- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2016 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:24 am
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:24 am
5
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:28 am to LSUcjb318
Democrats love to scream about the Koch brothers but looking at that list they are ametuers.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:29 am to lsufan1971
Yeah, Adelson seems to be the big dog on the right.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:31 am to LSUcjb318
quote:
influence your vote
Money poorly spent.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:40 am to HempHead
quote:
influence your vote
Unless they are giving the money to ME, how are they influencing my vote?
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:43 am to LSUcjb318
Wow, take a look at the historical data. No one even came close to the levels of donations prior to 2012. 2012, 2014, and 2016 are crazy high $$ amounts. Why the drastic change?
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:47 am to lsufan1971
I believe the Koch brothers stayed mostly on the sidelines during the presidential race because they weren't fans of Trump
I can't imagine they spend money unless they know for certain they can control the person they propped up
I can't imagine they spend money unless they know for certain they can control the person they propped up
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:48 am to LSUcjb318
Change from individual to organization on the list, the list is dominated by the left.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:49 am to AggieDub14
quote:
Wow, take a look at the historical data. No one even came close to the levels of donations prior to 2012. 2012, 2014, and 2016 are crazy high $$ amounts. Why the drastic change?
I don't know if you're begging the question or not, but the Citizens United ruling has a big impact on that.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:49 am to HempHead
quote:
Citizens United
and
here
we
go
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:52 am to AggieDub14
Pretty sure that was the time frame of the Citizens United ruling which validated money = speech.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:53 am to AggieDub14
quote:
. No one even came close to the levels of donations prior to 2012. 2012, 2014, and 2016 are crazy high $$ amounts. Why the drastic change?
People have more money? There are magnitudes more political action groups and "causes" to fund?
Posted on 3/15/17 at 9:53 am to RonLaFlamme
quote:
Citizens United ruling which validated money = speech.
well i certainly don't want the FEC regulating what films can be shown on cable TV. do you?
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:02 am to HempHead
quote:
I don't know if you're begging the question or not, but the Citizens United ruling has a big impact on that
I suspected Citizens United would have made a big impact, but wow...
This proves that CU needs to be struck down. For some reason I was thinking CU happened a few years sooner, but it was in late 2010.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:04 am to Dale51
You should look at the numbers. It jumps from $10 Million to almost $90 Million. Changes like that don't occur because people "found" better causes to donate for.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:14 am to LSUcjb318
quote:I may be pretty anti-Trump, but one of the greatest parts of his success is how little impact these types of indivduals and organizations had thought the primaries and general election.
These are the top individuals and organizations spending their money to influence your vote.
In addition, given Hillary's disproportionate negative ads, it was also great to see how ineffective that was.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:27 am to RonLaFlamme
quote:Well if the government hadn't restricted speech (via the release of a film), then the resulting implications as it pertains to political spending may not have occurred.
Pretty sure that was the time frame of the Citizens United ruling which validated money = speech.
That being said, saying that the ruling validated "money = speech" is an oversimplification. The right to spend money on causes that people support, which is an expressive act itself in addition to the message of that cause, is the pertinent issue as it relates to speech.
In other words, in a free society, why should the government have any power to regulate and/or criminalize one's support of a cause? And why would political causes and messages be any different than any other cause or message?
And even if the effects of the decision was a net negative in regards to political influence, freedom isn't something that can be disregarded because it has a negative effect, unless those negative effects infringes on other's rights and safety (e.g., threatening to murder someone.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:29 am to AggieDub14
quote:
This proves that CU needs to be struck down.
slow down
again, why do you think the FEC should be able to censor/ban a film being shown on cable TV?
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:33 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
In other words, in a free society, why should the government have any power to regulate and/or criminalize one's support of a cause? And why would political causes and messages be any different than any other cause or message?
exactly
why should government be able to tell SFP that SFP can't spend his own money to organize for an issue or advertise his beliefs?
the case involved the censorship of a fricking documentary, so it's even less individualized than that
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
If we can get some smart folks to get together and prove (using actual data) that the influx of $$ in politics over the last few years has influenced elections, it should be clear to a sane person that the freedoms of choice have been tampered with. The Constitution wasn't made so that we could be controlled by the rich.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News