Does Money Control Politics?

[SLD]

OK, saw this article today on NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-why-gop-will-fight-trump-until-bitter-end-n476866

Total ad spending to date:

Team Bush: $32.5 million ($31.7 million from Right to Rise Super PAC, $800K from campaign)
Team Rubio: $13.1 million ($8.6 million from Conservative Solutions Project, $3 million from campaign, $1.4 million from Conservative Solutions Project)
Team Clinton: $10.8 million ($10.6 million from campaign, $200K from Priorities USA)
Team Kasich: $8.4 million (all from two outside groups)
Team Christie: $7 million ($6.6 million from Super PAC, $400K from campaign)
Team Sanders: $6.2 million (all from campaign)
Team Graham: $2.7 million ($2.6 million from Security Is Strength Super PAC, $172K from campaign)
Team Carson: $2.4 million ($2.3 million from campaign, $111K from Super PAC)
Team Fiorina: $1 million (all from CARLY for America Super PAC)
Team Paul: $900,000 ($780K from America's Liberty PAC, $125K from campaign)
Team Cruz: $850,000 ($640K from campaign, rest from Super PACs)
Team Trump: $216,000 (all from campaign)

So the two front runners have spent the least amount in advertising. Granted Trump doesn't need too. But does this show that the influence in money in politics is exaggerated?

SLD

 

[ksen]

Trump has already spent millions, if not billions, getting name recognition over the years.

He doesn't have to spend as much money because everyone already knows who he is.

So I'd say . . . no.

Some Joe Schmo with the same views and rhetoric as Trump but not the money of Trump would not be leading the GOP primary right now.

 

[untermensche]

Trumps recognition comes from his television show.

He was paid to get it.

 

[ksen]

And Trump only got the TV show because he was already famous which came from paying to put his name on anything that would take a check.

 

[dismal]

OK, saw this article today on NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-why-gop-will-fight-trump-until-bitter-end-n476866

Total ad spending to date:

Team Bush: $32.5 million ($31.7 million from Right to Rise Super PAC, $800K from campaign)
Team Rubio: $13.1 million ($8.6 million from Conservative Solutions Project, $3 million from campaign, $1.4 million from Conservative Solutions Project)
Team Clinton: $10.8 million ($10.6 million from campaign, $200K from Priorities USA)
Team Kasich: $8.4 million (all from two outside groups)
Team Christie: $7 million ($6.6 million from Super PAC, $400K from campaign)
Team Sanders: $6.2 million (all from campaign)
Team Graham: $2.7 million ($2.6 million from Security Is Strength Super PAC, $172K from campaign)
Team Carson: $2.4 million ($2.3 million from campaign, $111K from Super PAC)
Team Fiorina: $1 million (all from CARLY for America Super PAC)
Team Paul: $900,000 ($780K from America's Liberty PAC, $125K from campaign)
Team Cruz: $850,000 ($640K from campaign, rest from Super PACs)
Team Trump: $216,000 (all from campaign)

So the two front runners have spent the least amount in advertising. Granted Trump doesn't need too. But does this show that the influence in money in politics is exaggerated?

SLD

Can you please keep your pesky facts out of here? It's supposed to be a safe space.

 

[prideandfall]

But does this show that the influence in money in politics is exaggerated?

SLD

well, firstly: no - because the concept of "the influence of money in politics" has very little to do with relative ad spending, so it's a total non-sequitur in the first place.

i'd say that money controls access to the means to manipulate the stupid, and the stupid control politics, so... in a round-about way yes money does control politics, and a rather culturally prominent member of the senate and an insane orangutan in a suit getting tons of free news coverage and not bothering to spend on advertising doesn't really change that at all.

 

[untermensche]

Today in the Republican primaries, crazy beats money.

Obviously.

They are a party slowly sliding off to...well frankly I don't know where they're going.

And I wish I could say I enjoy the show.

What it must be like to be excited by Donald Trump.

I suspect a lot of dogs have more dignity.

 

[KeepTalking]

OK, saw this article today on NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-why-gop-will-fight-trump-until-bitter-end-n476866

Total ad spending to date:

Team Bush: $32.5 million ($31.7 million from Right to Rise Super PAC, $800K from campaign)
Team Rubio: $13.1 million ($8.6 million from Conservative Solutions Project, $3 million from campaign, $1.4 million from Conservative Solutions Project)
Team Clinton: $10.8 million ($10.6 million from campaign, $200K from Priorities USA)
Team Kasich: $8.4 million (all from two outside groups)
Team Christie: $7 million ($6.6 million from Super PAC, $400K from campaign)
Team Sanders: $6.2 million (all from campaign)
Team Graham: $2.7 million ($2.6 million from Security Is Strength Super PAC, $172K from campaign)
Team Carson: $2.4 million ($2.3 million from campaign, $111K from Super PAC)
Team Fiorina: $1 million (all from CARLY for America Super PAC)
Team Paul: $900,000 ($780K from America's Liberty PAC, $125K from campaign)
Team Cruz: $850,000 ($640K from campaign, rest from Super PACs)
Team Trump: $216,000 (all from campaign)

So the two front runners have spent the least amount in advertising. Granted Trump doesn't need too. But does this show that the influence in money in politics is exaggerated?

SLD

There is much more to it than a simple comparison of how much is spent on or by each candidate to how well they are polling. We know (or should know by now) that the candidate spending the most in an election does not necessarily win that election, otherwise we would be talking about President Romney right now. Once a candidate is elected, however, they can become beholden to those people who financed their election, and this becomes a big problem when a very few individuals make up a bulk of that financing. Also, incumbents have a much easier job of getting elected, so financing the incumbent is a less risky proposition for those inclined to throw boatloads of money into an election. What it comes down to is the politician being bought, not the election results.

So, what should be looked at with regard to whether or not money controls politics, is how money influences the actions of an elected official once they have won the election, but that is a much more complex thing to try to evaluate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

People spent $30 million on Bush? That's got to be a disappointment.

 

[untermensche]

People spent $30 million on Bush? That's got to be a disappointment.

If he can just last he can pull a Santorum.

The people just into it as a way to make some money drop out. And most go off and make a lot of money.

The Republican primaries last time was the most insane roller coaster from hell.

One crazy rose to the top only to go back down. Then the next crazy, and so on.

Finally to their credit the least crazy was nominated.

I don't think they'll be that lucky this time.

 

[arkirk]

The question the OP asks......pricelessly naive. Simple answer....YES. It controls enough of politics to control our economic development in favor of those with money. We can have some leaders that are relatively outside the paid prostitute class, but their powers if we elect them are dictated by monied interests who can afford to beat back any proposal, law, or policy that lowers their profit margins. Yes, money has controlled politics possibly from the beginning of our country when many of our founding fathers bought and sold human beings and treated them like oxen.

 

[prideandfall]

Yes, money has controlled politics possibly from the beginning of our country

possibly?
you think that maybe only rich white land owners were allowed to vote, and only rich white land owners were considered "people" in the constitution might POSSIBLY suggest money influencing politics?

heh.

 

[arkirk]

Yes, money has controlled politics possibly from the beginning of our country

possibly?
you think that maybe only rich white land owners were allowed to vote, and only rich white land owners were considered "people" in the constitution might POSSIBLY suggest money influencing politics?

heh.

I think I made that clear that we all know it is a reality but nobody has proof positive how awful it was. We all know it must have been terrible to be poor during the founding of this country and even worse to be a slave. Some white people were sent to America because they owed money or were indentured because they broke some law. Indentured labor not a major part of the political pressure for independence. If you had no money you didn't concern yourself with "No taxation without representation." Ideas like that only came out of monied people. So they were the one that made this country and wrote its original laws.

 

[bilby]

People spent $30 million on Bush? That's got to be a disappointment.

It's really not a lot of money for a federal political campaign though - 1% of Americans chipping in $10 each gets you $30M to splash. So you can manage that with 99% of the population opposed to you, and all the rest only trivially invested in your campaign. Or, in the case of Bush, with 30 guys who owe either your daddy or your brother a favour from when they were President each chipping in $1M - which is a tiny fraction of the money they siphoned out of the government in the 16 years that your family was previously in charge.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Regardless of how small an investment it was of what it was payback for, they still made an investment in the guy. It is a ridiculous amount of money for such poor returns. He's just a dud who didn't seem to realize that someone might ask him a question about his brother and get some answers prepared to the obvious questions.

A Bush v Clinton matchup could have been like a crappy fourth or fifth instalment in a movie franchise that should have ended a while ago and I was looking forward to that. I feel personally let down by his garbage campaign but, since I didn't give him a million dollars, he won't take my phone call so I can tell him that. I want one of these guys who did give him the money to be as slightly annoyed as I am and make that call.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The question the OP asks......pricelessly naive. Simple answer....YES. It controls enough of politics to control our economic development in favor of those with money. We can have some leaders that are relatively outside the paid prostitute class, but their powers if we elect them are dictated by monied interests who can afford to beat back any proposal, law, or policy that lowers their profit margins. Yes, money has controlled politics possibly from the beginning of our country when many of our founding fathers bought and sold human beings and treated them like oxen.

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

Ronald Reagan

Of course money is needed to pay for campaign costs, hire of venues, transport, advertising etc.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So the two front runners have spent the least amount in advertising. Granted Trump doesn't need too. But does this show that the influence in money in politics is exaggerated?

SLD

At this stage of the game it has less of an influence because the candidates need to capture peoples attention by whatever means are at their disposal. Trump's a great source of entertainment. Bush is like watching a commercial for annuities.
But if your horse comes in, you expect a payout. I never imagined anyone giving great sums of money to a political campaign did so for altruistic reasons.

 

[Axulus]

But if your horse comes in, you expect a payout. I never imagined anyone giving great sums of money to a political campaign did so for altruistic reasons.

Why not? The vast majority of doations made, on their own, are exceedigly unlikely to affect the outcome. Most research on political donations comes to exactly that conclusion: from the donor's perspective they are a lot like a charitable contribution.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Does Money Control Politics?

Dunno, does a pair of titties control my cock?

 

[TV and credit cards]

But if your horse comes in, you expect a payout. I never imagined anyone giving great sums of money to a political campaign did so for altruistic reasons.

Why not? The vast majority of doations made, on their own, are exceedigly unlikely to affect the outcome. Most research on political donations comes to exactly that conclusion: from the donor's perspective they are a lot like a charitable contribution.

I was not referring to affecting the outcome of the election but benefits of contributions after. Still, I think another of my assumptions may be dashed.

7. Conclusion
Our results suggest that corporate political donations in the US are reflective of agency problems. We find that firms that donate directly out of corporate funds are larger, have more free cash flow, and have lower R&D and investment spending. We also find that donations are negatively correlated with future excess returns. An increase in donations of $10,000 is associated with a reduction in excess returns of 7.4 basis points. Worse corporate governance is associated with larger donations. Worse governance characteristics explain part but not all of the negative return-donation relation. Furthermore, firms that make political donations are more likely to engage in acquisitions than firms that do not make donations. In addition, donating firms engage in worse acquisitions than firms that do not donate, as measured by cumulative abnormal announcement returns.
Our findings are consistent with the fact that shareholders are taking an increased interest in political donations. According to the Center for Political Accountability (see www.politicalaccountability.net), “73% [of surveyed shareholders] agreed that corporate political spending is often undertaken to advance the private political interests of corporate executives rather than the company's interest.” According to Guerrera (2007), “investors argue that public disclosure and board oversight [are] essential to ensure that executives do not use corporate money to help political allies or channel funds to politicians whose agendas contravene company policies.”Our results support the view that lack of transparency allows donations to function as a form of private benefits for managers. Our findings may shed light on why 89% of the publicly traded firms in the US make no political donations out of corporate funds at all during our entire sample period — shareholders are unlikely to benefit from such donations. This perspective may be particularly useful in light of the Citizens United ruling that may potentially increase the use of corporate funds greatly for political donations.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~wangx684/assets/documents/research/Corporate-Political-Donation.pdf