NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the GOP has raised nearly $60 million dollars in only half a year--a non-election year at that. The Democrats on the other hand have raised about $28 million in the same time, which shows the strong, and quite wealthy base, for the GOP party, which will undoubtedly throw them into another victory in 2008. The Republicans buying themselves another victory :rolleyes: . I must hand it to them though, how do they pull this stuff off?

It's all about the Benjamins!

"This is an impressive crowd, the haves -- and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."--Geroge W. Bush Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner, New York, New York, Oct. 19, 2000

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=949852

Now, I must leave for work. Uh huh, us liberals have a real job.

You do know that the Republican party gets most of its money from people donating $200 or under, while the Democrats get most of their money from people who donate over a million, right?

You do know that the Republican party gets most of its money from people donating $200 or under, while the Democrats get most of their money from people who donate over a million, right?

He probably just doesn't care so long as he can target the people he disagrees with and blame them for all the world's ills.

You do know that the Republican party gets most of its money from people donating $200 or under, while the Democrats get most of their money from people who donate over a million, right?

Last I checked, they had banned soft money donations.

Here's some FACTS for everyone...from OpenSecrets:

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.asp?cycle=2004

Here' the summary:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp
BIG-TIME DONORS SMALL IN NUMBER
Less Than One-Tenth of 1% of Population Gave 83% of Itemized Contributions

Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002 elections, an analysis of campaign giving by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Nearly 237,000 donors -- just 0.08 percent of the total U.S. population and 0.11 percent of U.S. adults -- were responsible for $728 million of the almost $873 million in political contributions that were itemized in campaign finance reports filed by federal candidates, political parties and political action committees.

Just over 600,000 people -- 0.21 percent of the U.S. population and 0.28 percent of U.S. adults -- gave contributions large enough to be itemized at all. During the 2000 presidential election cycle, 0.28 percent of the nation's population, and 0.37 percent of U.S. adults, gave itemized contributions.

The Federal Election Commission requires the recipient of any donation of more than $200 to itemize the contribution, identifying the contribution amount, as well as the donor's name, address, employer and occupation. The recipient combines all contributions of $200 or less and reports them as one total.

The figures studied represent hard and soft money contributions from individuals made available Dec. 2 by the FEC. Contributions from PACs to candidates and parties, and soft money contributions from organizations, were not included in this study. The total amount given in non-itemized contributions, as well as other statistics for the entire 2001-2002 election cycle (which ends Dec. 31), won't be known until next spring.

The study found that 600,322 donors gave $200 or more to a candidate, party or PAC, for a total of $872.7 million. Donors giving $1,000 or more totaled 236,552 and $728.1 million. Those who gave $10,000 or more numbered 8,870, for $275.6 million. The 310 donors of $100,000 or more gave $105.8 million. And there were 14 million-dollar donors, whose contributions totaled $39.8 million.

The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.

Republican candidates and parties topped their Democratic counterparts, $68 million to $44 million, in fundraising from individuals who contributed under $1,000 in itemized contributions for the 2002 elections. Among donors giving $1,000 or more, Republicans again beat out Democrats, $317 million to $307 million.

But the trend was reversed among individuals at higher giving levels, from whom Democrats raised far more money than Republicans. Among donors of $10,000 or more, Democrats out-raised Republicans, $140 million to $111 million. Among donors of $100,000 or more, Democrats raised $72 million to the Republicans' $34 million. And among the most generous givers - those contributing $1 million or more - Democrats far outdistanced Republicans, $36 million to just over $3 million.

Contributions from ideological donors - individuals who contributed exclusively to one party or the other - favored Republicans, but more so in the number of donors than in the amount they gave. Some 277,380 individuals gave exclusively to Republican candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, 42 percent more than the 195,715 who gave exclusively to Democrats. But the GOP's ideological donors contributed $322 million to the party's candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, as compared to the Democrats' $290 million, an 11 percent advantage.

Although money plays a role in our run up to elections, i don't think its nearly as pervasive as in American politics, or else they wouldn't sink so much into it.

First a point, then a question. over here our parties have to declare their sources of income, and even if they do treat tehm preferentially in teh future, at least we have a bit of a hu-ha about it. it seems to me in america politics, buisness corporations and money are all so tightly intertwined politicians are pretty much accounted for by their funders rather than the electorate. I have no source, its jsut the impression i've picked up. please prove me wrong (sources) or if you must, right, again, with sources.

now a question. how does having money help them win. tehy're not bribing the electorate, i assume, so why do people vote for the richer party? more propoganda? if so are people not critical of propoganda, or jsut easily influenced? if something else please say.

The Democrats on the other hand have raised about $28 million in the same time, which shows the strong, and quite wealthy base, for the GOP party
You do know that the Republican party gets most of its money from people donating $200 or under, while the Democrats get most of their money from people who donate over a million, right?
What is the point of comments like these? To show that "the workers" or "the poor" are on your party's side?

Well, the GOP has raised nearly $60 million dollars in only half a year--a non-election year at that. The Democrats on the other hand have raised about $28 million in the same time, which shows the strong, and quite wealthy base, for the GOP party, which will undoubtedly throw them into another victory in 2008. The Republicans buying themselves another victory :rolleyes: . I must hand it to them though, how do they pull this stuff off?

It's all about the Benjamins!

"This is an impressive crowd, the haves -- and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."--Geroge W. Bush Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner, New York, New York, Oct. 19, 2000

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=949852

Now, I must leave for work. Uh huh, us liberals have a real job.

I'd pay anything to keep a liberal idiot out of office. KEEP SPENDING, Republicans! It's well worth the money!

What is the point of comments like these? To show that "the workers" or "the poor" are on your party's side?

Swimmingpool, it's interesting to note that the NON-workers and dead beats on welfare are also democrats.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the Republicans have collected more money than the Democrats because the Republicans have more support? I mean, come on... they ARE the majority.

Also, the John Kerry campaign outspent the Bush campaign by approximately $60 million, and Kerry didn't win (regardless of whether you have come to terms with this fact.) So I guess the Republicans bought their victory, but the Democrats only TRIED to buy their victory.

Swimmingpool, it's interesting to note that the NON-workers and dead beats on welfare are also democrats.
Don't forget: the NEA, unions, the overwhelming majority of college professors and blue-blood, old money, Ivy League types who inherit or marry into their money.

Enough of that, though. I'm not taking sides in a one-sided Republicrat fight.

What is the point of comments like these? To show that "the workers" or "the poor" are on your party's side?
"The workers" and "the poor" are not giving money to political parties. I'm a student involved in politics but I give no money to my party, because I have none to give. It's the middle class citizens who give $200 donations to the GOP.

In case you wanted to know which corporations give money to which party, www.buyblue.org has that information.

Jesus probably gives the Republican Party money himself, because everyone knows Jesus would go along with intolerance towards homosexuals, minorities, and foreigners, and favor the wealthy, because the poor aren't worth shit to Jesus.

Jesus probably gives the Republican Party money himself, because everyone knows Jesus would go along with intolerance towards homosexuals, minorities, and foreigners, and favor the wealthy, because the poor aren't worth shit to Jesus.

Maybe you can ask him before you're thrown into the lake of molten sulfur.

Well, the GOP has raised nearly $60 million dollars in only half a year--a non-election year at that. The Democrats on the other hand have raised about $28 million in the same time, which shows the strong, and quite wealthy base, for the GOP party, which will undoubtedly throw them into another victory in 2008. The Republicans buying themselves another victory :rolleyes: . I must hand it to them though, how do they pull this stuff off?

It's all about the Benjamins!

"This is an impressive crowd, the haves -- and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."--Geroge W. Bush Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner, New York, New York, Oct. 19, 2000

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=949852

Now, I must leave for work. Uh huh, us liberals have a real job.



I'm so sorry, but you'd better be careful working hard and earning your money to pay for your mortgage on your house, because liberals will snatch it up!

Developer Wants To Seize Supreme Court Justice's Home
Home Would Be Replaced With 'Lost Liberty' Hotel

POSTED: 10:52 am EDT June 29, 2005

WEARE, N.H. -- Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.


AP Image
David Souter (I don't know why the pic isn't here)



"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.
"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

Previous Stories:
June 23, 2005: Court: Cities May Seize Homes For Economic Development


I got this from a local news station, which isn't Republican or Democratic.

I'm so sorry, but you'd better be careful working hard and earning your money to pay for your mortgage on your house, because liberals will snatch it up!

*snip*
Why'd you bring this into discussion?

Maybe you can ask him before you're thrown into the lake of molten sulfur.

I think you should learn to detect sarcasm before being stupid.

Why'd you bring this into discussion?

I think it's because the discussion has turned into a liberal vs. conservative argument, and the recent supreme court decision to allow governments to take land from one private individual and give it to another was supported by the liberal justices on the court and opposed by the conservative justices. Presuming that the court's decision is unpopular, it's thus being offered as an example of liberals' disregard for basic rights, such as a right to property.

At least, I would suspect that's why.

I think you should learn to detect sarcasm before being stupid.

Um, yeah. Good point.

Rather than getting into some war of words with you, I'm just going to suggest that you seriously re-evaluate the eternal consequences of how you conduct your life.

Maybe you can ask him before you're thrown into the lake of molten sulfur.

Wow. You should really get that sarcasm detector checked.

In any case, the reason that whichever of (monolithic greed party) and (monolithic control party) that has the most money wins is because Americans are, by and large, politically ignorant, and either check the box that goes to the name of the guy whose name they heard the most, or less commonly, to the guy who says more of what they want to hear. Ironically, the President almost invariably fails to live up to campaign promises.

Wow. You should really get that sarcasm detector checked.

In any case, the reason that whichever of (monolithic greed party) and (monolithic control party) that has the most money wins is because Americans are, by and large, politically ignorant, and either check the box that goes to the name of the guy whose name they heard the most, or less commonly, to the guy who says more of what they want to hear. Ironically, the President almost invariably fails to live up to campaign promises.

Doesn't it make sense that the candidate who collects the most funds usually does so becuase (s)he's the most popular, and that's why (s)he wins?

Doesn't it make sense that the candidate who collects the most funds usually does so becuase (s)he's the most popular, and that's why (s)he wins?
Maybe in the worker's paradise where everyone is equally rich and equally committed to the political process.

I'm so sorry, but you'd better be careful working hard and earning your money to pay for your mortgage on your house, because liberals will snatch it up!


Really? I was under the impression that the reasoning behind the Kelo decision was that local and state authorities have a better ability to determine how eminent domain should be used than Supreme Court justices. I was further under the impression that this is effectively the reasoning behind the "state's rights" argument. I was still further under the impression that state's rights is typically a conservative position. I was yet further under the impression that only "activist" judges would strike down a law rather than "interpreting" how that law should be applied.

Maybe you can help me to better understand how my impressions went wrong.[/sarcasm]

Maybe in the worker's paradise where everyone is equally rich and equally committed to the political process.

So you don't think that there's ANY relationship between the amount of funds a candidate receives and how popular they are?

So you don't think that there's ANY relationship between the amount of funds a candidate receives and how popular they are?

To an extent, but it also depends on other factors, such as that candidate's campaign organizational skills.

So you don't think that there's ANY relationship between the amount of funds a candidate receives and how popular they are?
Of course there is, but it certainly doesn't accurately indicate their popularity, especially in a close race.

Of course there is, but it certainly doesn't accurately indicate their popularity, especially in a close race.

Bush raised 12.5% more than Kerry and won by only 2.46%.

I'd pay anything to keep a liberal idiot out of office. KEEP SPENDING, Republicans! It's well worth the money!

What about a moderate idiot? Would that be ok?

I think it's because the discussion has turned into a liberal vs. conservative argument, and the recent supreme court decision to allow governments to take land from one private individual and give it to another was supported by the liberal justices on the court and opposed by the conservative justices. Presuming that the court's decision is unpopular, it's thus being offered as an example of liberals' disregard for basic rights, such as a right to property.

At least, I would suspect that's why.

Well, the decision to allow governments to take land from one private individual and sell it to another private entity was made about 200 years ago. Are we going to go back and see which justices on that decision were liberal and which were conservative?

Maybe you can ask him before you're thrown into the lake of molten sulfur.

How does one burn a soul?

Maybe you can ask him before you're thrown into the lake of molten sulfur.

Yes, a soul can feel the pain of burning sulfur. :rolleyes:

Of course there is, but it certainly doesn't accurately indicate their popularity, especially in a close race.

That's reasonable, and I'll agree with it.

I'd pay anything to keep a liberal idiot out of office. KEEP SPENDING, Republicans! It's well worth the money!

Are statements like these really necessary? Liberal or conservative, right wing or left, even Communist or reactionary. To me it more or less doesn't matter. We are all humans beings so why not act a little more human? Where on Earth will attacking another's ideology/lifestyle, etc. get us?

But that's just me speaking my random mind...

For more of my political rambling click here (http://www.xanga.com/private/home.aspx?user=illuminated__life)

What is the point of comments like these? To show that "the workers" or "the poor" are on your party's side?

You quoted me, so I’m going to say, I am not on the Republicans’ “side” and I could care less who the poor (who in the US do not include most workers) support. I was simply stating a fact.

Texpunditstan, your numbers are from 2002--I believe the situation has changed since then, the Dean revolution and all that. And Achtung 45, don't despair over the fundraising disparity. Historically, the Republicans outraise the Democrats 3 to 1, and this year we've cut that to 2 to 1. Let the Republicans think that they've got it in the bag--I ain't skeered.

and favor the wealthy, because the poor aren't worth shit to Jesus.
Guess which party's Federal candidates are on average 30% richer than the other's. Also, income tax in the "richest" bracket doesn't affect the truly rich, rather it affects the rich who are doing something with their money. As in putting it back into play or working for it. Even the death tax doesn't affect the truly rich because there are ways to get around it, and it's much easier to do so if you can afford to hire your own accountant.

Kick it OVER already, Yankee!

How does one burn a soul?

First, you leave it cooking too long...

You quoted me, so I’m going to say, I am not on the Republicans’ “side” and I could care less who the poor (who in the US do not include most workers) support. I was simply stating a fact.
I just find the Democrat vs. Republican habit of trying to claim that the "ordinary common people" are all on their side, to be irritating. As if it gives their policies more validity.

Guess which party's Federal candidates are on average 30% richer than the other's.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. "Being rich is bad." :rolleyes:

Are statements like these really necessary? Liberal or conservative, right wing or left, even Communist or reactionary. To me it more or less doesn't matter. We are all humans beings so why not act a little more human? Where on Earth will attacking another's ideology/lifestyle, etc. get us?


If we do not attack their ideologies how will we destroy those ideologies? If we attack the ideologies enough we can have the God lovin' corporatist oligarchy of America and that is a cause worth dyin' for. :D

But really attacking ideologies will weaken them and create the victory of our favored ideology.

You do know that the Republican party gets most of its money from people donating $200 or under, while the Democrats get most of their money from people who donate over a million, right?
All you need to do is look at one of those red precinct/blue precinct maps to figure that out. Democrats really need to start standing FOR something before it's too late.

All you need to do is look at one of those red precinct/blue precinct maps to figure that out. Democrats really need to start standing FOR something before it's too late.
I agree. They should stop playing Republican-lite and become a real left-wing party.

Texpunditstan, your numbers are from 2002--I believe the situation has changed since then, the Dean revolution and all that. And Achtung 45, don't despair over the fundraising disparity. Historically, the Republicans outraise the Democrats 3 to 1, and this year we've cut that to 2 to 1. Let the Republicans think that they've got it in the bag--I ain't skeered.

I don't know what you mean by "historically". Congressional Democrats raised twice as much money as republicans in every year from 1964-1994. In 1996, the two parties raised about the same amount, except in the presidential race (in which incumbant Bill Clinton raised more than his rival, Bob Dole). in 1998 on, Republicans have raised more than democrats in congressional and presidential races... but i would hardly call that a historical trend, and it hasn't been by anywhere near a 2-to-1 margin. you can't just make stuff up and pretend it's true.

I agree. They should stop playing Republican-lite and become a real left-wing party.

but they DO stand for something! they stand for being opposed to anything the republicans do! yeah! that'll win elections!

for example, here is the full text of the Democrat's plan to fix social security:


.



This brave and ingenious plan will undoubtedly sweep that party into power in the coming election cycle.

Guess which party's Federal candidates are on average 30% richer than the other's. Also, income tax in the "richest" bracket doesn't affect the truly rich, rather it affects the rich who are doing something with their money. As in putting it back into play or working for it. Even the death tax doesn't affect the truly rich because there are ways to get around it, and it's much easier to do so if you can afford to hire your own accountant.

(1) what's wrong with being rich? A lot of the wealthy in this county weren't born into money, but earned it through working very hard and spending very little.
(2) everyone who is wealthy reinvests their money... (a) this allows them to stay wealthy, and (b) all that cash wouldn't fit under their mattresses. where do you think it goes if it's not being spent or invested?
(3) the wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 80% of the country's income tax. this can easily be substantiated, so look it up yourself.
(4) i am an estate attorney, and one of my main jobs is to minimize the impact of estate taxes. i assure you that "the death tax" is something that can be all-together avoided for people with small, medium, or even semi-large estates. However, the largest estates can never avoid taxation, and they typically pay a larger percentage than smaller estates.