http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html
Isn’t democracy wonderful!!!
Wow, that’s obscene, but money is speech. Whoever has the most gets to talk.
I’m starting to think the best argument for reducing income inequality is that middle class folks don’t blow as much cash on political campaigns. You take a handful of billionaires with tons of scratch burning a hole in their pockets and what do you get? Crazy ass bunga-bunga parties, mega yachts, and robocalls. Lots and lots of robocalls.
Plus a “silent majority” that’s completely disconnected from the silent majority.
Best OP username/last line combo ever.
Say it with me:
Progressive. Consumption. Tax.
People scoff, and okay, it ain’t no panacea, but you could tax the living bajesus out of this kind of wasteful spending.
Doubt it. Given their combined wealth of $82.6 billion, the Koch brothers earn several billion in interest every year. In fact, they could spend $900 million every year from now until forever and their wealth would still grow rapidly.
Am I the only one who worries that when one of them finally dies, we’ll find out that he was the nice one who had been holding the other one back for decades? :dubious:
No
I’m not sure I follow. You want to tax the money spent on political advertisements? I’m all for regulations on campaigning, but slapping a big tax on political ads is a horrible idea.
I wasn’t sure either, but slapping a big tax on electronic advertising during campaigns is a terrific idea. Set it at 100%. Proceeds go to the opponent. Playing field gets leveled. (Actually it doesn’t, if you do the math. But it does get flatter.)
The answer to bad speech is more speech.
Yes, yes, you have to identify the opponent. I assert the details can be worked out.
That is a terrible idea. Putting government in the role of taxing political speech then doling out subsidies to counter the speech that’s been punitively taxed? That’s a loser idea on every level.
$900 million?
Well, at least they’re creating jobs.
Somewhere. Somehow. Gotta be.
Actually, it does benefit advertising agencies a ton.
But anyway, the Kochs should have learned by now that this doesn’t do any good. The Kochs want to push libertarian ideology, right? The best way to do that isn’t to spend money on elections. They should be running ads touting government outrages EVERY DAY with that money, with other ads touting libertarian solutions. That’s how you change public opinion. Once you’ve done that, who people vote for takes care of itself.
And the best part is that anyone who objected to that kind of spending wouldn’t have a leg to stand on either legally or morally. It can be argued reasonably that the rich don’t have the right to buy elections. It cannot be argued reasonably that the rich don’t have the right to use their wealth and influence to change public opinion on the issues.
Seriously though, won’t that kind of spending give a huge shot in the arm to an economy that’s already humming along pretty good? And wouldn’t it be a boon to all the Democratic candidates (including Hilary) who might run on a platform of “Obama’s Third Term”?
There is no such thing as a libertarian solution.
What do you think the American Revolution was? The concept of constitutional, limited government? The Bill of Rights?
There are cases where government action is not justified and does more harm than good, and if liberals themselves won’t fight those abuses, then libertarians have to.
The revolution didn’t lead to a libertarian government, did it? Bill of Rights? Virtually every industrialized nation has something similar, none of which are libertarian governments. How do libertarians lay claim to the Bill of Rights?
Are there cases where the private sector does things better than the government? Sure. But that has little to do with guys like Koch spending billions just to reduce his own tax bill and trying to turn back the clock to the days of the robber barons.
At Fox News.
The libertarians claim the Bill of Rights because they fully support the Bill of Rights, and an expansive interpretation of those rights. Liberals, especially on the 1st amendment, support a very limited interpretation. Especially on the most basic right we have in a democracy: the right to advocate for our favored candidates and policies.
Liberals do not tend to be friends of the idea of limited government either. They tend to be results-oriented. If they need something done, they do it, and if it’s illegal, then appoint new judges to say it’s legal.