How Citizens United helped Scott Walker win in Wisconsin
By tovarichpeter Follow Thu, 7 Jun 2012, 10:21am 2,183 views 33 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Viewing Comments 1-33 of 33 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
There's no question, whoever has the biggest war chest wins elections.
There are exceptions, like if the parrot gets caught picking up guys in airport restrooms or something, but in general it's been true for a long time.
Follow
Befriend
34 threads
2,098 comments
I guess another good question is ask me how much I really care about rust-belt politics?
Follow
Befriend (13)
102 threads
3,762 comments
Vicente says
Why did Meg Whitman lose to Jerry Brown? Money wasn't even close, Meg had him by a wide margin.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
FortWayne says
I already noted exceptions. She's equivalent to Larry Craig, someone who stepped on their own dick so to speak. Meg was doing fine until that illegals-in-the-closet thing came up, and she handled it badly.
Follow
Befriend
34 threads
2,098 comments
Ruki says
Again- I could care less what goes on in rust belt states. I live in California. We ain't the Midwest...
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
FortWayne says
Some people are much less palatable to the voters that others. Money always tips the scales, but in some cases a lot more money may be required.
Mitt is a great example because he is -- as some conservatives believe -- an anti-christian cultist who may well be the antichrist. In some of the states Mitt had to spend around 10 times what his opponents were just to eek by with a victory. He could have had 2 or 3 times the money in those states and I think he would have lost.
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
Walker beat Barrett 2 years ago by 5 points even though Walker raised only slightly more than Barrett in that cycle.
Walker raised alot more money this time around while the foolish unions and Democrats fought over their primary candidate, but Walker only won by 6 points this time.
So all that extra money Walker raised only increased his win by one whole point. This suggests that money has less influence than some are trying to spin.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
socal2 says
Or it suggests it took 8 TIMES the money as last time, to counter all the bad PR he had generated with his actions. Yes, Virginia, enough propaganda airtime can bury your doodoo so deep people forget about it.
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
Vicente says
Bad PR? You mean all the dirty hippies banging pots and pans like the OWS losers were supposed to be bad for Walker?
Or do you mean the all the good news where Wisconsin didn't have to fire any teachers, didn't have to raise taxes and balanced the budget thanks to Walker's reforms?
Do you suppose the Democrat Mayor of San Jose was using dirty Koch money to help pass pension reform laws that passed by 70% in California too?
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,071 comments
FortWayne says
Money is a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning elections.
The Meg Whitman situation is not proof that if the money were even in Wisconsin, with equal air time, that Walker would not have won.
Personally, I think the fact that the recall election happened is a minor voctory for the "not so extreme right."
Follow
Befriend
4 comments
Los Angeles, CA
I guess so. The powerful wins the election.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
The losers hoped to win and get free unlimited annuity payments from the taxpayer. Those who actually pay taxes understood and voted accordingly.
There are 3 kinds of voters in any election: 1. losers who want money 2. weirdos who want to pick someone's pocket to give to #1. 3. The taxyaper that 1&2 want to take from.
I react the exact same way to someone who votes to take my money as someone who tries to take it from me on the street: I would kick his ass if I have the chance.
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
Ruki says
Here's what it means, spelled out for those of you too stupid or arrogant in your gloating over how your team won to understand:
"The Rot of Citizens United Is Universal. Get Used to It. Even smallest campaigns affecting anything to do with corporate power, which is practically everything, will be "swamped by anonymous cash laundered through bagmen organized under the banner of some nobly monickered political whorehouse." (esquire.com)
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/citizens-united-local-elections-9479327
I'm sorry to put it this way but I can't but see anything other than outright stupidity on your part in that you're so thrilled to have your 'team' winning on this issue but fail to see the larger ramifications of what this means. You people always claim to be so supportive of 'people power', individual's rights etc, etc but then you side with corporate power every time in it's continuing effort to suppress of those rights.
I have trouble actually believing you understand your own mind on these issues. At all.
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
Vicente says
-------------------------------------
I'd like to look at the $$ spent on Title 8, or Question 8 in CA a couple of years ago concerning gay marriage. I would think a TON of money was spent by the Left, more than the right, and IIRC, the voters voted against gay marriage......only to have the democratic process crushed by activist judges. I plead ignorance, in that I don't know the $$ spent, but I'd imagine the Left spent more, and the people weren't convinced.
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
Vicente says
---------------------------
Martha Coakley vs Scott Brown in the MA Senate race...Dems spent more, and "marsha" lost. This statement is very weak.....Face it, voters first hand saw how Walker carried through on his initial campaign promise. He turned a 2 Billion dollar deficit into a surplus, lowered taxes that voters could see and feel. The message that they listened to was in their wallets, not what they saw on TV or heard on the radio.
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
Vicente says
---------------------
I think everyone on this board needs to read FREAKONIMICS by Levitt and Dubner. It dispells the 'money always wins elections' theory with statistics, facts, and history.
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
kentm says
-------------------------------------------
Kentm, I don't accept your premise that I'm stupid or ignorant in celebrating Walker's recall win.....When it comes to 'corporate power', do you mean the union dues that are funnelled in to the Democrats campaign coffers to defeat Brown? Because it pretty easy to see that public unions in particular are corrupting the voting process. It's a vicious cycle that they'd love to perpetuate. Well, the curtain has been drawn back, and exposed them for what they are. Can you explain how the Wisonsin Teacher's union lost what, 40% of their ranks? The union (NOT the teachers) doesn't give a fuck about the kids, and the teachers know it. It's why they are leaving in droves. They (the union, not teachers) only care about their free retirement and free health care. If it makes you feel better calling me ignorant and stupid because I'm happy the voters called bullshit on this rigged game, so be it.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,071 comments
AverageBear says
AverageBear says
If you really believe that collective bargaining for public workers has given teachers such excessive salary benefits you might want to do some research. I have found that most people who complain about pensions have no idea what they are. Although they do vary by state and by city, the big problem is politicians not funding them properly, leading to cumulative underfunded liabilities.
It is true that our standard of living has dropped so much that at this point those govt employee benefits are now looking good to a lot of people.
But the problem is our political system and the desperate need politicians have for money to run. The unions have sometimes been stupid, in not worrying more about sustainability of benefits - and in trusting promises that were unrealistic or not being kept on the govt side.
AverageBear says
You're ignorant because you don't realize that what you think is a good outcome is in fact another step in the direction of lower standard of living for all workers.
Think about it. In a healthy system we should be able to keep public employee benefits from getting out of hand, while retaining collective bargaining. What, you want being a firemen or a teacher to be so unnatractive that we no longer have good people going in to those fields ?
Blaming unions for our broken political system is indeed very short sighted and stupid.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Marcus, Marcus, Marcus, this is not about a lower standard of living for all workers. It's about putting an end to lavish retirement's on the publics dime. The average Joe is tired of pulling someone else's wagon.
Using a favorite slogan from the Dumbocrats playbook, the Wisconson voter just "WANTS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD".
Or in case you don't understand that, they just "WANT TO MAKE THINGS FAIR". Or this: "THEY WANT EQUALITY".
Surely those catchy phrases resonate with your inner child.
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
marcus says
San Diego's annual pension cost has increased from $26 million in 1996 to $231 million today.
How on earth is that sustainable?
Admit it, these types of pensions FOR LIFE where they pay 80%+ of their last year salary can never work. Its just simple math.
City A hires 10 workers to run the City. After 30 years, all 10 employees retire receiving nearly their full salary and health benefits for the next 50 years while City A has to hire and pay another 10 workers to replace the retired folks. Essentially City A's payroll doubles and keeps growing after each round of retirements.
How can this work ever?
This is the same basic fundamental that caused GM to go bankrupt. The majority of GM's annual operating costs went to pay for their retired employees.......many who got to retire in their early 50's. Some GM workers only had to work 30 years to recieve up to 40-50 years of fat retirement.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
socal2 says
They must be drinking from the Fountain of Health then in some Alternate America. So let's assume they skipped college and managed to get this great job at 18, and stay with it for 30 years, now they are 48. So they'd need to live to 98 to collect that whole 50 years you talk about.
In my America, statistically lifespan is 75 for males and 80 for females. And in fact quite a lot of people do not start their career straight out of high school, nor manage to remain in one career for 30 years.
My ex-boss was so fat she'd pop a sweat and have to sit down after climbing a flight of stairs. She made it through 20+ retired early, then dropped dead about 2 years later. Worked with another guy at about year 29 was found dead slumped over his desk.
It amuses me to see y'all panicking about retirement payouts when medical costs are a far larger problem. Military pensions after 20 years seems an elephant in the room that anti-government types want to avoid talking about. I read somewhere they even added an "early retirement option" so they could get out after 17 years with a little hit on payouts. Retire at 35 and start a second career with a subsidy, they can actually pull off that 50 years of pension you posit, maybe I should have listened to jvolstad.
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
Vicente says
They don't even have to live 40-50 years after retirement. How about 20?
Is it reasonable to expect to work 30 years and then get to spend nearly the same amount of time retired living off a pension AND free healthcare?
Military pensions is a smaller concern as they are no where near as generous as the union negotiated plans of municipal and state government workers.
This is not like this is some sort of theoretical argument. The pension problem has ALREADY exploded on us as evident by the numerous States and Cities nearing bankruptcy.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
socal2 says
Military and federal workers pensions are a very big concern for the simple reason that they are not funded at all. They are paid out of current taxes to the tune of 270 billion last year. The unfunded liability is something like 6 trillion that isn't counted on any ones books.
At least most of the state,county,city,town pensions are funded to some degree, usually very poorly, but there is something there. That's not going to stop massive numbers of bankruptcies.
Sometimes the local government workers themselves have been victims. There are many places were local policitico whores have used pension funds, sometimes including workers contributions, as piggy banks for pet projects (read vote buying projects) leaving people who worked and contributed for their whole lives holding the bag and taking the blame. Think IL, and NJ as top of the list. Not that public workers unions are blameless in this mess, far from it, but they are not the only bad actors involved. The difference is the politicos who are truly to blame are long since out of public office for the most part.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
socal2 says
What planet do you live on?
On mine, military pensions are far more generous than civil or private. Also, a municipality can go bankrupt (see Vallejo) and casually discharge/renegotiate much of the terms. What do you think would happen if anyone proposed touching military pensions? I can tell you last time they tried it, it got repealed right quick. It baffles me that free-market zealots who think everyone should retire on the Wall-Street droppings, will absolutely NOT touch the idea of reforming military pensions. Why not switch them all to 401K with a matching contribution? Because they want to actually guarantee the MIC something, instead of like the rest of us who can be robbed with impunity. The same Teabaggers who burst a spleen over Ron Paul and "foreign adventurism" and unions, and how "Socialist Insecurity" is a PONZI SCHEME, will not even discuss unfunded military pensions in rational terms.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
The way to end military empire building is to simply implement a non-fiat currency money system.
However, dems will NEVER agree to that because that would curtail all unnecessary government SPENDING. Spending (other peoples money) is not something dems can live without.
Am I wrong?
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
Honest Abe says
Incredibly circuitous logic.
"I'll solve my weight problem, by cutting my paycheck, then I won't have as much money to spend on food."
If you want to cut the military empire, it's easy to do. Remind me which GOP representatives are in favor of anything less than "faster than inflation" growth?
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Vicente, to answer your question: none - and thats part of the problem. Neither dems or repub's want a sound currency, or slow down the spending. So we'll continue to get what we've been getting...more military, more expenses and more debt.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
Honest Abe says
Bzzzt, incorrect. Bernie Sanders for one example would cut by 50%.
Current "automatic" budget cut efforts would slow military spending. However the GOP is dead-set against it. I'd suggest you write your rep and let them know you support spending cuts which INCLUDES defense budget.
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
marcus says
----------------------------------------------
Marcus, if you still haven't figured out that Democracy in Wisconsin has basically figured out that getting raped by public unions had to stop, I don't know what will. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Your side of the argument supports an exploding deficit that would have goteen WAAAY worse than 2 Billion. You have no solution. You have no response to this. You support the system that perpetuated at least one bus driver making $125K?!! I bet you sound smart enough to pay your bills on time, and don't spend beyond your means. I am this person also. So are the thousands of Wisconin taxpayers. But the second this 'sound, austere fiscal policy' that we all adhere to, goes out the fuckin' window when we apply it to gov't spending. DON'T SPEND WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE! It ain't rocket science. If you live within your means, then the media would label you an "Extreme TeaParty member" for supporting the same ideas on Gov't spending....Finally, don't patronize me, and put words in my mouth by saying "Blaming unions for our broken political system is indeed very short sighted and stupid."....I never said that, and your a shmuck for suggesting it.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,071 comments
AverageBear says
later in same paragraph..AverageBear says
In the states and mununicipalities where unions are still allowed to negotiate (this is what was taken away in Wisconsin) they aren't raping the tax payer. In many places they have accepted pay cuts since 2008.
Why not solve the problem by negotiating a solution with the unions. It's the politicians who didnt do the governments share of the funding of pension funds. It's politicians who allowed unfunded liabilities to get out of hand.
I can tell that you are one of those dimbulb right wingers who doesn't understand the problem and who is happy to jump on the worker as being the problem. That's fine, but I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,071 comments
socal2 says
Two points. First off I would agree that some pensions, especially certain municipal ones are way out of hand. The percentage of budget going to pensions in San Jose is/was crazy.
You don't see the same thing at the state level, and I hope to see some reforms there soon.
But to your point " pensions FOR LIFE where they pay 80%+ of their last year salary can never work." ???
Actually, if the employee is paying a sufficient percentage of their salary in, and it is matched by the employer (as a part of their defined pay), for 30 to 40 years, then you're wrong.
Maybe you never learned about the wonders of exponential growth (aka compound interest). This is in fact basic Mathematics.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,071 comments
Sad really, that so many people don't understand what the pensions are, and how many idiots in the media are banging the anti pension drum, as if paying pensions is strictly a current cost to government, rather than a cumulative benefit that is supposed to have in a sense already been paid to people working the last 30 to 40 years.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
Vicente says
So why did Perot lose?
Why did McMahon lose? She outspent Blumental 25 to 1
Spending money in a campaign might have got attention in the past but not now. Who actually likes to watch commercials? Advertising is dead...GM pulled out of Facebook and Pepsi pulled out of the superbowl.