago, but that post was from 1/17/2012.

[kalm]

That could be true although didn't freakonomics come out awhile back? Spending seems to have really ramped up the last few years, and yes admittedly before Citizens United. But campaign results are only part of the equation. The other part is how that spending affects legislation and keep in mind that many of the larger donors back both horses.

The book did come out a while ago, but that post was from 1/17/2012.

Well shit, now I'm gonna have to read it.

[GannonFan]

To be fair I didn't read a single post in this thread. So if this is off base from where the conversation is, tough ****. However I recently read a bit in Freakonomics about how campaign spending doesn't influence elections nearly as much as you might think. Kind of interesting stuff.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/ ... cs-quorum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That could be true although didn't freakonomics come out awhile back? Spending seems to have really ramped up the last few years, and yes admittedly before Citizens United. But campaign results are only part of the equation. The other part is how that spending affects legislation and keep in mind that many of the larger donors back both horses.

Wait, so are you now implying that big money comes down on both sides of an election and therefore doesn't decide the elections, i.e. steal the voice from the people, as those who have so blindly been railing against Citizens United have been screaming about for two years? Your sidestep into legislation and away from elections would appear to indicate that as well. So, are you backing off the idea that corporations are buying elections?

[kalm]

That could be true although didn't freakonomics come out awhile back? Spending seems to have really ramped up the last few years, and yes admittedly before Citizens United. But campaign results are only part of the equation. The other part is how that spending affects legislation and keep in mind that many of the larger donors back both horses.

Wait, so are you now implying that big money comes down on both sides of an election and therefore doesn't decide the elections, i.e. steal the voice from the people, as those who have so blindly been railing against Citizens United have been screaming about for two years? Your sidestep into legislation and away from elections would appear to indicate that as well. So, are you backing off the idea that corporations are buying elections?

It's called hedging your bets, and it's anti-democratic and anti-libertarian.

[GannonFan]

Wait, so are you now implying that big money comes down on both sides of an election and therefore doesn't decide the elections, i.e. steal the voice from the people, as those who have so blindly been railing against Citizens United have been screaming about for two years? Your sidestep into legislation and away from elections would appear to indicate that as well. So, are you backing off the idea that corporations are buying elections?

It's called hedging your bets, and it's anti-democratic and anti-libertarian.

But how is it any different than it's been for 200 years or so? Remember, this was about how awful Citizens United was and how this decision has killed the American electoral process. How did it do that and how come, as the article pointed out, states with the same rules that Citizens United ushered in haven't had the electoral process wrecked?

[kalm]

It's called hedging your bets, and it's anti-democratic and anti-libertarian.

But how is it any different than it's been for 200 years or so? Remember, this was about how awful Citizens United was and how this decision has killed the American electoral process. How did it do that and how come, as the article pointed out, states with the same rules that Citizens United ushered in haven't had the electoral process wrecked?

The system was bad, CU made it worse.

http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and ... ars-later/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

But how is it any different than it's been for 200 years or so? Remember, this was about how awful Citizens United was and how this decision has killed the American electoral process. How did it do that and how come, as the article pointed out, states with the same rules that Citizens United ushered in haven't had the electoral process wrecked?

The system was bad, CU made it worse.

http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and ... ars-later/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please, that piece was junk. I automatically discount any essay talking about Citizens United when they bring up the Dred Scott decision as a reference point. Your link went out of its way to say that this wasn't as bad as Dred Scott, and then in the next paragraph talked about how it was similar.

All that piece did was say that money is run amok in elections. Gee, who would've thunk that. Good thing we didn't have excessive spending in campaigns (and outside of campaigns) before. If only we could find a time when money didn't matter in elections then we could go back to that Utopia that people seem to think existed before this ruling. Problem is, that Utopia never existed. Bummer.