Are Your Views on Campaign Spending Deduced from the Evidence?

[Nakosis]

So none of your views on campaign spending are deduced from the evidence or any fact that you can substantiate?

You should have just said that upfront. You wouldn't have had to go through so much unattractive twisting.

You're so very good at writing your own narrative.
Some folks might even find such creativity admirable.

 

[Koldo]

What does that mean? In Citizens United the Court upheld the "rule" about freedom of speech and the press. You don't know of any problem that has occurred as a result of the Court upholding that "rule," do you? If you do, cite your evidence.

Are your claims here deduced from the evidence? If so, cite that evidence. Are you disputing this:

Policy Consequences of Campaign Contributions

Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.[4] Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology.​

Campaign Finance: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

?

I don't think humans are all that different just because they live in different countries.
And I can tell you that 4 out of the 5 top donators in Brazil's last presidential election back in 2014 were later found to be involved in corruption scandals. And many laws have been proposed in such a manner that would financially benefit the remaining one.

 

[Underhill]

Cite the evidence that substantiates your claims here. That's what this thread is for--showing that your views on campaign spending are deduced from the evidence.

Your own article cites the evidence. Even if their millions of dollars affects .0001% of the vote, they are having an impact beyond the "one man, one vote" that is foundational to democracy.

 

[tytlyf]

Your own article cites the evidence. Even if their millions of dollars affects .0001% of the vote, they are having an impact beyond the "one man, one vote" that is foundational to democracy.

I can read comments here from Trump supporters that shows the panic mongering propaganda used in GOP media has an effect. People believing wild conspiracy theories as if it were real. Russia helped the GOP this election spread more of it.
That's why no one had to hack into election machines, they used propaganda to sway people to vote one way over the other. The problem is people didn't fact check what they were told.

 

[Nous]

You're so very good at writing your own narrative.

I can defend all of my claims here. It is you who has been unable to defend your claims.

 

[Nous]

I don't think humans are all that different just because they live in different countries.
And I can tell you that 4 out of the 5 top donators in Brazil's last presidential election back in 2014 were later found to be involved in corruption scandals.

That demonstrates that the integrity of elections is radically different in Brazil and the US. Offhand I can't think of a single case, at least in the past few decades, in which a major donor to a predidential election was found to involved in a corruption scandal.

What were these corrupton scandals?

 

[Nous]

Your own article cites the evidence.

No, none of the sources I've quoted or provided here cites any evidence by which to deduce any of your idiotic claims here.

Even if their millions of dollars affects .0001% of the vote, they are having an impact beyond the "one man, one vote" that is foundational to democracy.

That might be the most idiotic thing you've said here so far. No one's contribution to any candidate or PAC has taken away any person's vote.

 

[Nous]

I can read comments here from Trump supporters that shows the panic mongering propaganda used in GOP media has an effect.

We can be confident that you won't be able to cite any evidence that supports your claims here. Right?

You don't know of any evidence showing that propaganda changed anyone's mind about which candidate to vote for, do you?

 

[Nakosis]

I can defend all of my claims here. It is you who has been unable to defend your claims.

Actually you haven't. In fact, ignored the opportunity to do so when given a chance. So whether you accept the evidence I provided or not, I at least tried.

Still waiting on you.

 

[Nous]

Actually you haven't.

Prove it.

 

[Nakosis]

Prove it.

Claim made in post #35
Opportunity given in post #37

The 3 posts which follow, no supporting argument given. Care to remedy this in your next post.

Or I suppose I could just keep counting.

 

[tytlyf]

We can be confident that you won't be able to cite any evidence that supports your claims here. Right?

You don't know of any evidence showing that propaganda changed anyone's mind about which candidate to vote for, do you?

I can cite conservative comments and the wild conspiracy theories they believed about Clinton. Didn't matter if it was true or not. Hillary for Prison? For what crime? Remember, propaganda is emotional. If there were people 'on the fence' in battleground states over who to vote for, you don't think they'll base their decision on things they read on facebook, twitter, comment sections, fake websites, etc?
We know what happened, do you?

 

[Nous]

Claim made in post #35
Opportunity given in post #37

Prove it.

 

[Nous]

I can cite conservative comments and the wild conspiracy theories they believed about Clinton.

So exactly as I said: you don't know of any evidence showing that propaganda changed anyone's mind about which candidate to vote for.

 

[Nous]

A couple of facts that people who are paranoid about corporations are apparently unaware of:

In elections, individual campaign contributions far outweigh campaign contributions by PACs. In the 2016 Presidential election, for instance, individual contributions totaled more than $1 billion, while contributions from PACs were less than $3 million. Presidential Campaign Finance Thus whatever bang-for-the-buck corporations are supposedly getting for their donations, individuals are getting more than 3 times that. In addition, in many cases donations to super PACs are primarily from individuals, not other corporations or unions. This was the case with Citizens United, as the Court noted in the decision.

Corporations rarely donate the maximum amount allowed by law to a candidate--only 4% of PAC donations are at or near the limit. The average PAC donation amounts to about 17% of the allowable maximum. Further, big corporations invariably spend many times more on charitable donations than on political contributions. Among the 15 large corporations examined by Milyo, Primo and Groseclose, the businesses gave a total of $1.6 billion to charities, and just $16 million to political campaigns. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5344&context=faculty_scholarship

Thus the “conundrum” suggested by more than one person here as to why corporations spend so much on political campaigns if it didn't benefit them is premised on a falsehood. Corporations do not spend great amounts on political campaigns.

 

[tytlyf]

So exactly as I said: you don't know of any evidence showing that propaganda changed anyone's mind about which candidate to vote for.

How can something like that be proven outside of hearing what a person says and believes? If I told you I voted for Clinton because of Trump's golden showers, would that be ok?

I care more about the policies of the person running for office and the chances they have of accomplishing those policies. Anyone can make wild promises.

 

[Nakosis]

Prove it.

4

 

[Nous]

How can something like that be proven outside of hearing what a person says and believes?

Did you not read the studies I've linked to here? You should. I'm certain they will blow your mind. As noted in the OP, the 2013 La Raja and Schaffner study, for instance, began by collecting data on campaign finance laws in every state from 1968-2008, They hypothesized that fewer Republicans and fewer incumbents would be elected in the wake of a state's corporate spending ban. They found that there was no such relationship--indeed, oftentimes election outcomes showed just the opposite after such corporate spending bands.

A rational person does not assess the issue of corporate/union spending bans on the basis of his/her beliefs. That's circular. S/he begins with the facts. The same goes for the issue of governmental attempts to equalize candidate spending. Contrary to popular beliefs, incumbents are apparently benefited when the federal or state government try to "level the playing field" because incumbents enjoy name recognition and prestige, while the challenger is hindered in his ability to broadcast his message. The Supreme Court wisely struck down these governmental efforts to equalize what opposing candidates can spend and say, in Davis v. FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.

 

[Nous]

4

Ooh, you found the number keys, eh? Good for you.

 

[Nakosis]

Ooh, you found the number keys, eh? Good for you.

Yes, I'm up to the number 5. I suspect you will continue to help me learn where these number keys are.