Walker and GOP big bucks bought Wisconsin recall election

jmc wrote:

Democracy Works wrote:

jmc wrote:

bailey bud wrote: We're talking about an injection of about $21 million

---

into the state of Wisconsin.

Wisconsin media ought to be thanking Gov. Walker for bringing so many dollars into the state!

I'm sure they are. It is a media goldmine.Lets keep that in mind this political season and try not to be too sheep like.

Well... I'm glad to find some support for this kind of financial infusion into a state wide campaign, but I still haven't bee given any insight as to why the left is claiming that this 7 to 1 spending levels brought the recall election?

Money talks BS walks, are you 12?

the big bucks weighed in, they have that right and if the voters buy it , thats the way it is. Sad

jmc wrote: The big bucks weighed in, they have that right and if the voters buy it , thats the way it is. Sad

Buy what? I don't understand?

I suppose they buy better logic to express in their arguments and advertisement for a cause.

I have often wondered the very same thing, Democracy Works.

It seems to me the spread was so big was because the left figured the they would have been throwing good money at a lost cause. That money will flow again to support their candidates in the general election.

Democracy Works wrote:

jmc wrote: The big bucks weighed in, they have that right and if the voters buy it , thats the way it is. Sad

Buy what? I don't understand?

You are not that stupid, buy the advertising messages, it works or they wouldn't spend the $.

jmc wrote:

Democracy Works wrote:

jmc wrote: The big bucks weighed in, they have that right and if the voters buy it , thats the way it is. Sad

Buy what? I don't understand?

You are not that stupid, buy the advertising messages, it works or they wouldn't spend the $.

Doesn't every candidate buy advertisements? Doesn't every citizen have access to information about a candidate and their positions? Are you suggesting that a candidate who can put more ads on the TV or some other place is able to "force" someone to vote for him. I don't understand how running more ads, or more informative ads is buying an election? Doesn't every side run ads? There are debates, TV appearances, interviews in the media, grass roots door to door efforts.

You must not give any credit to the voter at all. I didn't hear about anyone in Wisconsin with money in their pockets, ready to cast a vote because of a payoff. The "they bought the election" rhetoric is an insult to the voter.

The answer is that one side or the other has had a better financial opportunity to inform the voter. No one bought the voter.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... s-of-money

Blazer Bob wrote: www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11...hows-limits-of-money

I agree $ does not equal a win, just the best ads do influence. If ads didn't work billions would not be spent. I am not for limiting ads for candidates, just disclose who has paid for them, why not.

Blazer Bob wrote: www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11...hows-limits-of-money

My point exactly (thank you for that)...

The message of Democrat Jerry Brown's win in the California governor's race over billionaire Republican Meg Whitman appears to be one that has been seen before in the state, that the candidate who spends the most money doesn't necessarily come away with the most votes.

At a time when there are so many concerns about the corrupting influence of money in politics, it's a message many people will welcome.

Brown, who was elected the state's youngest governor since the 1850s when he was first elected to the chief executive's job in 1975, is now the oldest person elected governor at age 72.

The one-time seminarian is also the former mayor of Oakland and is California's attorney general. He's also the son of Edmund "Pat" Brown who also served as California governor. In a year when voters demanded change, he successfully made the case for experience.

Nothing has been "bought." That is a dog whistle and a false flag used by both sides to try to explain away a loss (or victory). This is the political process and it cost money to bring the message to the voters. Both sides do it, sometimes one side does it better than the other, and the source of the funds are not a problem. Conservative candidates are favored by certain elements of the country and that's where the money will come from, and liberals have just as lucrative sources of funds. And if either side doesn't feel they are able to gain a financial advantage in campaigning, then that is the fault of the particular party, not a lack of funding sources. Koch Brothers and George Soros both have practically unlimited money and both men (and their funding mechanisms) are active and effective.

Short of paying off a voter with pocketable funds, elections are not bought, they are fought.

jmc wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote: www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11...hows-limits-of-money

I agree $ does not equal a win, just the best ads do influence. If ads didn't work billions would not be spent. I am not for limiting ads for candidates, just disclose who has paid for them, why not.

Good. So you agree... the recall election in Wisconsin was not bought by Walker and his supporters?