This sounds like one of those conspiracy theories that old people share on facebook. It has all the elements of one - it makes sense, it’s a large organization causing world events, it’s not fully vetted…
Anyways, supposedly the reason why the Senate is trying a hail mary to repeal the affordable care act is so they can get $400 million dollars in funds to help win the 2018 elections. That if they don’t succeed, they don’t get the money. (I guess it goes back to the donors, or gets spent on even more conservative challengers to the current GOP representatives…)
I just don’t want to believe it. If true, it’s monstrous. It’s a sign of the collapse of American democracy. It’s a small number of wealthy people who are currently paying more taxes to fund obamacare and deficit spending (which is ultimately a tax on them, because they own the majority of all wealth in America) getting a far greater voice than the majority of people.
Since the total cost of the American 2016 election approached $7 billion ( on both sides, but far more by the Dems — who lost ), I would think that’s a drop in the bucket.
Running a democracy costs.
But it would buy some of them fine cigars.
Nah, buying votes is the essence of democracy, either with money or promises. And always has been from the Ancient Greeks to Tammany Hall. And bought legislators tend to be honest legislators.
Second: short quiz. For each of the names or phrases below, please respond “yes” or “no” to indicate that you are, or are not, familiar with the history indicated by the name or phrase:
[ul]
[li]Huey Long[/li][li]Tammany Hall[/li][li]E. H. Crump[/li][li]Daley Machine (Cook County Democratic Party)[/li][li]Eugene Talmadge[/li][/ul]
Or don’t – maybe just answer this summary question: what, if anything, was the effect on American democracy levied by the above-named groups or individuals?
According to your claim, the Republicans spend less than three and a half billion dollars (I don’t know how much bigger you think the Democrat’s share of the seven billion was). If the Koch network is donating three to four hundred million, that means they’re single-handedly (double-handedly?) financing over ten percent of the Republican election effort. I’d call that more than a drop in the bucket. For that kind of money, they can probably walk around the capital and order random GOP Congressmen to drop and give them twenty push-ups.
I have no figures to break down how they spent on whom that money allocated — although using the by party slider on that list of official stats indicates I was wrong at the two party both spent $3,07x,million — however this means since Hillary spent double Donald’s outlay on the main race, less was spent on her fellow Democrats, whilst conversely Donald did not hog all the Republican monies.
Donald J. Trump won the White House after spending a little more than half of what Hillary Clinton did,
Although, according to that page, he wisely sent some of that money, $12 million, to his own organisations — which to me, and I am no ethicist, seems like taking travelling expenses from one’s employers and sleeping at home.
Hillary raised $1.4 billion, of which she spent $623 million on her campaign.
Donald raised $957 million, of which he spent $335 million on his campaign. Washington Post
*Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
*VOX
She deserves kudos for her mad money-raising skillz, but it seems odd to spend that amount on nothingness.
There’s no single reason for the decline of American democracy, but it’s clearly in trouble. I don’t know if money in politics is necessarily to blame – there’s always been big money in politics. It probably has more to do with the weakening of institutions and the faith that ordinary people have in them. The way that people obtain and process information has changed radically, and because an informed and educated electorate is an important ingredient of democracy (as well as faith in institutions and individuals in office to serve the public good), this has had a negative impact. Unqualified voters are increasingly elected unqualified and corrupt public servants and there is less accountability for what kinds of laws they pass.
How cute. They’re all Democrats. The Republicans OTOH … they emancipated the slaves!! Abe Lincoln, 2nd most Presidential President ever. “Did you know Lincoln was a Republican? Not many do.”
Cite?
So your cite is your ☗☗☗☗☗☗☗. Got it.
Welcome to post-rational Republican diction. $400 million is a “drop in the bucket.” One well-known Doper, arguing for tax cuts for the rich, declared that the Trillions (with a T!) lost to gummint coffers by the tax cut would be a “rounding error.”
Koch’s stooges insist on travelling by private jet at gummint expense, but if they find a (Democrat!) bureaucrat on gummint expenses saying “Super-Size it, please!” at McDonald’s they’ll hold hearings!
How do you get from a story from a reputable source, with named sources directly quoted in the article, to “gratuitous assertion” such that you can say “the story is not true”?
I don’t doubt that the Evil Koch Bros. and other wealthy GOP/right wing donors would use their purse power to pressure Republican legislators to get cracking on bills they want to pass.
Consider however that plenty of money has gone into creating and preserving the ACA.
The A.M.A., hospitals, nursing homes, physicians etc. have been strongly in favor of retaining the ACA, at least in part because its repeal would doom a lot of income derived from bringing/keeping more patients in the system.
According to opensecrets.org (which tracks the flow of political dough), health care providers forked over $109 million when the ACA was getting off the ground, and lobbying alone still accounts for well over $20 million a year just from the American Hospital Association.*
So while I’m sure campaign money is used to influence the outcome of attempted ACA repeal (it’s not going to happen), it comes from a variety of directions.
*the top three recipients for political contributions from the AHA in 2016 were, curiously enough, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic House Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Seems plausible to me. It’s not even illegal (nor is it a ‘bribe’ in the strict sense of the word) or even that unusual (well, I don’t know how often groups threaten to withhold funds if a specific agenda isn’t met…that might be fairly unusual). This is what lobbying is in the US. It’s certainly not a sign of the collapse of American democracy, considering that this sort of thing has been happening for decades, maybe centuries. This riles you up because you don’t agree with the agenda, but I bet if it was a lobby group you did agree with you wouldn’t bat an eye.
Me, I think all this lobbying stuff is slimy, regardless…I just don’t know a way to toss out the bathwater and keep the baby, or what the unintended consequences would be if we got rid of the system of lobbying money and organizations.
The failure in the OP is the attempt to label what-appear-to-me-to-be fairly mundane and traditional campaign donations as a “bribe” (a word the proffered “source” does not appear to use). Is Soros “bribing” Dems?
The reason the health care bill is being pushed now is that the protections against Democrats filibustering the bill will expire on September 30th.
As far as donors threatening/cajoling/playing games with donations if politicians don’t support some sort of policy they favor; what the fuck do you think that every donor has ever done in the history of U.S. political campaigns? Do you open your checkbook to candidates regardless of their voting history?
Well…yes and no. It’s obviously not bribery in the legal sense.
But a lot of the defense of the propriety of our campaign donation system is that many donors are effectively paying for support of politicians who already liked the donors’ preferred policies and access to those politicians to convince them of the correctness of the donors’ views.
It is different in kind from those actions if the donor is saying they will give money if and when the politician takes some discrete action that the politician would not otherwise choose on policy grounds. That is what is being alleged here, and does strike me as somewhat distinguishable–if only in the degree of it being a problem for democracy, if not some moral or legal line.