Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"In a post-Citizens United world, it's depressing that the election process in this country is far more a battle of fundraising than it is a battle of "who's most qualified."
To repeat, Obama spent way more money in 2008 than Obama did. Obama's fundraising shattered records. Back then, I didn't hear a peep from liberals about buying elections. Citizens United doesn't favor one party over the other. If Walker had more money, that tells me that more people agreed with him than his opponent. The Citizens United case only favors Republicans, if the GOP has more money to donate than the Dems. If Republuicans had all the money, how did Obama accumulate such an unfathomable war chest in 2008?
Here is al ink from Wikepedia...
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A quote..."Barack Obama's fundraising broke previous records for presidential primary and general campaigns, and has changed expectations for future presidential elections. "
Johnny, I reject the notion that money matters more after Citizens United. Liberals are terrified that when the Koch brothers donate, they are buying influence. Those same liberals have no problems with labor unions donating. I don't buy it. I agree that money plays too big a role, but I reject any notion that the GOP benefits more from donations than the Dems. Obama shattered all fundraising records in 2008. Liberals sure didn't express any concern then... |
I'm not contesting that the playing field isn't somewhat level. And most of my comments regarding how money played a roll in WI were more "devil's advocate" type statements.
For clarity's sake, I shouldn't have conflated my opinions on CU with WI. Money doesn't matter more in the Dems vs. Repubs situation. In my opinion, a post-CU world has more effect on the actual candidates we, as citizens, get and their motivations rather than on how those candidates compete with each other.