First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Republicans outpacing Democrats in fundraising for 2017
28242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/21/republican-national-committee-fundraising/417547001/


WASHINGTON — The Republican National Committee raised nearly $10.9 million in May, more than twice the amount collected by its Democratic counterpart, new filings show.

The fundraising haul brings to nearly $62 million that the RNC has collected this year.

The Democratic National Committee raised $4.29 million in May and $32.7 million so far in 2017, according to the party's filings with the Federal Election Commission.


I'm glad people are putting money where their mouth is. Hot off the special election wins the June numbers should look even better.
17353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17
Some years back when i was a registered voter in minnisota jssie ventura won by a landslide with a fraction of the money and he took no donation above the $2,500 per household as limited by state law. as he said "noone gives $25,000 and doesn't want something in return". the only people who love the gobs of cash spent on campeighns are the mega media corperations who are the immediatate benifactors of all that money and the special interests spending that money on adds to influence elections. we desperately need campeigh finance reform.

seriously we need to get all the sorros and coke billionres out of the election process. kill the pac and super pac money and make every politition post the names of their donors and the cash ammount they donate in an easily serchable format on their web page.

you know,just so we know who owns them because as jessie said "noone gives that much money and doesn't expect somethimg in return". Right?
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17
Regardless of which side you are on, I think most reasonable people would agree that the biggest problem in politics is the money aspect. My personal belief is that donations should all be 100% public listed, and limited in scope to say $500/month per individual and zero money from corporations (That whole corporations donating money to campaigns is an exercise of their free speech is complete bullshit... they aren't people)

Wanna bet that the reason the totals are in the millions already is because there are major donations in the $100,000+ range?

edit: Derp, /agree with above poster obviously.
17353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17

MadBovine wrote:

Regardless of which side you are on, I think most reasonable people would agree that the biggest problem in politics is the money aspect. My personal belief is that donations should all be 100% public listed, and limited in scope to say $500/month per individual and zero money from corporations (That whole corporations donating money to campaigns is an exercise of their free speech is complete bullshit... they aren't people)

Wanna bet that the reason the totals are in the millions already is because there are major donations in the $100,000+ range?

edit: Derp, /agree with above poster obviously.


that should also include unions. after all noone heading a union has actually worked a union job. lol. and unionos are not people either as they are organised and run like corperations ;-).
runec 
36265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17
Citizens United, the gift that keeps on giving ( in excess of millions of dollars ).

This article doesn't tell us much and doesn't even link to the FEC filings. Not that that would tell us a huge amount more but we could see where some of the money was coming from at least.

None of this covers the dark money around SuperPACs and shit though.

Posted 7/17/17

runec wrote:

Citizens United, the gift that keeps on giving ( in excess of millions of dollars ).

This article doesn't tell us much and doesn't even link to the FEC filings. Not that that would tell us a huge amount more but we could see where some of the money was coming from at least.

None of this covers the dark money around SuperPACs and shit though.



Republican National Committee FEC Filings - to start off with.

As you said, it doesn't cover the SuperPACs and other shady money that both parties are so fond of utilizing. High donors are probably going to be part of the "shotgun strategy" that is just adding some more money to the GOP since they're already "in" with the elected individuals that won (see: Trump or any other recently nominated Republican member). It just goes to show that both Republicans and Demorats follow the same logic when it comes to money - it doesn't matter how much or where it's from, just throw it in my pocket and we'll rub elbows with you later on.

I agree with most of the others that have posted that stated that those who have donated in the higher levels are wanting something out of the politicians - but this is how it goes for either party. My statements aren't Trump/Republicans specific, as that's just how it goes. Since we're in a Republican-dominated Congress/WH scenario, money is going to go there until the Demorats get into power again. That's the back and forth swing of our democracy.
runec 
36265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17


Yes, I dug them up right after posting and it didn't tell me much. I mean, lots of big donors sure, but we need 538 or someone to parse the DNC/RNC filings to get an idea of what % are large donors, etc. Plus this is just the DNC/RNC, not all of the peripheral groups. It's all such a clusterfark of money channeling, shady pacs and what not.

But yeah, no one donates 32 grand for nothing and there's a few pages of 32 grand donations there in the receipts.



Posted 7/17/17

bernardwheelerjr wrote:

Some years back when i was a registered voter in minnisota jssie ventura won by a landslide with a fraction of the money and he took no donation above the $2,500 per household as limited by state law. as he said "noone gives $25,000 and doesn't want something in return". the only people who love the gobs of cash spent on campeighns are the mega media corperations who are the immediatate benifactors of all that money and the special interests spending that money on adds to influence elections. we desperately need campeigh finance reform.

seriously we need to get all the sorros and coke billionres out of the election process. kill the pac and super pac money and make every politition post the names of their donors and the cash ammount they donate in an easily serchable format on their web page.

you know,just so we know who owns them because as jessie said "noone gives that much money and doesn't expect somethimg in return". Right?


I would loved to have seen Jesse Ventura become president. Do people even remember that he was a navy seal, before his wrestling career? One of the very very few with his head on straight.
37735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17
I think we have hit the saturation point of money in elections. There is only so much ad time you can buy before you actually become over exposed (most politicians never got this memo though). Basically, both parties will have as much money as they want to spend. If one party pulls ahead too much, you can be bet the other will catch up quickly. The war now is over ideology more than anything else. In a way that's what I've hoped for, but it's become so twisted.
qwueri 
21036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17
I wonder at what point dumping money into a campaign starts yielding diminishing returns.
Ejanss 
16829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

qwueri wrote:

I wonder at what point dumping money into a campaign starts yielding diminishing returns.


When they use the money to start opening their mouths in public. And then, all the money in the world can't help.
28242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17
With party affiliation numbers in the tank it is important to build a war chest for exposure. What happened in 2016 was a fluke because you had a charismatic outsider candidate with name recognition that got billions of dollars worth of free press from an ailing industry. Fortunes have changed and now that industry can afford to be more selective. So I think it'll be business as usual going into 2018 and beyond.
runec 
36265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

MysticGon wrote:
With party affiliation numbers in the tank it is important to build a war chest for exposure. What happened in 2016 was a fluke because you had a charismatic outsider candidate with name recognition that got billions of dollars worth of free press from an ailing industry. Fortunes have changed and now that industry can afford to be more selective. So I think it'll be business as usual going into 2018 and beyond.


Unless an even bigger circus draw ( eg The Rock ) enters the race and the media breathlessly rushes in for the ratings again. =/



28242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/17/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
With party affiliation numbers in the tank it is important to build a war chest for exposure. What happened in 2016 was a fluke because you had a charismatic outsider candidate with name recognition that got billions of dollars worth of free press from an ailing industry. Fortunes have changed and now that industry can afford to be more selective. So I think it'll be business as usual going into 2018 and beyond.


Unless an even bigger circus draw ( eg The Rock ) enters the race and the media breathlessly rushes in for the ratings again. =/





The Rock is a heartthrob though. People will be tuning in to see the female anchors sliding off their chairs. They'll be forgiven for that.
runec 
36265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17

MysticGon wrote:
The Rock is a heartthrob though. People will be tuning in to see the female anchors sliding off their chairs. They'll be forgiven for that.


He is a slab of throbbing manbeef, yes.

The people have spoken though. They want celebrity/novelty over experience/qualifications. They want drama over policy. They want to be told that the people they disagree with are evil and only oppose them because of how good and righteous they are.

I'm not going to put any faith in cable news being the side that stands ups first in this equation.



First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.