« Quoting Elizabeth Warren on the Importance of Taxes
Sarah Palin Isn’t Running In 2012, But 2016 or 2020… »

94% Of Candidates Who Raise The Most Money Win Election?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, Money

Dylan Ratigan wants to get money COMPLETELY out of politics. Not just corporate money or soft money…ALL money. Pretty bold.

But when you consider his stat, which is the title of this post, it’s pretty sobering to consider how much of a vice grip money has on how our political system is shaped. Because it’s really not about the best ideas anymore, and that should have all of us concerned.


To find out out more, visit Get Money Out and consider signing their petition.

Related Posts

Zemanta

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 4th, 2011 and is filed under Elections, Money. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “94% Of Candidates Who Raise The Most Money Win Election?”

  1. cranky critter Says:
    October 4th, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    He ISSSSSSSS dylan quixote, the lord of Douche-mancha! Tone deaf tilting at windmills here. Who’s gonna pay instead? Not me. I aint got it.

    Besides, this is almost certainly a function of incumbency anyways. Incumbents usually get re=elected. And they usually collect the most money because they are incumbents. I’m agnostic on term limits. But I wonder what the record would be then.

    If we wanted an indicator, we could look at the small number of elections without incumbents and see what the effect of money is THEN. Until the data is controlled for incumbency, we don’t know what’s being measured.

  2. Tully Says:
    October 5th, 2011 at 9:33 am

    What cranky said. Donation levels are a function of two things: incumbency and popularity. Donors want the most bang for their buck, which favors incumbents. And they donate to people they want to see win and whom they would (will) vote for — popularity.

    A campaign finance reform I could get behind would be to limit donations to within the district up for election. What you can raise from people that are actually IN the district. No “outside” money. That way at least the money levels would better reflect the actual district consitituencies.

  3. Tillyosu Says:
    October 5th, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Funny, I never hear Ratigan rant against union money in politics…

  4. linda D Says:
    October 5th, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    Ratigan says ALL money including Union money… Both parties are bought!!

  5. cranky critter Says:
    October 5th, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    Cool idea, Tully.

  6. theWord Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    @Tully – for clarification. No outside money? Would that allow one big company to buy a district or would only individuals be allowed to donate? Wasn’t sure what you meant.

  7. eza abrams Says:
    January 3rd, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    sources, sources, sources, or are we in a fact free zone
    some guy saying something on a youtube is not a source

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: