Money In Politics: A Look At Wisconsin's Recall
A well thought out look at the money spent on the recent recall election in Wisconsin. The author points out Walker likely would have won even if he hadn't received a large amount of money from outside the state:
"So there’s your money effect, folks. Go from a 2:1 money advantage to a 7:1 money advantage, and it could increase your vote share by a full percentage point! Woo hoo!"
"I don’t mean to sound snide, but I’d say in general that if you pair the same candidates up against each other for the same office, you’ll probably get similar results. And I’d say that the real lesson here is how little the electoral results changed after a vast change in financing."
I'd suggest money could have a greater effect in some instances. Prop 29, for instance: Large infusions of cash can help the underdog. It allows them to make their case and possibly change electoral outcomes, but not always.
In the case of Prop 29, the minority might well have lost without the added infusion of funds that allowed them to present their side of the issue. In the local case of WalMart trying to change zoning on the Balloon Tract, the money- and the argument presented with it- wasn't enough.
Hat tip, as usual, to Radley Balko for the link.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 10:19 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
and on the flip side, flank end around, the very idea of the money being accepted still says conflict of interest; still says donations are accepted even though not necessary; says that those who donated could have paid more in taxes or to a worthier social cause, etc....really kinda hard to say money did not change the vote as compared to influencing it or lessening the gap of approveability for now. The basic notion of a recall in such terrible economic times by people who complain about union protections and education funding is a case example of hipocrits who care less about what they preach because it is just a smokescreen for personal public employee gains in a "rigged" economy, as well as the private sector minions who take the better lifestyle that unions offer knowing it hurts the rest of the workforce by disecting the economy into class based productivity and class-based consumptions. All any union does is raise societal costs. The difference between a union and non-union employee is on the front-end of income/wealth/retirement.....the union is subsidized with a pay package kickback that takes into account and is adjusted for those higher created unionized societal costs.......The non-union worker gets no increased pay package to make-up for the cost increases.....See how labor overall is pitted against itself by income classes having nothing to do with productivity or output, but non-labor profit. Think about this Fred, if unions were the bomb, then every laborer would be a union member and every employer would be part of the union....like The Union of the States of America........SO, since unions are not monolithic in all of the workforce, we should be aware no less that a scam job of treasonistic proprotions is being implemented and excercized using old principles no longer really affected by the impacts that yesterday's politicians used as a more justifiable basis to create unions. Unions have gone from worker safety to using worker safety as a guise and ruse game for money laundered profits and economic riggings with government...... as big corps and government need each other for the cheap manufacturing jobs that employ thousands of people who build quite the disposable consumer products that are not even what they are advertized to be....something small businesses could never help the government with because government looks to succeed with bigger is better, nothing else matters.... - HOJ
Post a Comment
<< Home