# Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 27, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967 "2015-01-27T00:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/81 "2015-01-29T04:23:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then how would they stay in politics? > > One can, without hypocrisy, call for disarmament while still fighting with the weapon one wants banned, if one is at war and the other side is using it. Surely the Democrats don’t need zillions of dollars from zillionaires to stay in politics. If a group of voters prefers the Democratic Party’s positions over the other parties, those voters will vote Democrats, regardless of whether or not the party purchases 583,420,716,934,792 television commercials. It can’t possibly be the case that Democratic voters only vote for Democrats because of advertising. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/82 "2015-01-29T06:30:19Z")
Why do people advertise, if it’s so completely ineffective? Are they all simply stupid and wasteful with their money? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/83 "2015-01-29T06:51:43Z")
Everyone who wants to promote something advertises, but not all advertising is effective. After most campaigns, it’s pretty well understood which were the most effective ads, and often the ads that laid the biggest eggs(such as Alison Lundergan Grimes shooting things and saying she’s not Barack Obama). Not surprisingly, most of the effective ads are the ads by candidates, not by third parties. This makes sense, because those ads are put together by political pros, whereas third party ads are usually not. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/84 "2015-01-29T15:17:40Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I keep seeing the phrase “buy elections”, but beyond being a code word for “using money to advocate political opinions” I’m not sure what it means. So what do you mean by “buy elections”? > > If I buy a poster board and markers to write “Vote Obama” on it, am I trying to buy the election? > > Also, using disparaging terms does a disservice to your argument. When I say “buying elections” I mean what I say. In most elections, the guy with the most money behind him wins. The presidency may be another story, even Bill Gates doesn’t have enough money to make Romney likeable. But for your local elections, the guy who can put the most ads on the radio and TV is going to win. No, money can’t buy a Republican that would knock off Nancy Pelosi for her seat just like money isn’t going to buy a Democrat a seat in rural Alabama. But if the district is at all competitive, money talks and bullshit walks. Citizens United just legitimizes the sale of state legislatures and the Congress. I haven’t seen any Democrats arguing that the same rules would not apply to George Soros as would apply to the Kochs. Disparaging terms may not help an argument, but they are fun. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/85 "2015-01-29T15:30:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Everyone who wants to promote something advertises, but not all advertising is effective. And, [some parties “advertise” when they’re not actually trying to sell anything, because . . .](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Advertising) > [@](#): > > **TV advertising** > > If you’ve ever watched television in the United States — especially nationally televised sporting events like the NFL, or “talking heads” current affairs shows like Meet the Press or Face the Nation — you’ve probably noticed a lot of advertising for companies and organizations that the “Joe Six-Packs” in the audience would never directly patronize. Examples of these advertisers include AIG, Boeing, the American Petroleum Institute, Credit Suisse, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF).[1] These entities don’t pay huge sums of money to the TV networks to sell their products.[2] Rather, they pay huge sums of money to affect the content of the network (and, in some cases, local) news shows. > > Whenever any of these advertisers finds out that a pending news story is critical of it or any of its clients, that advertiser can get the story killed merely by threatening to pull its multi-billion dollar ad campaign from the network. Also, by repeatedly pushing bullshit memes — like the benevolent defense contractor and the benefits to the environment of clean coal — these advertising campaigns function as a means to propagandize the viewers. > > Once upon a time, this was not allowed. The news divisions at the networks and local stations were not-for-profit. This allowed them the freedom not only to produce controversial news stories and documentaries, but also to call out any entity that tried to threaten them for doing their jobs. That started to change beginning in the 1980s, when politicians began to believe that everything should be for-profit. With the discontinuation of the Fairness Doctrine, limited ownership policies[3] and the requirement that stations broadcast programming designed to serve the public interest, American TV and radio stations became little more than propaganda machines for large corporations. > > The sole benefit of this to the consumer is a person in New York can bitch with their friend in California about the same ad on television. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/86 "2015-01-29T15:32:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Surely the Democrats don’t need zillions of dollars from zillionaires to stay in politics. Surely they do, because all candidates run as individual candidates, and see post #84. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/87 "2015-01-29T16:28:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > > [@Pleonast](#): > > > > > > I keep seeing the phrase “buy elections”, but beyond being a code word for “using money to advocate political opinions” I’m not sure what it means. So what do you mean by “buy elections”? > > > > “We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” > > > > – [Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Politics#Campaign_finance_reform) > > Sorry, [better link](https://books.google.com/books?id=3Y09HbgcJO8C&pg=PT223&lpg=PT223&dq=allen+pross+%22We+don%27t+buy+votes.+What+we+do+is+we+buy+a+candidate%27s+stance+on+an+issue.%22&source=bl&ots=nXO6SkyrBg&sig=yC13H8VjPhG9lGY-ozKeE9VvNB0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cnjJVNjAGMjisATHjYLoCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=allen%20pross%20%22We%20don't%20buy%20votes.%20What%20we%20do%20is%20we%20buy%20a%20candidate's%20stance%20on%20an%20issue.%22&f=false). Thank you, that helps explain why “buying an election” isn’t a good term. So why do people use it when they really mean “influence a politician”? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Anything that costs money is a limited resource. Access to broadcasts – journalists’ and commentators’ broadcasts – typically costs the pols nothing, but access to ad-time does. Yes. But are any “speech” resources so limited that their price is too high? I could be persuaded that “speech” subsidies are needed to provide access to those who are priced out of the “speech” market. Is anyone? I’m not seeing it today, where the cost to publish something on YouTube or FaceBook is extremely low. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, we want to ban any advertising that **costs money.** See post #58. So you want to criminalize my “Vote Obama” poster propped up in my lawn that I paid for myself? > [@BobLibDem](#): > > When I say “buying elections” I mean what I say. In most elections, the guy with the most money behind him wins. The presidency may be another story, even Bill Gates doesn’t have enough money to make Romney likeable. But for your local elections, the guy who can put the most ads on the radio and TV is going to win. No, money can’t buy a Republican that would knock off Nancy Pelosi for her seat just like money isn’t going to buy a Democrat a seat in rural Alabama. But if the district is at all competitive, money talks and bullshit walks. Citizens United just legitimizes the sale of state legislatures and the Congress. (Please note that correlation is not causation. It’s quite possible that the winning candidate raises more money because contributors correctly prognosticate who will win the election. But for the sake of argument let’s assume causation goes from money to winning instead of the reverse.) So you do mean “using money to advocate political opinions”. Well, that’s a necessary part of a liberal society. People have the right to advocate their politics. That takes time and resources, for which money is a proxy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/88 "2015-01-29T16:47:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There are no free ads on the public airwaves. So you would ban all political advertising, right? Not quite, I would require every network/station to provide each candidate in a given election with a specified and equal amount of free airtime; that’s how it works in France. > [@adaher](#): > > How about the internet? In an age where the newest hit music videos get 100 million views, that’s 100 million eyeballs on a campaign ad. Are we to regulate Youtube now? Not if it’s free. The problem here is not the advertising as such, it is the cost of advertising. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/89 "2015-01-29T17:02:37Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Thank you, that helps explain why “buying an election” isn’t a good term. So why do people use it when they really mean “influence a politician”? Because it comes down to the same thing. You spend the money to help the pol win, and the pol knows who he owes, and that if he does not show his gratitude, that money won’t be there next election. Some corporations, I’ve read, sometimes contribute to **both** campaigns, just to make sure the winner owes them – that does not buy an election as such, but it does buy a pol. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes. But are any “speech” resources so limited that their price is too high? Apparently. The most important, influential and expensive form is television advertising. > [@Pleonast](#): > > So you want to criminalize my “Vote Obama” poster propped up in my lawn that I paid for myself? No, I just want to make it unnecessary for candidates to fundraise – and impossible for anyone to influence the outcome of an election by spending money on it. Your poster is too trivial to matter, there. > [@Pleonast](#): > > So you do mean “using money to advocate political opinions”. Well, that’s a necessary part of a liberal society. People have the right to advocate their politics. That takes time and resources, for which money is a proxy. See above. I’m mainly concerned here with money spent on electoral campaigns, not on advertising to advocate a general political point of view, that’s another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/90 "2015-01-29T17:43:13Z")
> [@](#): > > …That takes time and resources, for which money is a proxy. Money isn’t a proxy for resources, money is resources. In America, money isn’t a proxy for power, money is power. And with great power comes great irresponsibility. Can a man of great wealth be a responsible and worthy citizen? Yes, it would appear to be so, Bill Gates is an example. After he got married. (Behold! the healing power of nookie, thanks be to the Goddess…) Are the Koch Brothers responsible citizens? No, they are not, they promote the dirty energy that feed their greed. The Titanic Earth is taking on water, and they run about drilling holes in the lifeboats. In the name of principle, mind you, protecting the all important rights of private property and free speech. But free speech is not the right to shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire. Maybe no reasonable compromise is possible, but I doubt it, and we simply must try to find one. Because how long can you tread water? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/91 "2015-01-29T17:53:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not quite, I would require every network/station to provide each candidate in a given election with a specified and equal amount of free airtime; But what about everyone else who has something to say about the election? Must the broadcaster provide them airtime as well? Or must they buy time? Or are they forbidden to express their views in that medium? Hmm, maybe a lottery to determine who gets airtime? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because it comes down to the same thing. You spend the money to help the pol win, and the pol knows who he owes, and that if he does not show his gratitude, that money won’t be there next election. The problem with that argument is it completely removes agency from the voters. Despite the caricature of average citizens as sheep, I don’t really believe it. People are making a choice, no matter how badly they choose. Or, to put it another way, I think politicians are influenced by how people vote, rather than the money itself. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, I just want to make it unnecessary for candidates to fundraise – and impossible for anyone to influence the outcome of an election by spending money on it. I’m happy with the former, but steadfast against the latter. The point of political speech is to influence others. And political speech without the means to pursue it is useless. I understand your desire to prevent elected politicians from being influenced by money. That is a worthy goal. But politicians should be influenced by the voters. And voters should be influenced by political speech. And political speech needs to be able to come from anyone. But political speech, like everything, requires resources. Since political speech should not be restricted by the government, neither should it restrict the use of resources for political speech. I want to live in a liberal society where I can spend mine own resources (time, money, etc) to advocate my political beliefs. Yeah, it’s piddly squat compared to wealthier and better connected people. But infringing their right to spend their resources on their political beliefs infringes on my right too! Maybe instead of looking for ways to suppress the speech of those with a lot of resources, the left should be looking for ways to magnify the speech of those with few resources. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See above. I’m mainly concerned here with money spent on electoral campaigns, not on advertising to advocate a general political point of view, that’s another discussion. Those are not separable. One of the best ways to advocate a political point of view is to support a candidate with that view. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/92 "2015-01-29T18:40:42Z")
Somehow there’s still conservatives who don’t get it. You know why nobody _seems_ to care about Soros? Because this topic isn’t about that. By all means bring up your concerns in the Simpsons tapped out thread, or the dating advice thread, or the anti-vax thread. You’ll find that somehow, Simpsons fans, people who date, and people who believe and don’t believe in vaccinations strangely, somehow, also don’t care about George Soros. Or the Koch brothers for that matter. Anyways, why even bother to defend them? The GOP want the election to be bought, they don’t care about fairness or they wouldn’t be pushing Voter ID laws or gerrymandering or trying to contract voting hours or the voting population. They see that they’ve lost some big battles because they are crazy and instead of becoming sane, they change the rules to push through the crazy. I’m confused why some of you conservatives don’t just come out an embrace the inequality because its so obvious that’s what you want, you can’t even have a civil discussion without attacking the other person ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/93 "2015-01-29T18:54:05Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The problem with that argument is it completely removes agency from the voters. Despite the caricature of average citizens as sheep, I don’t really believe it. People are making a choice, no matter how badly they choose. > > Or, to put it another way, I think politicians are influenced by how people vote, rather than the money itself. And money influences how people vote. If you can convince people to change their mind with something as concrete as which soft drink they think tastes better, based on an athletes smiling face, than you can certainly influence a voters opinion on something as nebulous as which economic policy is most likely to bring them prosperity. If a person sees 100 ads showing people who claim they can’t afford their health insurance due to Obamacare, and 10 ads showing people who now can afford health insurance due to Obamacare, that person will naturally think that Obamcare caused 10 times as many people to lose health care as gain it, even if the opposite was true. As others have said if money didn’t work people wouldn’t spend it. However I am less concerned with elections being swayed by money than I am with politicians. If all politicians were concerned about was catering to the voters, and the money just influenced which politicians got into office that would be one thing. The problem is that with money having a real influence, the politicians also have to cater to the money, that is where serious corruption occurs, while quid pro quo bribery is illegal, it is incredibly easy to get around it. **Mr. Money bags:** I like your agenda and would like to see it pursued, so I started a $100 million PAC to insinuate that you opponent would sell the state of Alaska back to the communists. But don’t tell anyone that I’m involved as it might make my company seem slimy. **Sen. Spineless:** Why thank you Mr. Moneybags, I’m glad you support the ideas that I think best serve my constituency. Also don’t worry my lips are sealed after all its an independent PAC of which I have no knowledge. Which is a good thing too as I would never say such a horrible lie about my opponent. _(one year later)_ **Lobbyist for Mr Moneybags:** Just so you know, the sort of agenda Mr. Moneybags likes is one that includes selling mining rights to his company for 5 cents an acre. **Sen. Spineless:** What a coincidence that is just the sort of agenda that I think will best serve my constituency. \* (one year later)\* **Mr. Money bags:** I like your agenda and would like to see it pursued, so I started a $100 million PAC to insinuate that you opponent would outlaw parents reading bible stories to their children. But don’t tell anyone that I’m involved as it might make my company seem slimy. _(repeat)_ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/94 "2015-01-29T18:54:59Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Hmm, maybe a lottery to determine who gets airtime? OK, but the winner has to be stoned to death on-camera. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/95 "2015-01-29T19:04:45Z")
Can’t be done. Eventually, you just get to a point where…oh, wait. You mean, like, with rocks? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/96 "2015-01-29T19:10:38Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Somehow there’s still conservatives who don’t get it. > > You know why nobody _seems_ to care about Soros? > > …I’m confused why some of you conservatives don’t just come out an embrace the inequality because its so obvious that’s what you want, you can’t even have a civil discussion without attacking the other person (post shortened) And yet, the Democrats have recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars and still managed to lose enough seats in the House and Senate to lose control of both chambers. Life’s a beach. I believe your confusion might stem from your assumption that everyone should think as you do. FYI - Ain’t gonna happen. Many people are still concerned about King George Soros’s repeated attempts to influence elections. Maybe not in your circle of politics, but there are other circles. And they vote. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/97 "2015-01-29T19:20:41Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > And money influences how people vote. If you can convince people to change their mind with something as concrete as which soft drink they think tastes better, based on an athletes smiling face, than you can certainly influence a voters opinion on something as nebulous as which economic policy is most likely to bring them prosperity. If a person sees 100 ads showing people who claim they can’t afford their health insurance due to Obamacare, and 10 ads showing people who now can afford health insurance due to Obamacare, that person will naturally think that Obamcare caused 10 times as many people to lose health care as gain it, even if the opposite was true. As others have said if money didn’t work people wouldn’t spend it. Sure. But people using speech to influence other people is a good thing, right? > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > However I am less concerned with elections being swayed by money than I am with politicians. I am concerned about politicians being swayed by money, too. But I can’t accept “let’s restrict the speech of people” as an acceptable way to prevent it. Just like spying on people is not an acceptable way of preventing terrorists from killing us. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/98 "2015-01-29T20:31:29Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Sure. But people using speech to influence other people is a good thing, right? Not so much if the only speech anyone hears comes from a very small section of the population with a particular background. While it is true that there are million dollar donors who come from the left and from the right, there aren’t any million dollar donors who come from the not rich. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I am concerned about politicians being swayed by money, too. But I can’t accept “let’s restrict the speech of people” as an acceptable way to prevent it. > > Just like spying on people is not an acceptable way of preventing terrorists from killing us. I think this is more like restricting passengers freedom to carry high explosives on commercial flights as a way of preventing terrorists from killing us. While there may be the occasional person who wants to put several sticks of dynamite in their carry-on for innocent reasons, removing that rule makes it trivial for someone with nefarious goals to carry them out. It’s not as if I am suggesting that the rich should be silenced, just that they should have the same voice as any other citizen. Can anyone truly say that under reasonable campaign finance reforms, the wealthy would have too little influence to insure a robust democracy? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/99 "2015-01-29T21:43:42Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > It’s not as if I am suggesting that the rich should be silenced, just that they should have the same voice as any other citizen. Can anyone truly say that under reasonable campaign finance reforms, the wealthy would have too little influence to insure a robust democracy? (Underlining added.) We’re not talking about campaign finance (at least I’m not). The topic in this thread is about advocacy groups paying for political “speech”. I see no problems with restricting money given to or coordination with campaigns. I do have a problem with restrictions preventing me from using my resources to express my political opinions. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I think this is more like restricting passengers freedom to carry high explosives on commercial flights as a way of preventing terrorists from killing us. While there may be the occasional person who wants to put several sticks of dynamite in their carry-on for innocent reasons, removing that rule makes it trivial for someone with nefarious goals to carry them out. That’s more like restrictions about shouting fire in a crowded theater. Unless someone’s political speech is actively creating conditions that are likely to cause imminent harm to others, it’s not right to restrict it. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Not so much if the only speech anyone hears comes from a very small section of the population with a particular background. While it is true that there are million dollar donors who come from the left and from the right, there aren’t any million dollar donors who come from the not rich. That’s an unfortunate side effect of our wealth distribution compared to the cost to communicate. Let’s reduce inequality and/or make it cheaper, rather than restrict our speech. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/100 "2015-01-29T21:53:13Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > And yet, the Democrats have recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars and still managed to lose enough seats in the House and Senate to lose control of both chambers. Life’s a beach. Hey, congratulations for proving my point about your inability to maintain a non-frothing face when debating the issue. I ask why you don’t just show everyone who you truly are and instead of making a point about how money is speech or something, you throw out an attack on an unrelated issue to remind Democrats that they lost 2014. So hats off to you for being exactly who I thought you were. What do you think of the Simpsons game? Let’s get more non-sequitors out there! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=6)