Wow. Think about this for a moment.
For all the press that the netroots has gathered, looking at the actual fundraising in the two most-hyped "netroots" races is telling.
Lieberman:
Raised:$8,464,769
Spent: $5,280,920
Cash on hand:$4,279,088
Last Report:6/30/2006
Lamont:
Raised:$2,792,683
Spent:$2,515,856
Cash on hand:$276,976
Last Report:6/30/2006
Note that Lamont has given $1,501,500 of the $2,792,683 his campaign has raised; Lieberman has given $0.
Allen:
Raised:$12,236,651
Spent:$5,707,657
Cash on hand:$6,617,620
Last Report:6/30/2006
Webb:
Raised:$1,135,819
Spent:$711,663
Cash on hand:$424,245
Last Report:6/30/2006
Note that Webb has given $100,000 of the $1,135,819 his campaign has raised; Allen has given $0.
Money isn't everything in campaigns, and personally, I'm unhappy that it matters as much as it does. I generally support stronger limits on campaign giving and spending (yeah, yeah, I know, 1st Amendment - but why should a zillionaire's voice matter a zillion times as much as a dolleraire's).
But the interesting thing to me is that after a major push by the 'roots, and massive national press, neither campaign has raised serious money.
I keep thinking back to the 90's when the press would anoint three guys in sweaters and t-shirts working in a shared office as The Next Big Thing and all kinds of good things would happen - VC money, buyouts, etc.
But when it came time to actually build businesses, there was often less than met the eye.
As one of the guys in sweaters and t-shirts this time around, it behooves me to think hard about that.
why should a zillionaire's voice matter a zillion times as much as a dolleraire's
How about, because he's got a zillion times more to lose from a bad decision? Yet, if he's wrong, others will pick up the "dolleraire's" points and they will also be heard.
I generally agree with Jeff. If Candidate X is a millionaire and uses $5 million of his own money to fund a campaign, how is he "worse" than Candidate Y who spent $5 million of other people's money on a campaign? At least with X, you'd know he's willing to put his money where his mouth is; with Y, you'll always wonder who "bought and paid for" him, and who will be buying him next election.
Now if we're talking campaign contribution limits from corporations or PAC's, I could see the point of limiting some of those contributions.
Because the zillionare pays more in taxes than the dolleraire. Drop this ridiculous insistence on taxing people more who earn more and then we’ll talk about whose voice should matter more.
We are a commercial republic. Money has power. More money more power.
The purpose of representative government in a commercial republic is to act as a safety valve to prevent popular revolutions. Revolutions are bad for business. Politics in general is bad for business. Thus limeted government.
Remember Jefferson's original conception? You are a Jefferson/Jackson Democrat of course you do. For the rest a reminder.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.
The Democrats no longer understand their founders. No wonder they are failing.
No, but in the case of CT, the incumbent has been dealt a major blow. Not by the maligned "net roots" though I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but by his constituency.
It may make you feel better to blame this dramatic slide in popularity on the Kossacks, but that's all it will accomplish.
The independence thing was one of the reasons that in the original conception you had to be a property owner to engage in politics. It is harder to buy off a man who can hold his own.
The rabble could be bought for a meal and a roaring drunk. A bit unseemly. Still, money was power. It just had to be spread around at election time.
In fact the saloons were the core of Democrat power. Which is one of the reasons Republicans loved prohibition. Currently the Rs also love drug prohibition. It is one of the ways to get a lot of Ds off the voter rolls.
And the Ds being stupid and ignorant of history try real hard to be tougher than Republicans on the issue. Shoot yourselves in the foot much?
Look up Jim Crow. Minor crimes disproportionately comitted by blacks were felonies. Felons can't vote. Gun control? Keeps the blacks disarmed. Another Jim Crow invention.
The Republicans are smart. The best form of oppression is to get men to ask to be repressed. Now tell me. Which is the stupid party?
Thorley,
That doesn't compute. Are you also amenable to tying voting to property?
What will you be saying when George Soros comes around in 2008 and tries to flood the zone?