<div>The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.
 
The spending goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican Parties. It would require a significant financial commitment from the Kochs and roughly 300 other donors they have recruited over the years, and covers both the presidential and congressional races. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.
 

 

</div>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/pol....html?_r=0

 

 

---

I wonder how many jobs this will create.   Probably a lot.  

 

That's about the only benefit I can see.  

 

We'll all be inundated with a lot more ads from groups with names like "Committee to Educate the American Public."  No real names attached.  

 

They're certainly within their rights to spend their money however they want to.  

---

Lots of money in the next election being spent, my bet is you end up with 2 establishment choices, Jeb Bush vs Hilary Clinton.

---

I wonder how many jobs this will create. Probably a lot.


That's about the only benefit I can see.


We'll all be inundated with a lot more ads from groups with names like "Committee to Educate the American Public." No real names attached.


They're certainly within their rights to spend their money however they want to.

Coalition to protect American Freedom™.

---

I wonder how many jobs this will create.   Probably a lot.  

 

That's about the only benefit I can see.  

 

We'll all be inundated with a lot more ads from groups with names like "Committee to Educate the American Public."  No real names attached.  

 

They're certainly within their rights to spend their money however they want to.  

George Soros may not come close to this $$$ amount but he'lll sure try. 

---

I guess some of us are going to pretend that they are the only ones to do this...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I guess some of us are going to pretend that they are the only ones to do this...

 

They are the only ones preparing to spend nearly 900 million dollars on one election

---

They are the only ones preparing to spend nearly 900 million dollars on one election

You really don't think they are the only ones, do you? It's done every election cycle, the $$$ numbers just keep growing...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

They are the only ones preparing to spend nearly 900 million dollars on one election

 

last election Obama spent 987 million and Romney spent 992 million let's not act like this is something new.

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

---

last election Obama spent 987 million and Romney spent 992 million let's not act like this is something new.

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Campaign finance is a joke. The worst part is nobody can run on fixing it because they have to take the money to have a chance to beat the money. Infuriating. 

---

Campaign finance is a joke. The worst part is nobody can run on fixing it because they have to take the money to have a chance to beat the money. Infuriating.

^^This^^



To pretend that one side is worse than the other when they all do it is a joke.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

^^This^^



To pretend that one side is worse than the other when they all do it is a joke.

 

I didn't know anyone was pretending that. 

---

Campaign finance is a joke. The worst part is nobody can run on fixing it because they have to take the money to have a chance to beat the money. Infuriating. 

 

I don't know what the solution is, either making the campaigns public financed with each candidate getting the same amount; ( But how the hell would you qualify which candidates get funded and which don't. Just seems like such an opportunity for only state sponsored candidates I don't think it would ever work). OR you have to drastically reduce the influence these officials have (again I don't ever see that happening).

---

I didn't know anyone was pretending that. 

 

thunderbuns said it was only the Koch Brothers spending that much on a campaign.

---

I don't know what the solution is, either making the campaigns public financed with each candidate getting the same amount; ( But how the hell would you qualify which candidates get funded and which don't. Just seems like such an opportunity for only state sponsored candidates I don't think it would ever work). OR you have to drastically reduce the influence these officials have (again I don't ever see that happening).

 

You cannot muzzle free speech unless you repeal the First Amendment.   I believe that, under the Constitution, people are free to spend whatever they want to make whatever political statement they want.  

---

You cannot muzzle free speech unless you repeal the First Amendment.   I believe that, under the Constitution, people are free to spend whatever they want to make whatever political statement they want.  

 

Fair enough, I think the best of a bad situation is just making politicians less powerful.

---

What's the official pronunciation of their last name?

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

What's the official pronunciation of their last name?

Like Coke I believe...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I don't know what the solution is, either making the campaigns public financed with each candidate getting the same amount; ( But how the hell would you qualify which candidates get funded and which don't. Just seems like such an opportunity for only state sponsored candidates I don't think it would ever work). OR you have to drastically reduce the influence these officials have (again I don't ever see that happening).

You could have publicly funded elections either federaly or more likely at the state level. The whole thing would be set up and open to anyone who say got a number of petition signitures or w/e. Set number of debates with all qualified candidates. It could be done

---

 

<div>
 


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/pol....html?_r=0

 

</div>

 

But...but...but...the Koch brothers are thinking of 'Merica, not their own self interests, right?

 

Right?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley