Forum Post: Campaign funding miniscule compared to government budget
Posted 11 years ago on May 19, 2012, 9:51 p.m. EST by MattLHolck
(16833)
from San Diego, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
As of May 18, 2012, 545 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $204,716,872 and total independent expenditures of $111,588,684 in the 2012 cycle.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
the US budget is about 3.7 trillion dollars
so
205e+6 / 3.7e+12 = 5.54054054 × 10-5
Super PACs will spend about .0055% of the budget to get their hands of the government pie
that's insignificant money by comparison
further
I would suggest that publicity has more to do with news station coverage than campaign spending
one might argue that those well financed usually win but the campaign may be well financed due to news publicity
this is from - you can get the whole thing at znet. The Election, Economy, War, and Peace
By Noam Chomsky......It could be argued that no party speaking for the public would be viable in a society that is business-run to an unusual extent. Evidence for that is substantial. At a very general level, evidence is provided by the predictive success of political economist Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory” of politics, which holds that policies tend to reflect the wishes of the powerful blocs that invest every four years to control the state. More specific illustrations are numerous. To mention just one, for 60 years the US has failed to ratify the core principle of international labor law, which guarantees freedom of association. Legal analysts call it “the untouchable treaty in American politics,” and observe that there has never even been any debate about the matter. And many have noted Washington’s dismissal of conventions of the International Labor Organization as contrasted with the intense dedication to enforcement of monopoly pricing rights for corporations (“intellectual property rights”). There is much to explore here, but this is not the place.
The two candidates in the Democratic primary were a woman and an African-American. That too was historic. It would have been unimaginable forty years ago. The fact that the country has become civilized enough to accept this outcome is a considerable tribute to the activism of the 1960s and its aftermath.
In some ways the election followed familiar patterns. The McCain campaign was honest enough to announce clearly that the election wouldn’t be about issues. Sarah Palin’s hairdresser received twice the salary of McCain’s foreign policy adviser, the Financial Times reported, probably an accurate reflection of significance for the campaign. Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” offered a blank slate on which supporters could write their wishes. One could search websites for position papers, but correlation of these to policies is hardly spectacular, and in any event, what enters into voters’ choices is what the campaign places front and center, as party managers know well.
The Obama campaign greatly impressed the public relations industry, which named Obama “Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008,” easily beating out Apple. The industry’s prime task is to ensure that uninformed consumers make irrational choices, thus undermining market theories. And it recognizes the benefits of undermining democracy the same way.
here are the lyrics I changed to "What's Up"
25 years and the ivy league still
Owns presidency on capitol hill
Harvard men
Destine for Election
.
I realize now that we don't have a choice
gotta elect a fraternity voice
that is part of aristocracy
.
and they make there contacts in the college years
with the rich families and financiers
and I start to suspect
a little collusion
.
and they sift selection in the primaries
allow only choices from the ivy league
and I see at the top of the list
"What's Going ON!"
.
O ba ma's from Harvard
Romney's from Harvard
so is Gore
and Bush aswell
.
O ba ma's from Harvard
Romney's from Harvard
so is Gore
Clinton's from Yale
.
and I try,
oh my god how I try
I try everyday in this institution
.
and I see
oh it obvious to me
that choice is an illusion
vote Harvey Dent for President
Bush, Obama. Romney are Harvard Alumni
Auld Lang Syne the most sung song in the World
fraternities contact their buddies from college for help, jobs and deals
Harvard hires(scholarship) many of the brightest from the population
the rest are the elite 1%
I'm sure Harvard's labs and Libraries are well funded
they say politics happens behind closed doors
Campaign spending in 2012 will be record $6 billion
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE77T3ZX20110830
6e+9/3.7e+12=0.16 % spent on campaign compared to the US budget
What does 'e' mean? is that still equal to MC squared?
in this case for scientific notation,
e denotes the number of 10s a number is multiplied by
6e+9 means 6,000,000,000 or 6 billion
3.7e+12 means 3,700,000,000,000 or 3.7 trillion
Thanks.
no problem
I think people have trouble with scale
after all, 1 million dollars is a lot of money for one person
1 thousand dollars is a lot of money for one person in some countries.
true
I can't say why US currency has more or less value in other countries
Yeah well it is not a whole lot in this country ( USA ).
my monthly salary
That sucks.
No one should " bring home " less than 1600.00 a month.
I'd say $5,000 I do live in san diego
maybe I might want children
Location location location. Yeah I get your point.
Get this last time I was in Denver Colorado.
Cashiers for supermarkets made 12.00 an hour ( union )
Plumbers and carpenters and electricians were making minimum wage around 6.00 an hour at the time - unless they could get a gig in a resort town in the mountains.
Now a rundown 2 bedroom rambler ( house ) was selling for over 150,000.00.
You're right. One can make more than a thousand dollars a month and still be considered impoverished. Especially when you add a spouse and children to the equation.
damn english majors design these things? you would of thought these guys would of been more friendly to math, anyway this was funny.
the government funding of the primaries is supporting the two party system which receives all the coverage
and that is indeed that needs addressing
What about geographical selection?
I've been mauling over my voters pamphlet
primaries in CA are June 5, Tuesday
I wish it were a state holiday so people would be voting
the articular is a bit confusing
it talks about the cost of elections (the process) and than includes party donations (political ads?)
I think it includes all money spent directly and indirectly in electing president and congress in 2012. Spending 0.16% of GDP is still a tiny faction considering the return on investment.
be hard to scrape even 1 million dollars for most people
Sheldon Adelson and his wife donated $10 million to Gingrichs superpac. That is equivalent to 100,000 people each donating $100. Opensecrets is a great source of campaign finance information. I could spend days just skimming through the numbers. Also try:
http://maplight.org/
On a national level even at $5 limit would not be too high a mark I think.
us population 312 million is 312e+6 also is 3,12e+8
312x5=1,560 million or 1.560 billion
that quick calculation included the children
not sure your point here I was just saying that getting 200,000 to kick in $5 each to show you got some support, seems reasonable, but I may have step into something I'm not up on
I don't think we should attach money to a vote of support
By the end it will be four to five times that so more like .02%, doesn't really affect your point though. I support public funding for elections, but it is only part of the problem. Taking back the language is the bigger cause, but I am no longer sure that there are those in OWS that remember the 99%, listening for a bit.
If your point being that affecting news coverage outweighs money in an election, then yes you are correct.
the government primaries run several election before the national elections.
This means that
one of the two primary parties gets major government paid elections
with free news coverage over several months
while resounding it's opposition of the other major party.
they both do right?
both get to run primaries
the party currently out of office gets more news coverage
because incumbents are rarely challenged within their own party
I may be voting for Kucinich
true, some balance on that as some of it about beating up on each other, I agree system supports system, however the two party system exsited long before networks so more is at play than just that.