Tom Steyer Spent $540M on Two Races

archives said:
Millionaires/Billionaires running for office is more of a standard these days, there no longer exists disdain for such, excessive money in politics regardless of where it comes from is normal, and it stems from Citizens United opening up the flood gates

Think of Citizens United as the NIL of politics
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head I think of Ross Perot, Michael Huffington (he ran for Senate when I was in college against DiFi and a spent a huge amount of his own money), John Corzine, Meg Whitman and Michael Bloomberg. They all spent large sums of their own money.

Steyer doing this has nothing to do with C.U.
 
Diogenes said:
I will repeat the question.

Any posts criticizing your beloved Democrat Party's billionaires?

ANSWER, Christiecrite!
Click to expand...
And like I said before, I didn't know anyone in the Democratic party who is a billionaire, and just learned that today about Tom Steyer. Why don't you refresh my memory with some more names, Leggiecrite?

Now hop to it!
 
christiefan915 said:
And like I said before, I didn't know anyone in the Democratic party who is a billionaire, and just learned that today about Tom Steyer. Why don't you refresh my memory with some more names, Leggiecrite?

Now hop to it!
Click to expand...

Any posts criticizing your beloved Democrat Party's billionaires?

ANSWER, Christiecrite!
 
Damocles said:
They mention them to ask about your hypocrisy. Republicans rarely care about billionaires, they care about the party that wants to punish billionaires hungrily accepting their money.
Click to expand...
Maybe you think Dems criticize billionaires just because they have the money, and not for how they got it or what they do with it. Case in point: our family of grifters who are now infesting the White House. Looks like trump's sprog just got into it with his overpriced beverage, basically flavored water.
 
cawacko said:
Off the top of my head I think of Ross Perot, Michael Huffington (he ran for Senate when I was in college against DiFi and a spent a huge amount of his own money), John Corzine, Meg Whitman and Michael Bloomberg. They all spent large sums of their own money.

Steyer doing this has nothing to do with C.U.
Click to expand...
You keep undervaluing the trend Citizens United established, now, unlike before, few even question the huge amounts of direct cash poured into getting someone elected, either personally or via other sources, the bar has been set nearly to nonexistent
 
archives said:
You keep undervaluing the trend Citizens United established, now, unlike before, few even question the huge amounts of direct cash poured into getting someone elected, either personally or via other sources, the bar has been set nearly to nonexistent
Click to expand...
I understand you do not like Citizens United. Fair enough.

But that doesn't change the fact that wealthy people have self-funded their political campaigns well before it passed. Tom Steyer is not new in that regard.

You have to take the estimates made of people's net worth with a healthy grain of salt. That said, I saw Steyer's listed as $2.5B. So spending $500M is not nothing. That's why I said it's kind of a flex.
 
cawacko said:
I understand you do not like Citizens United. Fair enough.

But that doesn't change the fact that wealthy people have self-funded their political campaigns well before it passed. Tom Steyer is not new in that regard.

You have to take the estimates made of people's net worth with a healthy grain of salt. That said, I saw Steyer's listed as $2.5B. So spending $500M is not nothing. That's why I said it's kind of a flex.
Click to expand...
Do not like Citizens United, it is flat out stupid, total ramifications are yet to be felt

And yes individuals have always used their own funds to run for office, but as I said, not as much, as frequently, nor as brazen as they do today, the stigma of a millionaire buying a politician if even himself has diminished, the theme was set with Citizens United, anything goes prevails
 
archives said:
Do not like Citizens United, it is flat out stupid, total ramifications are yet to be felt

And yes individuals have always used their own funds to run for office, but as I said, not as much, as frequently, nor as brazen as they do today, the stigma of a millionaire buying a politician if even himself has diminished, the theme was set with Citizens United, anything goes prevails
Click to expand...


Risible.

Your rant correctly identifies that the notion that Citizens United coincided with (and facilitated) a sharp rise in the scale and visibility of big-money independent spending, including by billionaires. Although self-funding by wealthy candidates has historical precedents, it has grown in frequency and dollars.

However, you inaccurately attributed candidate self-funding changes primarily to the ruling (the core legal permission long predated it), overstated the removal of all guardrails ("anything goes"), and underplayed the fact that measurable effects on spending were already evident.

Citizens United prioritized First Amendment protections for political speech and association over concerns about unequal influence. The decision did not invent billionaire involvement in politics.

Poor Anchovies.
 
archives said:
Do not like Citizens United, it is flat out stupid, total ramifications are yet to be felt

And yes individuals have always used their own funds to run for office, but as I said, not as much, as frequently, nor as brazen as they do today, the stigma of a millionaire buying a politician if even himself has diminished, the theme was set with Citizens United, anything goes prevails
Click to expand...
I'm open to seeing the data showing more people are spending tens of millions, really hundreds of millions (need to adjust for inflation) of their own money post CU than prior.

I listed people off the top of my head, but if you have ones you can point to let me know.
 
Diogenes said:
Risible.

Your rant correctly identifies that the notion that Citizens United coincided with (and facilitated) a sharp rise in the scale and visibility of big-money independent spending, including by billionaires. Although self-funding by wealthy candidates has historical precedents, it has grown in frequency and dollars.

However, you inaccurately attributed candidate self-funding changes primarily to the ruling (the core legal permission long predated it), overstated the removal of all guardrails ("anything goes"), and underplayed the fact that measurable effects on spending were already evident.

Citizens United prioritized First Amendment protections for political speech and association over concerns about unequal influence. The decision did not invent billionaire involvement in politics.

Poor Anchovies.
Click to expand...
The whole premise of “prioritizing First Amendment protection” is inane, business interests aren’t people, corporations can’t vote, and the resulting decisions based upon Citizens United opened up the flood gates to secret donors and unlimited monies

The decision did not invent billionaires involvement in politics, but it made it prevalent
 
cawacko said:
I'm open to seeing the data showing more people are spending tens of millions, really hundreds of millions (need to adjust for inflation) of their own money post CU than prior.

I listed people off the top of my head, but if you have ones you can point to let me know.
Click to expand...
rooseveltinstitute.org

15 Years After Citizens United: Big Money’s Grip on Our Democracy - Roosevelt Institute

As ultra-wealthy interests gain power, public trust in government has cratered. Roosevelt’s latest report draws on new research demonstrating how corporate actors benefited from Citizens United to the detriment of Americans’ faith in democracy.
rooseveltinstitute.org rooseveltinstitute.org
 
archives said:
I’d say the facts validate my opinion

rooseveltinstitute.org

15 Years After Citizens United: Big Money’s Grip on Our Democracy - Roosevelt Institute

As ultra-wealthy interests gain power, public trust in government has cratered. Roosevelt’s latest report draws on new research demonstrating how corporate actors benefited from Citizens United to the detriment of Americans’ faith in democracy.
rooseveltinstitute.org rooseveltinstitute.org
Click to expand...

Your opinion of someone else's opinion doesn't validate your opinion, Anchovies.

Poor Anchovies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top