Koch-Backed Network to Spend Nearly One Billion Dollars on Republican 2016 Presidential Election

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
More than twice as much as they spent in 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-2016_n_6550374.html

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Conservative political advocacy groups supported by the billionaire Koch brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 U.S. elections, more than double what they raised in 2012, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

The newspaper said the goal was announced to donors at a weekend meeting in Rancho Mirage, California, hosted by Freedom Partners, a business lobby at the center of the Koch brothers' political operation. The Post cited a person who attended the gathering.

The money will be doled out by a network of 17 organizations funded by industrialists Charles and David Koch, who have become a major force in conservative politics in recent years, and other wealthy donors. The network raised $407 million for the 2012 campaign.

During the 2012 election cycle, the national Republican Party collectively spent about $675 million, according to election data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Post said the $889 million would be spent on field operations, technology, policy study and other expenses.

The Freedom Partners network spent almost $300 million on November's congressional elections, in which Republicans won control of the Senate and retained their majority in the House of Representatives.

The potential field for the Republican presidential nomination is fairly crowded and the Post said the Koch group was still considering whether it would support candidates in the Republican primaries, which could dramatically shape the campaign and possible lead to intraparty conflict.

Senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, all of whom are mentioned as possible presidential candidates, took part in the Rancho Mirage meeting, the Post said.
Click to expand...
 

Well, at least it's all out in the open and the voters can take the vested interests into account. Caveat civis - let the citizen beware.

Why is it that when I read "Freedom Partners" I am instantly reminded of George Orwell's novel 1984. Newspeak?
 
Its always about money when it comes to politics,hell with what the voters think.
Now lets see what the Democrats will raise.
 

Keep an eye on George Sorros and some of his big money friends that bought Obama a good chance to be President even while Hillary was already moving well along for that job. I think she will be back. So watch the Democrats big money and see just how they will do with their billions.
 
Watching the lot of them is wise policy, Bobf.

Look carefully too. Take note of our current circus in Canberra to see what can happen.

Last year, when our PM reintroduced Knights (and Dames) of the Order of Australia people sniggered a bit but we were assured that these honours would be used sparingly for recognition of outstanding Australians. The first recipients were the outgoing and incoming Governor's General so nobody made too much fuss.

Now he's awarded a knighthood to the Queen's husband, Prince Philip and Australians are either wetting themselves laughing or despairing about Tony Abbott's judgement. Nobody believes that the "adults are in charge" anymore.

The whole English speaking world is laughing at our expense. If they're not, they probably haven't yet heard about it.

More seriously, a government that promised to "end the waste" and "balance the books" has doubled the national debt and trebled the deficit in just over a year. It would have been a good thing if more people, including the media, had bothered to look behind the curtain of three word slogans to see more clearly what they were really voting for. And who their backers were.
 
Geeze, sounds like your politics can be entertaining sometimes there. Lately ours hasn't been entertaining much. Our government hasn't trebled our national debt but at a time when everything is so volatile and oil prices are down and our PM has put ALL our eggs in that one basket, they're planning on giving away a dwindling (smallish) surplus to the top 15% of earners in an income splitting scheme (and some other goodie but it just escapes me at the moment what that is...).

To me it seems like having a bit of money saved up and you know that either you or your husband are going to get laid off in the next three or six months maybe.....and you decide to go on a vacation anyway .......... because you promised yourself a holiday. Who does that?
 
The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012. In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House. Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.
 
Don M. said:
The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012. In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House. Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.
Click to expand...
The best part is that bothers Huffer so much (Huffington Post)
 
BobF said:
Keep an eye on George Sorros and some of his big money friends that bought Obama a good chance to be President even while Hillary was already moving well along for that job. I think she will be back. So watch the Democrats big money and see just how they will do with their billions.
Click to expand...

Forget the presidential campaign. Both parties and multiple issues get financial support year round. Soros funds/funded many protestor groups and causes that were part of the Ferguson protests.

http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...-contributor-to-furgeson-demonstrations-riots

It takes money to travel and this is probably how many of the outside agitators got to Ferguson.

Private financiers use groups and causes as shall we say contractors to lay the ground work for an actual candidate. All sides do it.
 
Don M. said:
The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012. In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House. Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.
Click to expand...


Stop with the false equivalency stuff... I believe that nearly one half of donations to the Obama campaign were from small donors and under $200.... Quite a bit different than a handful of Billionaires purchasing the government.. Fortunately the People prevailed.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/

In the scramble for campaign cash, President Obama has proved once again that he’s king, at least among American small-dollar donors.
Nearly half — 48 percent — of Obama’s $118 million haul in 2011 came from individuals giving $200 or less, according to a new analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan group.
Small-donors made up only 9 percent of the 2011 fundraising total for Mitt Romney.
But it’s on the other end of the donor spectrum that Romney holds more sway: He gathered 82 percent of his funds from donors giving $1,000 or more, the Campaign Finance Institute found. Those high-dollar donors comprise just 28 percent of Obama’s total.
Looked at in absolute sums, Obama raised more money from small donors last year — $56.7 million to $56.3 million — than Romney collected from all donors combined.
Click to expand...
 
You are misreading what has been posted. It is not incorrect nor is what you post incorrect. What the big money is doing is posting large amounts of money to the campaigns plus to lots of side groups supporting what they want supported. Sorros was only one that I remember to be a big supporter of Obama who gave money to radio stations and TV channels so they would preach the far left stuff Sorros wanted heard. Did Obama really get that much money from individuals across the US? Could some of that be from people that would send in lots of small amounts? I don't know and don't know how anyone would really know yes or not.

I would like to see limits on how much a candidate can use for campaigning. I understand there is such a limit offered and some candidates do try to hold the limits but Obama decided to heck with that idea and said he was going to spend as much as he could.

The big problem I see here is the effort to make it look like only the conservatives are the ones using big money to win the elections.

Now for the Koch's, it is said they put their money in many places and not most just to the conservative Presidential elections.

I used 'Kochs money distribution' for search request. It turns out that their money goes many ways and not all to election campaigns at all.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/21/koch-money/

There are others and from all sides of the politics. Some insist anything the conservatives do is evil, but is not so at all. I also remember reading that the Koch brothers also give to certain Democrat operations.
 
Seems the little guy is left with the role of onlooker now that the big money people decide who goes to congress and the white house. All us little guys with our $5 and $20 contributions might as well play the lottery instead at least there we get a one in a million chance to be a "Big money guy" too! What has happened to us? Where did fairplay go? "We have met the enemy and he is us."
 
Don M. said:
The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012. In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House. Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.
Click to expand...
You got that right. It's all about money and who got more of it.
 
AZ Jim said:
Seems the little guy is left with the role of onlooker now that the big money people decide who goes to congress and the white house. All us little guys with our $5 and $20 contributions might as well play the lottery instead at least there we get a one in a million chance to be a "Big money guy" too! What has happened to us? Where did fairplay go? "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Click to expand...


We did pretty well funding the Obama campaign... We certainly can do it again.
 
Most of that Sorros strip was a joke and not at all serious postings on the Koch side. Lots of twists and put downs looking like it was supposed to be facts.

1990's Sorros made millions in his money deals. Yep, with his handling of silver content and coins, he took one big bundle straight away from our friends the UK. He caused a bit of trouble for the UK. Real nice guy this Sorros person.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp

How did George Soros "break the Bank of England"?

By Andrew Beattie AAA |

A: In Britain, Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992) is known as the day that speculators broke the pound. They didn't actually break it, but they forced the British government to pull it from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Joining the ERM was part of Britain's effort to help along the unification of the European economies. However, in the imperialistic style of old, she had tried to stack the deck.
 
Time to prove FOX NEWS is a bad broadcaster. Fox has come from nothing to near the top in not too many years. If Fox was all crap and nonsense as some like to say, then why is FOX climbing while others are fading out, some even closed down.
 
WhatInThe said:
I made a mistake, it was the 1990s and the Prime Minister of Malaysia is one of several that accused Soros of heavy speculation that crashed the currency in the region.

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/09/29/232108/index.htm

http://thanong.tripod.com/01302001.htm
Click to expand...

red-herring1.jpg
 
QuickSilver said:
Stop with the false equivalency stuff... I believe that nearly one half of donations to the Obama campaign were from small donors and under $200.... Quite a bit different than a handful of Billionaires purchasing the government.. Fortunately the People prevailed.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/
Click to expand...

"False Equivalency Stuff".....You chose to reference data from some individual Blogger, Devin Dwyer...whoever he is, who chooses to quote data from a heavily biased Left Wing source...The CFI. I prefer to rely on the numbers from OpenSecrets. Do a search on the "About Us" from each of these organizations, and you may note the differences. Opensecrets gathers the data as submitted to the FEC, by the various candidates and political parties, as required By Law, and posts the data directly from the FEC...Without Partisan Bias. They have been doing so for well over 20 years, and are the most accurate source for such data.

Yes, Obama had a "slight" edge over Romney when it comes to smaller donations, but he Still brought in hundreds of millions more than Romney...most of that from wealthy Left Wing Special Interests. Do the research.

Unfortunately, even Opensecrets may no longer be able to accurately track the Dark Money that is flowing profusely to BOTH political parties as a result of Citizens United. These PAC's are no longer bound by our long standing campaign finance disclosure rules...and will continue to erode the control and influence the average person has in Washington.
 
Don M. said:
"False Equivalency Stuff".....You chose to reference data from some individual Blogger, Devin Dwyer...whoever he is, who chooses to quote data from a heavily biased Left Wing source...The CFI. I prefer to rely on the numbers from OpenSecrets. Do a search on the "About Us" from each of these organizations, and you may note the differences. Opensecrets gathers the data as submitted to the FEC, by the various candidates and political parties, as required By Law, and posts the data directly from the FEC...Without Partisan Bias. They have been doing so for well over 20 years, and are the most accurate source for such data.

Yes, Obama had a "slight" edge over Romney when it comes to smaller donations, but he Still brought in hundreds of millions more than Romney...most of that from wealthy Left Wing Special Interests. Do the research.

Unfortunately, even Opensecrets may no longer be able to accurately track the Dark Money that is flowing profusely to BOTH political parties as a result of Citizens United. These PAC's are no longer bound by our long standing campaign finance disclosure rules...and will continue to erode the control and influence the average person has in Washington.
Click to expand...


President Obama has proved once again that he’s king, at least among American small-dollar donors.
Nearly half — 48 percent — of Obama’s $118 million haul in 2011 came from individuals giving $200 or less, according to a new analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan group.
Small-donors made up only 9 percent of the 2011 fundraising total for Mitt Romney.
But it’s on the other end of the donor spectrum that Romney holds more sway: He gathered 82 percent of his funds from donors giving $1,000 or more, the Campaign Finance Institute found. Those high-dollar donors comprise just 28 percent of Obama’s total.
Looked at in absolute sums, Obama raised more money from small donors last year — $56.7 million to $56.3 million — than Romney collected from all donors combined.
Click to expand...
An individual BLogger who took his numbers from the CAMPINGN FINANACE INSTITUTE. It is a nonpartisan group...
 
Okay, I admit it. I'm guilty of buying the government. I gave a total of $145 dollars to our Senate candidate, Tom Cotton. I also gave $25 dollars to Arkansas' candidate for governor, Asa Hutchinson. Both won big time thanks to my donations.

I'm happy to report that Republicans won every elective statewide office in Arkansas for the first time ever.

How many of you supported candidates with more than lip service?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top