Koch brothers to spend $900 million on 2016 elections

[Del Tachi]

Liberals are mad because money in politics. But didn't they just spend more money in the 2014 election cycle and get pummeled?

Also, this elitist notion that the Kochs "buy" elections is getting old, as if people don't decide for themselves, they just vote based on what advertisements say.

[TTS1996]

Can't seem to quote a locked thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

May not be meant entirely seriously.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Liberals are mad because money in politics. But didn't they just spend more money in the 2014 election cycle and get pummeled?

Also, this elitist notion that the Kochs "buy" elections is getting old, as if people don't decide for themselves, they just vote based on what advertisements say.

This x 1000.

[Boston Bread]

Yes, this won't be a big difference. Total pro-Romney spending including pacs outnumbered pro-Obama ones in 2012, and 2014 which had higher D spending on Senate races saw turnout crater nonetheless.
But I'd say Democrats having enough money to counter it doesn't make the situation any better. Liberals should be mad about money in politics regardless of which side has more cash, because a democratic party relying on Bloomberg-style mega-donors prevents their politicians from supporting the necessary measures to curtail Wall Street excess, corporatism, etc, that would actually help the middle class which they claim to stand for. Instead Democrats need the cash so they have to not offend their donors.

[RR1997]

Liberals are mad because money in politics. But didn't they just spend more money in the 2014 election cycle and get pummeled?

Also, this elitist notion that the Kochs "buy" elections is getting old, as if people don't decide for themselves, they just vote based on what advertisements say.

This x 1000.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How much did they spend last time?  I think it wasn't nearly that much. On the other hand campaign spending as a whole will probably be drastically greater.

[Beet]

It's true that money doesn't always buy elections... up to a point. For example, a lot of super PACs just splurged on ads in 2012/2014 when academic research shows that face-to-face interaction is more effective at getting the vote out. That makes it look like money is ineffective. But they were just doing it wrong. Over time, they will learn. If you increase the amount of money enough, and extend it out for a long enough period of time, I believe you can buy elections, and the outcomes you want.

Republicans are happy because the Koch Brothers are spending for them, and Democrats would be happy if it were George Soros spending for them. We're all okay with the billionaires as long as they're our billionaires. Over the long run though, this has nothing to do with party politics.

[Brittain33]

It's true, the idea you can "buy elections" is such a myth that the Koch brothers have somehow decided it's worth nearly a billion dollars of their money to waste.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm willing to believe that a large number of people are so uninformed and unthinking that they can be convinced by ads, but that's more of an argument against democracy than anything else.

[IceSpear]

The people acting like you can't buy elections in this thread are being very disingenuous. There's tons of examples on the Republican side, but just to deflect the inevitable "partisan hack blah blah" response, I'll give another example. Just look at Tom Wolf, who went from a nobody polling at 1% to completely demolishing a field of Democrats in the primary then unseating the incumbent governor. This wouldn't have been possible without his ability to self fund.

[Cory]

Would you rather the Koch brothers merely keep the money for themselves?

I'd rather they die slowly and painfully, hopefully somehow relating to that money.

[RFayette]

The people acting like you can't buy elections in this thread are being very disingenuous. There's tons of examples on the Republican side, but just to deflect the inevitable "partisan hack blah blah" response, I'll give another example. Just look at Tom Wolf, who went from a nobody polling at 1% to completely demolishing a field of Democrats in the primary then unseating the incumbent governor. This wouldn't have been possible without his ability to self fund.

Money helps far more in primaries than general elections. 

Religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, has helped keep the GOP from going extinct.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The people acting like you can't buy elections in this thread are being very disingenuous. There's tons of examples on the Republican side, but just to deflect the inevitable "partisan hack blah blah" response, I'll give another example. Just look at Tom Wolf, who went from a nobody polling at 1% to completely demolishing a field of Democrats in the primary then unseating the incumbent governor. This wouldn't have been possible without his ability to self fund.

While money helped him in the primary, it didn't matter in the general. John Edwards would have defeated Corbett.

[The_Doctor]

The people acting like you can't buy elections in this thread are being very disingenuous. There's tons of examples on the Republican side, but just to deflect the inevitable "partisan hack blah blah" response, I'll give another example. Just look at Tom Wolf, who went from a nobody polling at 1% to completely demolishing a field of Democrats in the primary then unseating the incumbent governor. This wouldn't have been possible without his ability to self fund.

Sure but he would have lost if not for the Penn State scandal. Money means more in primaries rather than general elections. It's also debatable if he would have won the nomination if a more well known Pennsylvania Democrat had run.

There are tons of examples of people who spend a ton of money and lose.  You still have to win the support of voters. Money can make getting your message out easier but it can't save a bad message.  Romney 2012 is a great example of this.

[free my dawg]

Snowstalker did nothing wrong.

[Sbane]

Guys, guys. Money in politics doesn't hurt the Democrats or the Republicans. It hurts America. I hope everyone from all partisan backgrounds can agree with this, unless you are a fan of an oligarchy.

Also, money is definitely much more influential at the state/local level as well as in primaries. That doesn't make it any less of a big deal though! The presidency and the senate aren't the only important elected officials in this country.

[pbrower2a]

Liberals are mad because money in politics. But didn't they just spend more money in the 2014 election cycle and get pummeled?

Also, this elitist notion that the Kochs "buy" elections is getting old, as if people don't decide for themselves, they just vote based on what advertisements say.

It's the Orwellian propaganda that Americans for Prosperity (a Koch front group) belches out into the media that debases democracy.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-donors-marco-rubio-2016-114673.html#ixzz3Q8meYa96

They want a pure plutocracy with no libertarian claptrap about free markets. They want America to be a land of high prices, low wages, brutal management, and no economic security except for a rapacious elite. Freedom means the right of elites to command and the duty of others to suffer for the greed of the elites.

It's the Marxist stereotype of capitalist plutocracy.   

[Mr. Illini]

Liberals are mad because money in politics. But didn't they just spend more money in the 2014 election cycle and get pummeled?

Also, this elitist notion that the Kochs "buy" elections is getting old, as if people don't decide for themselves, they just vote based on what advertisements say.

This x 1000.

Ignoring how politics actually works. Just because you aren't physically buying elections and just because people still have free choice doesn't mean money can't put a candidate at an overwhelming advantage.