Just think of what could be done with all this campaign money?

[mrerick]

That campaign money is not for feeding the poor, or eliminating the public debt, or anything constructive.

That money is for power and influence. It's given in the expectation that a higher value in preferences, contracts, and priorities will be returned.

Period.

You and I - the citizens that value liberty, fairness, responsibility and self-reliance - we're just in the way.

It's only through smaller government that America can be rescued from corruption. That is President Trump's task. It is our priority. Our responsibility is the upcoming election.

[Rule3]

The whole thing is that these loons can piss away millions, Only one has the potential of getting to sit in the big chair. Meanwhile they just come up with stupid ideas and keep making money. They collect money spend money but have no viable platforms.
It's a crock to me.

[SidecarFlip]

The whole thing is that these loons can piss away millions, Only one has the potential of getting to sit in the big chair. Meanwhile they just come up with stupid ideas and keep making money. They collect money spend money but have no viable platforms.
It's a crock to me.

They cannot collect money if no SHEEPLE contribute.

[WendyZXZ]

I can't imagine a politician doing anything with any money unless it benefits themselves...

[mrerick]

The whole thing is that these loons can piss away millions, Only one has the potential of getting to sit in the big chair. Meanwhile they just come up with stupid ideas and keep making money. They collect money spend money but have no viable platforms.
It's a crock to me.

Here's a really good example of wasting money on fantasy anti-gun activities...


https://skilledshot.wordpress.com/20...he-rescue-not/

[BC38]

Not sure what the first question is asking but campaign contributions aren't tax deductible.

There's two billionaires in the democrat primaries. One has never polled much above zero. The other just recently got in the race polling at 3%. Plugs is supposedly leading the democrat primaries but doesn't have much money. We'll see. Hillary spent nearly twice as much as Trump.

This is through October.

Attachment 424139

Only in the context of anything related to our government could $15.7 million be dismissed as "not much money"...

And there is the problem. I'm as much a free market capitalist as anybody, but money has become too big of a factor in our political system, and things like Integrity, Ideas, and Innovation have become too small a factor - almost to the point of being irrelevant.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Only in the context of anything related to our government could $15.7 million be dismissed as "not much money"...

And there is the problem. I'm as much a free market capitalist as anybody, but money has become too big of a factor in our political system, and things like Integrity, Ideas, and Innovation have become too small a factor - almost to the point of being irrelevant.

As far as integrity, ideas and innovation... Trump has kept more promises than any president in my lifetime. If that isn't integrity in politics, what is? His ideas/policies are what got him elected, not the amount of money spent. Hillary spent far more. Considering the OP's link was about presidential politics, I would argue that Trump has delivered more presidential integrity, ideas and innovation in the last three years than all the presidents in the last three decades.

One can argue that too much money is a "problem", but I think it's a silly debate with no intelligent answer as to how much money isn't a problem until it is. Reminds me of Bernie Sanders declaring the problem with America is rich people having "too much" money.

I think many agree that special interest money can be problematic and negatively affect the three Is. Trump campaigned that he was not taking special interest money in 2016 and wouldn't be a bought-and-paid-for politician. Voters rallied around that. Crazy Bernie took that path in 2016 and did quite well with fundraising. He's doing well now.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Don't see Bloomberg on your graph. He is running right?

The chart reads Data is current as of 10/15. Bloomberg officially got in the race the end of Novemeber.

[BC38]

As far as integrity, ideas and innovation... Trump has kept more promises than any president in my lifetime. If that isn't integrity in politics, what is? His ideas/policies are what got him elected, not the amount of money spent. Hillary spent far more. Considering the OP's link was about presidential politics, I would argue that Trump has delivered more presidential integrity, ideas and innovation in the last three years than all the presidents in the last three decades.

One can argue that too much money is a "problem", but I think it's a silly debate with no intelligent answer as to how much money isn't a problem until it is. Reminds me of Bernie Sanders declaring the problem with America is rich people having "too much" money.

I think many agree that special interest money can be problematic. Trump campaigned that he was not taking special interest money in 2016 and wouldn't be a bought-and-paid-for politician. Voters rallied around that.

Agreed 100%. And he's the first president since Ron Reagan that fit that description IMO. And that is exactly my point. Winning the office on the basis of Integrity, Ideas, and Innovation is very RARE, and it shouldn't be. With the exception of the unbelievable upset in the 2016 presidential race, MONEY has been the number one determinant of who wins or loses. Especially special interest and "dark" money. Violations of campaign finance laws - which are far too lax to begin with - seem to carry little or no real penalties. At least for anybody not connected to President Trump.

Two recent examples in the last year or so - AOC and Omar - were both found to have violated campaign finance laws and rules - but they are both still in office and nobody is pushing for any significant penalties for either of them. Of course Trump associates go to jail for the same kinds of violations, but we all know why they are the exception rather than the rule.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

With the exception of the unbelievable upset in the 2016 presidential race, MONEY has been the number one determinant of who wins or loses.

Nixon and Kennedy spent about the same. Kennedy won a decisive electoral victory 303/203
Goldwater spent twice as much as Johnson. Johnson won by an electoral landslide. 486/52
Reagan and Carter spent about the same. Reagan won by an electoral blowout. 489/49
Regan and Mondale spent about the same. Reagan won by an electoral clobbering. 525/13
Bush Sr and Clinton spent about the same. Clinton won by an electoral trouncing 370/168
Bush and Dukakis spent about the same. Bush won in an electoral smashing. 426/111
Bush spent quite a bit more than Gore. That race was decided by hanging chads.
Obama spent a stunning three times more than McCain but I think McCain would have lost no matter how much money he had.
Hillary spent nearly twice as much as Tump.

To be sure, money plays a big part in elections but I think the above illustrates that MONEY has been the number one determinant of who wins or loses isn't necessary the case.