Why does it make any difference whether a candidate is Democrat or Republican?

[MorkandMindy]

Aren't they obliged to obey the superPAC(s) who paid for their campaign?

 

[Murby]

Beyond the fact that most Republicans are religious zealots, Democrats and Republicans have significantly different views on how society should operate.
No, they are not obligated to obey any campaign supporters.

 

[Vylo]

No they aren't obliged, but I'm sure it buys some favors. Sanders has virtually no superPAC money and Trump doesn't have much either.

 

[Maren]

Because the "other party" is the ENEMY!!! Everything that other party does is EVILLLLL!!!

Or so the party loyalists claim. Personally, I've not decided who I'm voting for, a lot depends on who each party ends up nominating.

 

[DLR]

I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.

 

[BrianJK]

I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.

You mean politicians get away with breaking the law?!? Say it ain't so!!!

 

[Willtor]

I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.

You need to use a /s at the end of your post.

 

[DLR]

You mean politicians get away with breaking the law?!? Say it ain't so!!!

Yup, and sometimes they even tell lies too. But only the ones from the party you don't support lol.

 

[BrianJK]

Yup, and sometimes they even tell lies too. But only the ones from the party you don't support lol.

Naturally! Either Fox or MSNBC is totally unbiased as well!

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Beyond the fact that most Republicans are religious zealots, Democrats and Republicans have significantly different views on how society should operate.
No, they are not obligated to obey any campaign supporters.

They should be religious. 'Tis our roots and all.

 

[A2SG]

I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.

Hi, I'm calling about the bridge you advertised. Is it still for sale?

-- A2SG, already have one in San Fran, need to complete the set....

 

[DLR]

Hi, I'm calling about the bridge you advertised. Is it still for sale?

-- A2SG, already have one in San Fran, need to complete the set....

Yes it's still for sale and I have easy credit terms if you want to make installments.

Seriously though..... What I said is approximately accurate from a legal standpoint. I am sure they keep the money trail separate between PACs and campaigns. But the candidates stating there is no coordination has to be bunk. I laugh when they claim that during debates. How could they possibly police it?

 

[A2SG]

Yes it's still for sale and I have easy credit terms if you want to make installments.

Seriously though..... What I said is approximately accurate from a legal standpoint. I am sure they keep the money trail separate between PACs and campaigns. But the candidates stating there is no coordination has to be bunk. I laugh when they claim that during debates. How could they possible control that?

In exactly the same way that donors who give a lot to a campaign suddenly find the elected official sponsoring or voting for legislation that favors them.

In other words, complete and utter coincidence!

-- A2SG, each and every time it happens, every day.....

 

[DLR]

In exactly the same way that donors who give a lot to a campaign suddenly find the elected official sponsoring or voting for legislation that favors them.

In other words, complete and utter coincidence!

-- A2SG, each and every time it happens, every day.....

I would love to see Trump's taxes from prior election years. Not that he is necessarily among the larger contributors but it would still be interesting to see who he bought in the past.

 

[A2SG]

I would love to see Trump's taxes from prior election years. Not that he is necessarily among the larger contributors but it would still be interesting to see who he bought in the past.

I suspect Trumps a smart enough businessman to have thrown his money far and wide, hoping for the best possible value for his dollar. He's also from New York, so throwing money after bible belt republicans probably won't help him all that much.

-- A2SG, unless Trump has a resort casino in Biloxi......

 

[DLR]

I suspect Trumps a smart enough businessman to have thrown his money far and wide, hoping for the best possible value for his dollar. He's also from New York, so throwing money after bible belt republicans probably won't help him all that much.

-- A2SG, unless Trump has a resort casino in Biloxi......

Agreed. I assume it was mostly DEMs since his neighborhood is dominated by them.

 

[A2SG]

Agreed. I assume it was mostly DEMs since his neighborhood is dominated by them.

I'd assume the same. But I'm sure he also paid for....er, contributed to many republicans as well, since he represents their main constituency: the rich.

-- A2SG, not sure if that is the correct term, though....and by that, I mean "main"....does the GOP have any other constituents?

 

[DLR]

I'd assume the same. But I'm sure he also paid for....er, contributed to many republicans as well, since he represents their main constituency: the rich.

-- A2SG, not sure if that is the correct term, though....and by that, I mean "main"....does the GOP have any other constituents?

Actually I think he may have stated he did in an early debate. Seems like I have watched a dozen debates so I'm not certain. I'd laugh if he has ever contributed to the Bush's after all the beatings he has given Jeb. I know he has assets in FL.

 

[cow451]

Campaign contributions aren't necessarily always quid pro quo. Corporations want to have their agendas heard and these contributions achieve that. PACs are a bit different in that they can be single-issue focused.

Even Charles Koch is finding that money has it's limits in political influence.

He's raised a lot of money. But it's hard to see that Republican views have changed in his direction much. The entire party denies climate change and wants to lower taxes already, so there was no work to be done there. But a less aggressive foreign policy? An end to corporate welfare? Turning down the volume on social issues? Koch is right: all his money has had no effect on that. It's only had a significant effect when he's pushing in the same direction that the GOP wind is already blowing.

 

[DLR]

Campaign contributions aren't necessarily always quid pro quo. Corporations want to have their agendas heard and these contributions achieve that. PACs are a bit different in that they can be single-issue focused.

Even Charles Koch is finding that money has it's limits in political influence.

He's raised a lot of money. But it's hard to see that Republican views have changed in his direction much. The entire party denies climate change and wants to lower taxes already, so there was no work to be done there. But a less aggressive foreign policy? An end to corporate welfare? Turning down the volume on social issues? Koch is right: all his money has had no effect on that. It's only had a significant effect when he's pushing in the same direction that the GOP wind is already blowing.

I am sure there is truth in that. PACs do have significant influence in maintaining the status quo. They spend an incredible amount of money protecting their candidates during re-election. It has a lot to do with how a Congressman stays in power 30 years IMO.