You assume to much. I consume media from many sources, including the left.
The fact that many law abiding people in CT are now felons due to the changing of the gun laws there is not in dispute by anyone paying attention to the situation.
It’s very odd how you get genuinely upset that every other person on the planet hasn’t read and fully agreed with the same things you have.
You need to try and work on this. It’s getting worse as you age. Seriously. Don’t be that guy.
It’s amusing that you literally cannot tell the difference between money and influence at all.
You make my point. The Kochs spend a lot more than the NRA, but the NRA has much more influence. This proves the point that money isn’t the only form of influence and isn’t even a particularly important one. Microsoft spends more money than the NRA. Big oil spends orders of magnitude more money lobbying than the NRA. Neither has as much influence.
As to your point that the NRA lost some races on which they spent money: You are mistaken that this means anything. They pour funds in to help in races that are close but the pro gun person needs help. They could have a perfect track record if they only pitched in when victory was assured but what would be the point of that? It’s silly to argue that the NRA isn’t one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country. Or, more likely, just wishful thinking on your part.
A felon is someone who has been convicted of a felony.
In a court of law, sure. What are you, Bricker?
But that’s not how people talk. I guess I could have wrote “individuals who are now guilty of committing a felony but haven’t been prosecuted yet, since that’s not possible given that they significantly outnumber the police of the state of CT and we know they all have assault weapons”. But that would be a bit silly, wouldn’t it?
You know the point that I was making, I’m sure. No need to nitpick it to death.
My point stands that it’s silly to argue that gun rights aren’t in jeopardy in this country given what’s going on in CT.
Be fair. You did post a quite incredibly ignorant and/or disingenuous challenge.
To which my post was entirely responsive.
Your post did have value. I read it, and found it interesting. However, I had to hold my nose to get to it, since you preceded it with your standard annoyed tone that I haven’t already read it since you have.
This is what I object to. Most people would read that tone in your response and not even bother. If you have something of value to add to a thread, as you did here, you don’t help yourself by being exasperated that I don’t have the same reading list that you do.
You do this a lot. I’m not making this up.
Back to the point at hand: We’ve had a couple examples of money in politics brought up so far. I brought up the NRA. Someone else brought up Newt Gingrich and his backer, Wynn. Both of these examples support my contention, not yours. The NRA is powerful, and not because of money. Gingrich’s campaign went nowhere, and the fact that he had so much financial support from one individual hurt his campaign and made people take him less seriously. I’ll add another example: Meg Whitman.
That’s three examples proving my point. What have you got?
Sure you need money to run a campaign. But it’s certainly no guarantee of victory, and in fact the money usually follows the successful candidates, not the other way around. People want to back the winning horse.
In the Voter ID thread, a year to submit an application for ID or choose not to was taken by many commentators as impermissibly restricting voting rights.
I don’t agree with that. I think that the CT law is ill-advised and should be repealed, but that’s a fight for the ballot box. In the interim, gun owners have no privilege to defy the law.
But the law does constitute a tiny threat to gun ownership. It’s minor, to be sure, and well-within the powers of Connecticut’s legislature to mandate…but it’s non-zero.
No, I did not even imply that. My impatience was with your ignorance and/or disingenuity about the whole subject. You should not need familiarity with any particular source to know that big campaign money does buy political influence, that is not even a debatable point.
Oh, it’s just common sense, right? So much so that you don’t even need to debate the point, or respond to my three examples to the contrary.
If that’s your attitude, you should probably post over at Democratic Underground or another cite that simply bans conservatives from posting at all. That way you’d never have to endure any opinions that you might disagree with.
Back to my claim: I admit that money can matter. I’ve said as much in this thread. But my original claim that there’s no meaningful correlation between the money a group spends lobbying and the amount of influence they have is true. Some groups, like the NRA spend very little and have a lot of influence. Other groups like the tech lobby (120 million in 2010) spend a great deal and don’t have a lot of influence. You don’t see politicians afraid of Google the way you do the NRA. Indeed, in the past couple years Washington has been bullying the tech industry and they can’t be too happy right now.
Another example is the AARP. They spent only $22 million on lobbying and yet have great influence due to their members.
Examples of other forms of political influence are not examples to the contrary.
Depends what you mean by influence. Considering all of the candidates they were officially backing in deeds over mere words lost, well, how influential can they be ?
I dunno, Big Oil got a foreign war out of the deal. S’not bad, s’not bad.
Um, yes. Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, did you know that 2+2 equalled 4 ? I just learned that today, figured I would pass on the news. And if the NRA’s super-influential help doesn’t make a difference (they didn’t lose some close races, they lost them all), then by definition they’re not all that influential. As defined by whether they can, y’know, *influence *results. If their influence lies in claiming non-disputed victories by virtue of standing on the bandwagon, well, I might be really fucking influential too and I didn’t know it.
By comparison, the Kochs managed to buy themselves an incumbent governor in a recall election, a result that was up to then unprecedented in American history because it is insane.
I think it might have been at some point, and it’s absolutely banking on its reputation of making or breaking candidates. But where facts are concerned ? The NRA ain’t all that any more. Much like every other alliance or grouping of little people, middle class, working class - when you need millions of dollars’ worth of megaphones to spout your shit it doesn’t amount to much. It helps that the Kochs and the Fox News of the world happen to cross-pollinate w/ NRA voters and pretend to adopt their issues. The gun/antigun nonsense serves as a decent maskerade to put front and center I suppose.
People are scared of the gun lobby. Which in turn gives them a disproportionate influence and voice. But they oughtn’t not. It doesn’t swing voters : people who make gun rights their number one A solo unique issue are already voting Republican. People who really want to control them vote Democrat. People who don’t really mind either way aren’t really interested in the issue, and might even be turned away by the NRA’s insanity of late.
Very naive question, if I may (and not related, at least I think not related, to the SCOTUS decision):
What’s to stop a wealthy and motivated person from giving, say, a thousand of his “friends” each $2600 with the ‘understanding’ (wink, wink) that they, in turn, are each gonna donate it to one particular candidate? (And, if his gift was taxable, why he’d take care of that, too. He is a generous man, after all).
So you are claiming with a straight face that the NRA is not influential?
Wait, what? So they are influential? But you just wish they weren’t?
Get your story straight.
The NRA will remain influential as long as these two things are both true:
-
Broad swaths of the country, including many democrats, value the second amendment and gun rights.
-
Politicians continue to attempt to restrict gun rights.
Neither of those things are changing anytime soon, thus the NRA will continue to be influential. But it’s got nothing to do with money. This is why you are misguided when you presume the few dollars they spend means anything. They exert enormous influence over all levels of government because the politicians fear the voters they represent.
That’s real influence, and it’s not something you can buy.
nm
Of course they are influential, and of course as a die-hard liberal I wish they weren’t, but they achieved their influence in an honest way, by bringing together large numbers of individuals who make their special interests known at the ballot box. That is how Democracy works. I may hate the result in this particular case but I wouldn’t throw out the system just because it doesn’t always produce the result I want.
But that doesn’t mean that that is the only way it can work and one can’t buy influence. Onne individual due to his finances can have more influence than thousands of ordinary people. And particularly bad when the class of such people all have similar political goals.
For example if you have a piece of legislation that 30% of the population are against, 10% are in favor of 60% don’t care about, than the legislation will generally should fail. But if the 10% includes the 0.01% of the population that has enough wealth to buy influence, then chances are it will pass. This is a failure of Democracy.
Democracy didn’t fail us, we failed democracy. The number one enemy of progress is apathy, not rich reactionary Daddy Warbucks. We are the problem, and we are the solution. We, the people. All the tools are there, right on the workbench. (My personal favorite is the crosscut snarksaw.)
Talk, argue, vote. Venceremos!
Here, have a shot of Cutty Snark.
Just as long as its not Coors, or any of that stuff Cheney drinks. You know, evil Dewers.
Come now, man, that would be a shameful sham, gross corruption, circumventing the law in most egregious ways, buying voters ! Unthinkable ! Classless. No, no, no. Wealthy and motivated persons found superPACs to make anonymous and uncapped donations to. As is proper. PROPER.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs came from wealthy individuals, not corporations.[25] According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised,[28] while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.[29] Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.[30]
[/QUOTE]