Saturday, October 09, 2010

Just Made Some Political Donations

I don't usually donate money to political candidates, but the stakes are pretty high in this election so I decided to put my money where my mouth is. I broke out the web browser and the plastic and had a little fun.

Donations aren't bets on who we think will win, they're an attempt to influence who will win. So I looked at 2 US Senate races that are important to me, and even though they would be risky bets in Vegas, I'm hoping to play a small role in helping these candidates get over the top.

So Carly Fiorina in California and Sharron Angle in Nevada, I raise a toast (and my Visa card!) to you.

15 comments:

MikeAT said...

A couple of months ago Sharon Angle was on radio and said "Harry Reid has 25 million....I need a million people to give me 25 dollars and we can run the race..."

I sent her 25 bucks that night.

What scares leftists is that people who generally don’t involve themselves in elections (other than voting) are actually getting off their asses and writing checks, making phone call for canidaes, etc.

Kinda weird that professional politicians like B Hussein Obama, Reid, et all say they like it when “the people” are involved with campiagns….oh, wait, they mean the “rent a mobs” they pay and the zombies who rise on the first Tuesday of November…

Thanks Darren for participating a bit more in democracy! I know Harry Reid and Jerry Brown are glad to see a citizen like your getting involved! :<)

Next paycheck I'll send Christine O'Donnell a few bucks...

mazenko said...

Completely opposed to paying candidates - it's legalized bribery. Never have done it, never will.

I would support equal access public funding, and mandates that the networks provide time.

There is absolutely no way that the Founding Fathers ever considered money to candidates to fund advertising as "free speech." That's hogwash, and it is not in the best interest of the republic.

Doug said...

Public funding?!?! Are you serious? And mandating time - like, Dem's get early morning news and prime time and GOP gets mid-morning and late night? The current set-up is terrible too, because the deeper pockets can spend more, thus spread more propoganda, er, I mean, information. Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman are both examples here in CA. They both are playing politics instead of sticking to the facts. They are both playing the game! Meg is right that JB is about taxes, and JB is right that Meg is a capitalist at heart. So, which do the people of CA want more? Taxes or getting the state back into the black? If I had $any expendable income, I would send it to Fiorina and any other candidates that are conservative (not just GOP).

Anonymous said...

Makenzo nailed it.

MikeAT said...

I’m not paying Sharon Angle…I’m supporting her campaign and campaigns cost money. And unlike “support equal access public funding” it’s done by choice, not my taking my money by force.

I would support equal access public funding, and mandates that the networks provide time.

Questions, will you support “mandates” on the New York Times, Washington Post, etc that they provide “equal access” to both republicans and democrats? Will you mandate that every embarrassing story on a democrat politician mention his party at least every other time his name is mentioned? God knows Republican Party scandals have that. Personally I would not…minor thing called the Right to a Free Press.

There is absolutely no way that the Founding Fathers ever considered money to candidates to fund advertising as "free speech." That's hogwash, and it is not in the best interest of the republic.

I really am astonished I’m hearing something akin to strict constructionism from you Makenzo. What is free speech then? Standing in a park and screaming “America Sucks”? Publishing flyers saying “Vote for Bush” or “Vote for Clinton” or “Obama Sucks”? I think it’s fair to say the Founding Fathers wanted a robust debate in this country and they definitely did not want federal control of speech.

Makenzo how about a solution that actually works. Now I’m going to ask you accept reality so get a hold of yourself. Money is the lifeblood of campaigning, it’s like water and it will find a way in. Has McCain-Feingold done anything to stop it? The answer is no. BTY, your man-child B Hussein Obama is going around it by a lot of prepaid credit card donations for less than 200 bucks. Source: A right wing paper called the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html). But one thing politicians of both parties hate is sunlight so how about this. Eliminate all soft money (which is being used to hide support for candidates) and allow unlimited hard money contributions. Then post them on the internet within 24 hours. Politicians of both parties take money from special interest (also known as the American people). Voters can look at who is paying the bills and make a judgment accordingly. We can kill off thousands of bureaucrats who’s only justification for being is controlling political speech, err excuse me, campaign finance regulation and see what’s really going on with. Problem solved completely, no, but a damned sight better than what we got now. Simple and open.

mazenko said...

Again, never given money, never will. Legalized bribery. Not good for the republic. Not the intention of the Founding Fathers.

MikeAT said...

I know Mike...you said that earlier.

mazenko said...

That's why I said "again," you having missed my point the first time. But thanks for playing.

MikeAT said...

Yes Mike we got the fact you want federal control of elections. That’s clear.

But I do have one question. In your liberal mindset, world view, whatever you call it, donating money is “legalized bribery”. What if I donate my time? It’s worth money. It’s a representation of my labor. Say I worked the phone bank for four hours. Using a service will cost at least 40 bucks so I have donated 40 dollars worth of my labor. Am I bribing the candidate?

mazenko said...

I didn't say I "want" federal control of elections - though we have republic-sponsored oversight and regulation, which is integral to the republic ... just ask Kenya for another viewpoint. I simply would prefer it to the current system of bribery. As to your question, ask yourself if you're bribing the candidate.

MikeAT said...

makenzo, you “didn't say I 'want' federal control of elections”

Well, you said “I would support equal access public funding, and mandates that the networks provide time.” Who pays the bill? Oh yes, the federal government. If they pay the bill, they control it. And who mandates the networks? That would be something between the Federal Elections Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. Gee, do I see a pattern…oh yes, federal.

“As to your question, ask yourself if you're bribing the candidate.” You're dodging the question…you must be real unsure of yourself. No Mike, I don’t talk to myself much, I’m asking you. Is donation of my labor a bribe under you perverted leftist view? The answer is Yes or No. Please choose and explain your thinking.

mazenko said...

Obviously, the government - state, local, and federal - already regulates the elections, as they should. No surprises there.

In terms of campaign finance, "volunteering time" and actually "speaking" about the candidate is certainly reasonable. If you get on a phone or go to a supermarket or stand in the town square and "speak" about a candidate, your actions could certainly qualify as the "freedom of speech" that was enshrined in the Constitution.

That's not the same as simply giving someone money in hopes they will reciprocate. The difference seems pretty clear to me.

Darren said...

I'm not giving them money because I think they'll reciprocate. I've determined that their beliefs are somewhat in line with mine, and I want their beliefs, and not those of the other guy, to be the ones that govern.

MikeAT said...

Thank you Darren for that point…you beat me to it. But I think we are going to get to a break through here

In terms of campaign finance, "volunteering time" and actually "speaking" about the candidate is certainly reasonable. If you get on a phone or go to a supermarket or stand in the town square and "speak" about a candidate, your actions could certainly qualify as the "freedom of speech" that was enshrined in the Constitution.

That's not the same as simply giving someone money in hopes they will reciprocate. The difference seems pretty clear to me.


If I’m a multi billionaire and I want to support B Hussein Obama with my money for no reason than I want him elected as President can’t I do that? Or can you only believe that with George Soros? More specifically, what is the cross over from simple donation to support a candidate because I support him to I’m buying a candidate? 100?...1000?...10000?...100000?...more? The day you can give me a specific amount I’ll agree with you. But you never can.

More to the point the left, including RINOs like McCain and Graham are trying to regulate how much I can support a candidate…in other words, indirectly, how much speech I can have. That is in no way Constitutional. Recall the five most beautiful words in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law”.

I’ll say it again, money will find a way in…the best solution is openness. Let people donate what they want and post it on the Internet. If that was in effect in 2008 we might have an idea how much money Soros put into Obama’s campaign.

mazenko said...

Fair point, Mike.

I don't refute the merit of unlimited but open access. Certainly, that would be in some ways preferable to what we have now.

However, Jefferson and Co. were far more concerned about avoiding oligarchy than they were about tyranny.

So, my own convictions come from that founding ideal. And society today is at far greater risk of oligarchy than it is tyranny.