Why is it bad if the Koch brothers want to give $ to a political campaign, but good if a union wants to give money?

Ever hear a Democrat complain about how George Sorros spends his money? Crickets...

^ BINGO!! Libs never see their hypocrisy.

Seriously? Are you that dense?In obama's own words he admits he dismissed his whiteness and totally embraced his black roots. (A story seen many times despite the fact that it was his white side that did everything for him and he thanked them with a middle finger.)With Travyon, the Columbia professor, Michael Brown and every other time obama made a right-wrong issue about race even taking the black side that would eventually be wrong. Still it didn't matter, his racism showed.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Aren't the "Sons of Obama" black unlike Obama who is mulatto?

Unions are for smart people? wrote:

runn wrote:

The Koch's target the most ignorant segment of our society with lies about freedom

You could replace "The Kochs" (not sure why the apostrophe) with "Unions" in this sentence and it would make no less sense.

If you think the unions aren't targeting ignorant people with lies about freedom to protect their agenda/profits, you're nuts.

I'm not saying I support the Koch's agenda (I don't), but acting like one of these two groups is honorable is ignorant. They're both in it for their own reasons, they both have free speech, let them both spend, and for the love of god can we just get on with it?

Both groups are about jobs for regular folk. Unions want high paying, secure jobs with pensions. The Kochs want low paying high turnover jobs with no pensions.

Hayduke wrote:

Both groups are about jobs for regular folk. Unions want high paying, secure jobs with pensions. The Kochs want low paying high turnover jobs with no pensions.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell.

Its probably not worth going down this road with explanations why a healthy working class creates a stronger and more robust economy. We've established that before.

Money equals more voice and more political clout which subverts a well functioning democracy. Honestly it seems obvious to many of us so I don't get why people don't see this.

Not smug, I just don't get it.

Communist unions are part of the reason our manufacturing base was exported to Asia. The union thugs wanted to get fat paychecks for their workers, some of whom did not want to bust their arse.

The Koch brothers are soulless, corrupt plutocrats.

Neither union hacks nor the Koch crooks should be allowed to contribute a nickel to the political process.

Just making up voting blocs as you go? Why not the brown pants wearin bloc? Or the muffin eaters? Car drivers?Here's a overview from one of the best sources on political influence buying:https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/

krispy kremlin wrote:

The second largest informal voting bloc in the US after the american homeowner is the State-salaried/dependent citizen. Show me the HUD employee or the welfare recipient actively seeking small government politicians - again small government politicians doesn't so necessarily equal republican.

Hint: they don't exist.

In effect, the state is bank-rolling citizens that will vote for more state. The Koch brothers' activities provide a nearly insignificant counterbalance to state-influenced voters.

I don't agree with everthing Romney said but he was right about Russia and he's right about "takers".

Question for liberals who feel that money is a corrupting influence in politics: How much money would someone have to spend on a campaign to get you to change your vote?

The reason we have unions is because there are people like the Kochs. The working man's only defense is to band together with others in order to avoid being crushed like a bug.

Vitamin I wrote:

Question for liberals who feel that money is a corrupting influence in politics: How much money would someone have to spend on a campaign to get you to change your vote?

That sir is a wonderful question. And its the whole beauty of money's subversion of politics. No one, not liberals, conservatives or moderates think money effects their personal choice. But we KNOW its effect is huge! Politicians wouldn't work so hard to build their political war chest if it had NO EFFECT.

Money's effect is powerful but insidious. It establishes the framework for major issues. It determines what the issues are going to be and how we will think about them. Money equals control of talking points, media, research, think tanks, social media saturation, talk shows, written media, television and the funding of political groups.

But the common guy may not see its effect.

Conundrum wrote:

But we KNOW its effect is huge! Politicians wouldn't work so hard to build their political war chest if it had NO EFFECT.

You're not a scientist, are you? Just because politicians think it matters, doesn't mean it actually matters. Just because you can come up with some reasons that sound good for why it matters doesn't mean it matters emperically.

Here's an article summarizing some actual evidence showing that campaign spending barely matters at all. I'm actually going to link to a popular blog post written about the article, because considering your grasp on what it means to KNOW something, you clearly wouldn't be able to understand the actual peer reviewed paper:

Please try to think about it. But I know you won't, because you much prefer what sounds good. It's much easier than having to think too hard or questioning your deeply held beliefs.

P.S. Learn the difference between affect and effect.

The answers from the left on here should disturb everyone. I would like to think they are trolling, but they are not.

Hayduke wrote:

Unions are for smart people? wrote:

You could replace "The Kochs" (not sure why the apostrophe) with "Unions" in this sentence and it would make no less sense.

If you think the unions aren't targeting ignorant people with lies about freedom to protect their agenda/profits, you're nuts.

I'm not saying I support the Koch's agenda (I don't), but acting like one of these two groups is honorable is ignorant. They're both in it for their own reasons, they both have free speech, let them both spend, and for the love of god can we just get on with it?

Both groups are about jobs for regular folk. Unions want high paying, secure jobs with pensions. The Kochs want low paying high turnover jobs with no pensions.

I and 80,000+ of my coworkers have a high-paying job with a great pension thanks to the Kochs. The difference is that we EARN our pay on the open market.

Because they use the influence they buy to line their pockets and the pockets of their rich cronies and screw the workingman.

Unions use their influence to help the workingman

The effects of money on the political process starts early during the primary process, and is a very complicated issue. No true effective study, with manipulation of independent variables over a wide variety of situations, was conducted.

The blog you linked was interesting but before one can state that money has minimal affects on the political process, you better back it up with replicated studies in a variety of conditions.

Yes I am very skeptical.

no such thing as an open market in USA..... and WOW 80,000!! that's almost the size of a small town!!

Edmond from Redmond wrote:

L L wrote:

Just put reasonable limits on both.

Any issue with that?

Yes. Who are you to limit how I spend MY money?

Civilized society.

Unions work for the good of the people. Koch brothers work for the good of themselves.

Seems like to have any chance of being elected to congress or president a politicians first priority is schmoozing obscene amounts of money from donors who want influence such as lobbyists, big banks, energy companies, etc. if elected their first priority is getting reelected and raising more money, then maybe they'll get around to passing some legislation. maybe im naïve but seems like if you took fundraising out of the picture altogether we could elect people that would actually put all their focus into doing their jobs.