Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by caltour2:
Big contributors control elections because campaign money is the "mother's milk of politics." Just about the only way to win an election nowadays is to spend more on advertising, outreach, organization and payola than your opponent.



Define big contributors, there are a number of limits on campaign financing resulting from the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 that limit campaign contributions for the various elected offices. Are we talking about campaign finance only or are you lumping in PAC's and lobbyists into this discussion (which are an entirely different story really)?



Good point; there are numerous kinds of money that can influence elections and policies. And you are correct that (so-called) campaign finance reform restricted one means of buying influence. But wealthy individuals and corporations can still buy power through "soft money" and "527 groups." (Not to mention outright illegal payola, see for example Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-San Diego).

The BIG contributions to political parties and to "527" organizations influenced the last election by paying for armed guards at polling places to intimidate minority voters in Ohio, by paying for operatives who challenged poor and minority voters' right to vote, and by paying for ads like the "Swift Boat Veterans" ads designed to derail the Kerry campaign.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
I generally put very little weight in what the press says. Since we live in a capitalist society, it would seem to make sense to me what you are saying, that money talks.



I hope you don't mean that the wealthy SHOULD have greater political influence than the rest of us. That's called oligarchy, not democracy.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
I've also seen several studies that have stated that for all of the money spent on campaigns, very few people alter their votes when all is said and done. Most people vote along party lines no matter what because their belief system lines up better with one system than the other (or put in a way I prefer, voting for the lesser of two evils), and this rarely changes.



I'd like to see the studies you are referring to. How could anyone reliably measure the influence of vast amounts of money contributed to campaign funds ("hard money"), to political parties ("soft money"), to Political Action Committies (PACs) and to 527 groups (like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth")? Just ask yourself the common-sense question: How could that money NOT have overwhelming influence?