Given he’s going to inform chunks of US foreign policy if The Twitt wins, I wondered if media in the US ponders him or his potential power very much?
I got this from The Guardian today (link to full article below):
Of course, he might not want to inform anything, he may just be a generous soul helping out a nice guy cos that’s how he rolls.
Seems like an awful lot of potential influence in a democracy …
He’s not a Jewish American. He’s an American who is a Jew. I find the wording upsetting, and I say that as a supporter of Hezbollah.
As a British reader of a British newspaper, I don’t.
Back to the subject?
How about you define “bankroller” and then we can discuss whether this guy is one or not.
He wasn’t called a Jewish-American. He was called a Jewish American billionaire casino magnate.
But the insinuation in the article is pretty silly. Lots of people give money to campaigns, some people give more than others. What are they expecting Romney to do for this guy if he is elected? His contributions, while important, aren’t enough to buy a candidate in this day and age.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, actually have no idea of his financial participationin the 2012 election cycle, or are hoping to derail the thread by playing semantic games?
Anyone know if there is data reflecting the percentage or proportion of personal donations to Romney or the Republicans? Is Adelson the top donor? Is there a statistically sound method of comparing his donation to the personal donations of everyone else (e.g., does it make mathematical sense to count his and other top donors into the overall average…)? Is it even remotely possible given the pretence at campaign finance law?
He’s given at least ten million and probably more. How much do you think is enough to “buy a candidate”?
Actually, I was a little confused too. I thought everyone knew he was contributing substantially to the Romney campaign, and that’s the ONLY definition/connotation of “bankroller” that I personally know of. Is there more?
I don’t think he bought any candidates. He might be the man most responsible for Romney’s primary win though, by supporting Gingrich enough to spoil Santorum. I think he had a big part in getting Romney to the top, but that doesn’t mean Romney’s in his pocket. It just means that their opinions more closely coincide on the issues that matter most to Adelson.
We have decided that people ought to be able to use whatever personal resources they want to support their favorite candidates. I think that was a bad idea, but the Supreme Court doesn’t. Either way, Adelson didn’t do anything immoral or underhanded or illegal by pouring money into the primary, and now the general election. He did what any politically minded, motivated person would do, which is to use whatever influence he legally can to get the person he thinks is best for the job elected.
Fair point. If anything, Adelson is probably better then other big donators. He’s pretty vocal about how much he’s giving, to whom he’s giving it and why. In the absence of the Disclose Act, there’s presumably other Adelson’s out there whose degree of influence is much more opaque.
Subverting a substantial pillar of democracy may not be underhanded or illegal, but it is immoral.
Influence and subvert are not synonyms.
And if they only coincide because Adelson gives his campaign tends of millions of dollars?
If the system is broken, you can’t really blame the people who take advantage of it.
This year’s presidential campaign is forecast to cost up to $1Billion for each candidate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE77T3ZX20110830
$10Million is a lot of money, but it’s roughly 1% of what each candidate needs to raise.
Of course you can. If the lock on my front door is broken, I can blame the people who come in and take my stuff, even though I should have fixed the lock.
If they didn’t agree, why would Adelson support him?
That’s not a valid comparison. Stealing is a crime, whether the lock is broken or not.
A better comparison would be a speed limit being raised to 100mph, and then blaming the person going 95mph for causing an accident.
The person driving 95mph isn’t the problem. The stupid speed limit is.
That’s actually the preferred formula – Italian-American, Irish-American, etc. – and has been for more than a hundred years now. African-American, too, lately, and at their own leaders’ insistence.
Say, wasn’t this Adelson Gingrich’s bankroller? When and why did he switch over to Romney? I suppose the “when” is when it became clear Gingrich would not be the nominee and the “why” is simply that Adelson wants a Pub to win, but is there anything more to it?