# Will Marco Rubio run for reelection to the senate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 17, 2016, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643 "2016-06-17T22:14:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/81 "2016-09-01T17:20:45Z")
I don’t get why adaher keeps clinging to this idea that earmarks are “the primary means by which politicians reward their campaign contributors”. If you look at the biggest political contributors they are mostly investment firms and a few unions. Koch being a stand out exception but really, you think they give a crap whether a bridge gets built in Wherever, Arkansas? They all care about legislation that affects their business practices. Maybe at a smaller local level some contributors get to build that bridge, but neither Soros Fund Management nor Elliot Management really give a crap. > **[Organization Profiles](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all-profiles)** > > Find the companies and other organizations seeking to influence U.S. politics and policy via campaign donations and lobbying spending, and see which members of Congress hold stock in those companies. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/82 "2016-09-01T21:57:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Democrats are part of the problem. Except they got even worse. Now they embrace corruption in politics as a mean of “getting things done”. Welcome back, machine politics. > > No thanks. I’ll keep the GOP in Congress so we can continue to reduce the deficit and keep Democrats from subverting our democracy by promising things they never intend to deliver, such as immigration reform. Moving beyond the ideological bullshit, about how it’s the Big Bad Democrats who are Ruining The Country, to the voting bullshit… How does voting for Johnson (or Hillary, for that matter) have the slightest thing to do with who you vote for in Congress? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/83 "2016-09-02T03:01:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Let’s start with earmarks, the primary means by which politicians reward their campaign contributors. Already addressed, so > [@](#): > > Let’s continue with the constant lying about real goals, saying they support one thing to win votes from moderates when they need them, and then turning around and going full liberal when they see an opportunity. You were asked for fact and cites, not more partisan bluster. So we can conclude you ain’t got. > [@](#): > > the bait and switch of immigration reform Again, you were asked what you think happened to DREAM. You can keep ducking and blustering, but you’ll convince absolutely no one that you have anything to say. > [@](#): > > The Democrats have for quite some time now seen the people as their adversaries So why then do they keep winning elections? Do you think the people are that stupid? > [@](#): > > Until they shake that attitude, I can’t get on board. You could quit making it up. Just a thought. > [@](#): > > Rubio is better on the merits if you eliminate ideology. If you ignore what he stands for, he’s better? Srsly dude? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/84 "2016-09-02T04:03:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > We’ve disagreed on earmarks before and will continue to do so until you change your mind. The purpose of earmarks is not to reward donors, it is to get things done. I’ll vote for your dam if you vote to increase funding for X, whatever it is. Congressmen like bringing home the bacon to their districts, regardless if it helps their donors. A new bomber order is great news for the people in one district, and you sometimes have to throw them a bone in order to gain their votes on something that matters to you. So how is this earmark-free Congress working for you? You’re reinforcing my point, that getting things done has become more important than a clean, transparent, honest process. Earmarking as you describe is rarely done in the open, and most earmarks do in fact go to campaign contributors, with some Congressmen being more openly corrupt than others: One Illinois Congressman was actively selling earmarks, although it’s Illinois so what should we expect, right?: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/visclosky-aide-offered-earmarks-for-campaign-donation-convicted-lobbyist-said/2014/09/18/7ab7cc6a-3f3f-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/visclosky-aide-offered-earmarks-for-campaign-donation-convicted-lobbyist-said/2014/09/18/7ab7cc6a-3f3f-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html) “Earmarks and campaign contributions are part and parcel of the pay-to-play system that permeates Washington,” said Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Companies making thousands of dollars in campaign contributions get millions of dollars of earmarked taxpayer dollars from lawmakers.” > **[Watchdogs Release Database Detailing Earmarks and Campaign Contributions |...](https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/watchdogs-release-database-detailing-earmarks-and-campaign-contributions/)** > > Taxpayers for Common Sense is an independent and non-partisan voice for taxpayers working to increase transparency and expose and eliminate wasteful and corrupt subsidies, earmarks, and corporate welfare. That’s not to say that all earmarks are corrupt, just that they are a very frequently used means of corruption. Some earmarks are as you describe, and those tend to be placed into bills openly and voted on. The earmarks I’m talking about are quietly inserted into bills in conference committees or not even voted on at all, actually added after the bills have passed. Which makes them not law, and Presidents can ignore them, but in practice treat them as if they’d been legitimately passed. There is zero chance that Hillary Clinton, the queen of money for access, would ever ignore these earmark requests. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/85 "2016-09-02T04:06:45Z")
Then there’s Democrats lately making a virtue of just not enforcing laws they don’t like out of frustration with their inability to pass laws. Not necessarily due to Republican obstruction, but because actually writing down their opposition to such laws would cause them to lose their job. The Democrats have become anti-rule of law and pro-rule of men. They have politicized executive offices and either turned a blind eye or actively encouraged them to act in partisan fashion. These are not ideological issues and they will have to stop if Democrats ever want to enjoy power for more than two years at a time. And even getting another slim two year window looks increasingly unlikely since nowadays Democrats aren’t even pretending to be a reformist party anymore. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/86 "2016-09-02T04:16:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s not to say that all earmarks are corrupt, just that they are a very frequently used means of corruption. Some earmarks are as you describe, and those tend to be placed into bills openly and voted on. The earmarks I’m talking about are quietly inserted into bills in conference committees or not even voted on at all, actually added after the bills have passed. Which makes them not law, and Presidents can ignore them, but in practice treat them as if they’d been legitimately passed. There is zero chance that Hillary Clinton, the queen of money for access, would ever ignore these earmark requests. Guns are frequently used in crimes but we’re not getting of them. Maybe you should think of earmarks that way. Sure, the occasional armed robbery happens but mostly they’re for hunting deals and home district protection. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/87 "2016-09-02T12:30:37Z")
So how are you doing with the facts and cites and stuff, **adaher**? Entertainment value you’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/88 "2016-09-02T12:39:33Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Guns are frequently used in crimes but we’re not getting of them. Maybe you should think of earmarks that way. Sure, the occasional armed robbery happens but mostly they’re for hunting deals and home district protection. I could live with earmark reform: 1. All earmarks must pass through the regular legislative process. Before the earmark ban, most earmarks were added in conference committee: > [@](#): > > On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen. > > In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of logrolling, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase. [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Earmarks#The\_earmarking\_process\_today](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Earmarks#The_earmarking_process_today) 1. No earmark may go to a campaign contributor. This does not need to be a law, just a rule that can be invoked by the parliamentarian simply by one member of the HOuse or Senate raising a point of order. My cite also lists bills that have been proposed to reform the earmarking process, although none of them really get at the root of the issue, the nexus between big campaign contributors and extremely profitable earmarks that are often 100 times as much as their contributions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2016, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/89 "2016-09-02T23:09:40Z")
Rubio has the worst voting record of any Florida Senator in nearly 50 years. [Confirms Politico](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/sep/02/patrick-murphy/patrick-murphy-says-marco-rubio-has-worst-attendan/) (yes, I know, but there’s data and cites and shit there). ---
**Author:** ![Scholar\_Beardpig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Scholar\_Beardpig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scholar_Beardpig)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2016, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/90 "2016-10-18T00:20:18Z")
Oh Patrick. You got _crushed_ at the debate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2016, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643/91 "2016-10-18T07:13:55Z")
It’s not easy to lose a debate to Rubio at this point in his career. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-marco-rubio-run-for-reelection-to-the-senate/757643.md?page=4)