[shuri]

Obama needs ONE BILLION for his campain? Wtf why would he need so much money? Is he going to reshoot his own version of avatar or something?

[jaxword]

Democracy doesn't work.


At least, not with capitalism.

[Tideas]

why are people so against this? TI's not like teh 10 million disappears.

He's contributing to the local/national economy.

/end half-truth

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Well proportionally, I think the average american family would have donated $360.

Funny thing, is this guy seems fairly socially liberal, being pro choice. So he's voting with his pocketbook.

[darkwing]

with this donation, is it likely Romney will win?

[demon]

Obama needs ONE BILLION for his campain? Wtf why would he need so much money? Is he going to reshoot his own version of avatar or something?

To match Romney? Romney has one single donor who claims to be willing to donate a tenth of 1 billion here.

[jaxword]

with this donation, is it likely Romney will win?

There are going to be many more "donations" in the coming months for both sides.

[LegendofJoe]

Thank you Supreme Court for creating this mess. If you continue your decent into becoming corrupted political stooges I guess I can expect the insurance mandate to be overturned later this month as well.

[Averon]

Thanks, Supreme Court! Citizens Untied has completely fucked us over.

[ToxicAdam]

Think about all the jobs he is providing to ad people, actors and broadcast networks.

People hating on the job creators again ...

[surrogate]

Read a similar article in Rolling Stone about Romney's wealthy contributors.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...omney-20120524

[Battersea Power Station]

To match Romney? Romney has one single donor who claims to be willing to donate a tenth of 1 billion here.

Check your math.

[explodet]

So why haven't y'all started the NeoGAF SuperPAC? (NeoSuper GAFPAC?)
If all this money is being slung around, there must be a couple of you guys who are smart enough to catch some of it as it flies by. Some of it's gotta fall through the cracks, you could be one of those cracks!

I'd do it myself, but I'm a Canuckistanian and would probably throw off warning bells about foreign investment or something.

[ElectricBlue187]

So why haven't y'all started the NeoGAF SuperPAC? (NeoSuper GAFPAC?) If all this money is being slung around, there must be a couple of you guys who are smart enough to catch some of it as it flies by. Some of it's gotta fall through the cracks, you could be one of those cracks! I'd do it myself, but I'm a Canuckistanian and would probably throw off warning bells about foreign investment or something.

Because the only way to win is to not play the game.

[demon]

Check your math.

check the thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...7&postcount=17

[Battersea Power Station]

check the thread. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...7&postcount=17

Good show.

[electricpirate]

Honestly, Probably won't do shit in the presidential election. As far as I can tell these super pacs seem totally focused on really ineffective methods of campaigning (add buys) while the candidates and political parties are focussed on things that are marginally affective (ground game, voter registration.

Congressional and senate elections are different though, there add buys and money can swing things in a big way. State and local races even more so.

Also, thanks for the free trip to Israel Sheldon!

[ToxicAdam]

A well-placed source in the Sheldon Adelson camp tells Forbes that further donations from the casino billionaire to Super PACs supporting Mitt Romney will be "limitless." The source says Adelson will do "whatever it takes" to defeat President Obama and that "no price is too high" to protect the U.S. from what he sees as Obama's "socialization" of America.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbe...ould-top-100m/


I honestly question the effectiveness of money to a certain point. This election is going to be decided by a handful of states and a handful of regions within those states. There is a limited window of time where ads can be effective and oversaturating people with ads has the opposite effect of what is intended (see: TBS/TNT advertising during playoffs).

[-PXG-]

If I were a multi billionaire I'd outbid the two political parties on every single television ad they want to place on a major network. I'd fill those slots with Loony Toons shorts.

I like this.

[ElectricBlue187]

Well if your money is nearly limitless you can buy the other guy's airtime out too so only your message is out there

[spiderman123]

Man, what a waste of money. Give it to me so I can give it to Sony and hopefully name the ps4 after me.

[empty vessel]

This is why high tax rates on high income earners is critical for democratic governance. Failure to tax high income earners appropriately distorts democracy.

[ElectricBlue187]

Man, what a waste of money. Give it to me so I can give it to Sony and hopefully name the ps4 after me.

They already used your font on the PS3, damn you rich people are pushy

[Stet]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbe...ould-top-100m/ I honestly question the effectiveness of money to a certain point. This election is going to be decided by a handful of states and a handful of regions within those states. There is a limited window of time where ads can be effective and oversaturating people with ads has the opposite effect of what is intended (see: TBS/TNT advertising during playoffs).

I hope he bankrupts himself and Obama still wins.

[theignoramus]

A well-placed source in the Sheldon Adelson camp tells Forbes that further donations from the casino billionaire to Super PACs supporting Mitt Romney will be "limitless."

lovely.

[Omegasquash]

When one guy can buy more ads than a million other people put together, you know you're in America. Then again, if people could make their own decisions based on what a candidate has said and done, rather than what someone TELLS YOU they've said and done, we'd have a much more open nation with regards to political debate.

As in it would be political, not ideological all the damn time.

[Vilix]

If I were a multi billionaire I'd outbid the two political parties on every single television ad they want to place on a major network. I'd fill those slots with Loony Toons shorts.

Could you show Tex Avery's Magical Maestro please?

[Horns]

These Super PACs are the biggest crock of sht in politics right now. Their fundraising capabilities are unlimited. They're purpose is to use massive amounts of money to sway public opinion. Even politicians look honest when compared to Super PACs.

The biggest scumbag of them all is Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. Crossroads GPS is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that hides behind the veil that they are for "social welfare". These type of Super PACs don't have to disclose donations like Restore the Future does. We wouldn't know if Adelson cut a check for $20 million to Crossroads at the same time he wrote that $10 million dollar check to the pro-Romney Super PAC.

What makes me sick is these 501(c)(4) Super PACs pay very little taxes and they hide behind this claim that they're for "social welfare". Just yesterday Crossroads GPS launched political attack ads in 6 states.

[btkadams]

why isn't there a limit to which one person/entity can donate to a political campaign in america? there is in other countries.

[Horns]

There are limits in the US: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml. The limits in place restrict donating directly to a candidate's campaign or political party. For example, Adelson couldn't legally donate $10m to Romney's campaign directly.

It's the donations to Super PACs that don't have limits. The Super PAC limits were overturned by the SCOTUS in 2010 (and there was another court ruling that backed that up). There are some FEC rules to prevent Super PACs and candidate campaign parties from communicating and coordinating efforts. I read somewhere that they can get around this by discussing their campaign strategies through the media.

[btkadams]

There are limits in the US: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml. The limits in place restrict donating directly to a candidate's campaign or political party. For example, Adelson couldn't legally donate $10m to Romney's campaign directly. It's the donations to Super PACs that don't have limits. The Super PAC limits were overturned by the SCOTUS in 2010 (and there was another court ruling that backed that up). There are some FEC rules to prevent Super PACs and candidate campaign parties from communicating and coordinating efforts. I read somewhere that they can get around this by discussing their campaign strategies through the media.

here's a link to canada's limits. there's a pretty huge difference there. i don't think it should be possible to donate so much money. it lets the rich more easily control politics.

[Aylinato]

Either way the money flows it is still going to the candidates, who are being bought off

[Horns]

here's a link to canada's limits. there's a pretty huge difference there. i don't think it should be possible to donate so much money. it lets the rich more easily control politics.

100% agree with you on this. The rich shouldn't be given more control. Super PACs are the scum of the earth IMO.

Unfortunately, there is no way to get around them at the moment. Candidates running for office have no choice in the matter. A Super PAC is independent of their campaign and can spring up in support or against them without their consent. A candidate who is supported by a well funded Super PAC stands a much better chance than a candidate who is not supported by one.

The problem is a lot of these Super PACs flat out lie or push false information. Politifact, factcheck.org and the Washington Pinocchio fact checkers constantly are pointing out Super PACs pushing false information across in their ads. They twist, manipulate any detail and repeat it over and over. I previously mentioned Karl Rove's Crossroads, they're is notorious for pushing false claims. Not that Democrat Super PACs are innocent, they're just as bad.

I'd have less of an issue if these Super PACs pushed candidates ideas and plans rather than the negative approach. With enough money you can use negative ads to bombard people until they start questioning their original positions.

[spiderman123]

here's a link to canada's limits. there's a pretty huge difference there. i don't think it should be possible to donate so much money. it lets the rich more easily control politics.

I'm not sure about this but didn't Harper wanted to change the limits.

[SnakeswithLasers]

why isn't there a limit to which one person/entity can donate to a political campaign in america? there is in other countries.

Because other countries aren't as free as America.

[btkadams]

I'm not sure about this but didn't Harper wanted to change the limits.

i believe that was to just remove the $2 that gets donated to a party when you vote.

[Dyno]

24 Billion. I can't even understand this man's motivation. With that kind of money you can elevate yourself above any political system. Just exist, enjoy the splendour of life, leave all other earthly concerns behind.

Trying to swing an election seems small potatoes by comparison. Why does he still give a shit?

[daycru]

24 Billion. I can't even understand this man's motivation. With that kind of money you can elevate yourself above any political system. Just exist, enjoy the splendour of life, leave all other earthly concerns behind. Trying to swing an election seems small potatoes by comparison. Why does he still give a shit?

Without the evils of Government he'd have 25.

[Kosmo]

100% agree with you on this. The rich shouldn't be given more control. Super PACs are the scum of the earth IMO. Unfortunately, there is no way to get around them at the moment. Candidates running for office have no choice in the matter. A Super PAC is independent of their campaign and can spring up in support or against them without their consent. A candidate who is supported by a well funded Super PAC stands a much better chance than a candidate who is not supported by one. The problem is a lot of these Super PACs flat out lie or push false information. Politifact, factcheck.org and the Washington Pinocchio fact checkers constantly are pointing out Super PACs pushing false information across in their ads. They twist, manipulate any detail and repeat it over and over. I previously mentioned Karl Rove's Crossroads, they're is notorious for pushing false claims. Not that Democrat Super PACs are innocent, they're just as bad. I'd have less of an issue if these Super PACs pushed candidates ideas and plans rather than the negative approach. With enough money you can use negative ads to bombard people until they start questioning their original positions.

The problem is, the people who would have to vote to disallow these levels of money going into campaigns are the very ones who benefit from them. You aren't going to hear any opposition (to any great extent) from the media because guess what - the media are the ones who get the vast majority of that money through ad buys. Why would they care?

[ElectricThunder]

Any rumblings of protestors intending to direct their ire at the headquarters of some of these big SuperPACs? At this rate, they are going to take on a greater face of this whole mess than a non-descript Wall Street, though I'd imagine at least some are based from the very same.

Ditto on Crossroads GPS and the shit Rove gets into....one of the absolute worst.

[Angry Grimace]

It says a lot more about the country that if you spend enough money on advertising, some idiot will decide to vote for the guy depicted in the ads as opposed to whoever the better candidate is.

[Vic]

I read 10 BILLION. Glad I'm wrong.

[astroturfing]

no one who wasn't voted in a position of power should have that much leverage in politics.

It says a lot more about the country that if you spend enough money on advertising, some idiot will decide to vote for the guy depicted in the ads as opposed to whoever the better candidate is.

same shit would happen in any country. which is why a lot of countries don't allow this sort of insanity. the masses are easily swayed and misled, all throughout history. because collectively, we humans just aren't that smart.

[SnakeswithLasers]

It says a lot more about the country that if you spend enough money on advertising, some idiot will decide to vote for the guy depicted in the ads as opposed to whoever the better candidate is.

I don't get it.

[The Technomancer]

same shit would happen in any country. which is why a lot of countries don't allow this sort of insanity. the masses are easily swayed and misled, all throughout history. because collectively, we humans just aren't that smart.

We're very smart, we're just not very good at paying attention to a lot of different things so we pick the few that we specialize in and listen to other people for the rest.

[smuldegspaj]

Im pretty sure 10m is absolutely nothing in american politics.

[Angry Grimace]

Im pretty sure 10m is absolutely nothing in american politics.

It's nothing until all of the guys with 10 billion dollars give the same guy 10m dollars.