Wondering what other people make of this article on a "tug-of-war" taking place between the Koch empire and the RNC for control of data related to voters. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-koch-brothers-and-the-republican-party-go-to-121193159491.html The short version: The Koch brothers' i360 apparently has a superior interface to the RNC's DataCenter product for accessing data on voters. Apparently there is a growing fear among some that the Koch brothers' empire is trying to take over the GOP, or become a shadow party: :snip: :snip: :snip: Apparently, some state party organizations have even taken to building their own interfaces to interact directly with the data held by the RNC, rather than DataCenter product. This includes my state, Michigan. Other campaigns are favoring the Koch brothers' i360 product. Anyway, it's a rather long article, but worth reading, as it gives interesting insight into the potential for Super PACs to eventually supplant political parties through control of voter data. I am not a fan of the Citizens United ruling that led to all of this. I completely disagree with the Court's assessment that money isn't a corrupting influence. That said, it's interesting to see how market forces are having an effect on the RNC's ability to raise the money needed to fund some of its own operations. Thoughts?
Unlike the Ds and their dependence on Soros, the Rs can be successful without Koch money. The Rs have a greater percentage who work for a living and who can be urged to give more although in smaller amounts.
This thread isn't about the alleged differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, or their constituents. It's about the role of Super PACs, and the possible threat they pose to existing party organization. I'm seriously not interested in this partisan stuff.
Interesting thread. It's a battle over information, and the fear that the Koch system would be used to essentially go towards Koch-favored candidates, rather than to the RNC-led operations. I happen to agree with some of the voices in the article though: It's much overblown. Those on the Libertarian Right don't differ too much from the Conservative Right, and even the Libertarian Right is much smaller than the Conservative Right in general. The anti-TP blacklash(very unfairly) and which started thanks to the Democratic Push(so much for being anti-Neo con eh?) made it so that Neo-Cons once again have control over the party. They don't have to fear this program, instead they should embrace it. Because right now, conservatives need to match Liberals dollar for dollar, in terms of efficency and use.
I was mostly comparing the importance of both party's dominant Super PACs. It's nice you aren't partisan.
I beg to differ. In my view, the difference between libertarians and authoritarians is perhaps of greater importance than the left/right divide. It would be interesting to see what happens with social conservatives if the Koch's are able to wrest control of the party from the GOP establishment. That might be little more than a libertarian wet dream, but intriguing, nonetheless. So the $$$ matter more than the potential to have the party wind up being a puppet of a private empire? I think it's a wake-up call. If the RNC is reduced to a bit player by the Kochs, I hardly think the DNC is going to be immune to something similar down the road.
While the Koch brothers are the subject of the article (and hence the thread title), my real aim here is to discuss the potential of Super PACs to supplant existing party organization, and perhaps even the parties themselves. This thread is NOT a Koch vs. Soros thread. Please don't turn it into that, or I'll be forced to abandon it to the wolves and we'll miss an opportunity to discuss something of importance, beyond the usual partisan bickering.
Honestly, money in politics is a foul thing. Whether it comes from a corporatized political party, or a business franchise in of itself. I hope my previous comments don't mean a support for the status quo. But rather, an "acceptance" of the status quo as I look to work the system from within to accomplish the changes I want to see. Now, do we essentially want private citizens with huge means to dominate the political process? No, we don't. What we'd all prefer is an open platform, that allows for as many views as possible. And that way, we can choose the candidates best suited to us. As noted, congressionally it would be difficult(they're far too vested), but if the States ever want to do something big, they can join forces and change the system that way(through a Constituentional Amendment) But for right now, as someone who has joined(but not politically affiliated in terms of views) the GOP, I hope my State party allows me to use the I360 for my campaign, as an easier interface. I don't see it as interfering with the GOP, from the standpoint that I would(remotely anyway, I see GOP views at best as 45% of my own depneding on the issue) support the GOP.
There is not a lot of differences between the LIbertarians and the Conservatives, but they differ a tremendous amount from the Republican Establishment (commonly known as "progressive" lite, or the Right Wing of the Democrat Party).
Much I can agree with, here. That said, I have to question whether something like the i360 interface is the 'hook'; the means for a private empire to get its claws into the party even deeper. I get why people would want to use it in the field - they need up-to-date information and an interface to access it that provides speed and ease of use. It's seductive; you might view it as just trying to get business done. But is an entity like Koch being altruistic (for lack of a better term) in providing it? Or is it a tool that helps to forward their interests (as contrasted with the party's), by creating a reliance and dependence on them, rather than the RNC? No doubt this exaggerates the reality. What I'm trying to get it is the potential for private entities to make such inroads that they no longer merely hold a place of influence, but one of control. "He who controls the spice controls the universe" (to quote Frank Herbert's "Dune"). We live in an information age. The person who controls the information, potentially controls the party. We aren't there yet, but I wonder if we'll even realize what's happening until it's too late to do anything about it. I know, that sounds alarmist. I don't mean to incite panic. I just think it's a concerning trend, an even greater shift toward private interests controlling public interests.
Money in politics (advertising) is a great thing. It gives jobs to many and often has absolutely no effect on the outcome.
The right wing cannot discuss the Kochs because all they know about them is that they must respond with a robotic programmed response of "Soros" as idiotic as that is...but alas, most don't know or just don't care that a corporate insidious entity is poisoning them with industrial pollutants while buying up what is left of our democracy piece by piece by piece. You can give them all the info and stats that a somewhat intelligent being would need to connect the dots or even connect the dots for them, but to no avail. You cannot fix stupid and you cannot educate ignorance that is too comfortable and/or partisan to leave the comfort of their bubble world zone.
One thing I have learned in 75 years of life, and that is, the rich didn't get rich by being cavalier and irresponsible in the way that they spend money. If someone spends almost a billion dollars on a presidential election year, to think they so this just to fund the media and do not know that money indeed can effect election outcomes is just naïve. I have heard this from others that tend to be conservative, who do not understand that the rich do not just throw vast amounts of money away for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles, or to be charitable to the media. Now it is not 100 percent, but you can bet your ass, that the men who do spend that kind of money have also invested in studies that have been used to make sure they are not wasting hundreds of millions of dollars. For if this kinda of spending had absolutely no effect upon outcome, they simply would not do it. If advertising did not effect the sales of any product, there would be no advertising dollars spent at all. It is a known fact that advertising works, whether you are selling toothpaste, or a bought and paid for political candidate. These big rich boys are not idiots, but have the guile of a serpent.
Just the next logical step for the Kochs. They're big on spending seed money for controlling media and think tanks, and both the 'Libertarian Party' and the 'Tea Party', both Koch subsidiaries. Like all 'liberatarians' and rightwing nuts, they're big fans of socializing the costs of capitalism while privatizing the profits, so they're invested heavily in controlling the narratives along with putting up their front candidates, like Scott Walker for instance. He will be getting all kinds of free support for his candidacy as a counter to Jeb Bush, who represents a different faction and has his own power base, and hence doesn't need to kowtow to the Kochs or submit to their wish lists. It's kind of fun to see how the memes of 'RINO's' and 'Democrat Lite' have taken off the last few years to describe moderates and conservatives in the GOP, mostly used by posters who probably don't believe they're being manipulated by media themselves and really think they're 'independent' and 'savvy'. lol ...
And the same rational goes for lobbyists and corporations spending money on elections. Anyone who,really believes that money is not buying influence in politics probably doesn't have enough money to need to understand that return on investment is usually the reason for making the investment.
MOD EDIT>>>RESPONSE TO DELETED POST<<< Not over policy, they both generally support screwing the country, but they are competing for the offices.
Both parties and their big supporters screw the country! I'm a fair and accurate person. 60% of the blame goes to the democrats/progressives/liberals or whatever they call themselves these days, and 40% of the blame goes to the conservatives/republicans. Makes sense to me!
