relative spending for walker recall

You're leaving out the millions funded by unions and other out of state people to fund the recall to begin with. Did you think Walker wasn't going to raise money to try and keep his job?
 
cawacko said:
You're leaving out the millions funded by unions and other out of state people to fund the recall to begin with. Did you think Walker wasn't going to raise money to try and keep his job?
Click to expand...

the graphic includes opposition spending - the anti-recall money is shown broken out by in state and out of state money

did you read the graphic?
 
Don Quixote said:
the graphic includes opposition spending - the anti-recall money is shown broken out by in state and out of state money

did you read the graphic?
Click to expand...

Of course not. There is a real aversion to facts and information on the right. Education...blech!
 
Don Quixote said:
the graphic includes opposition spending - the anti-recall money is shown broken out by in state and out of state money

did you read the graphic?
Click to expand...

I did read the graph. It said Walker raised $30 million and the minimum spent by both parties was $63 million. I'm not sure if that is their way of saying the Democrats/supporters of the recall raised $33 million or not.
 
If you don't know you either have reading comprehension difficulties or you didn't read the link/s.

$30.5 million: Amount raised by Walker to fight off the recall effort

$3.9 million: Amount raised by his challenger, Tom Barrett, the Democratic mayor of Milwaukee

About 2/3: Proportion of Walker's donations that have come from donors outside Wisconsin

About 1/4: Proportion of Barrett's donations that have come from donors outside Wisconsin

Unlimited: Maximum individual donation Walker may accept under state law

$10,000: Maximum individual donation Barrett may accept under state law

$16.3 million: Amount spent by pro-Walker independent expenditure groups, which have invested $22 million in the Wisconsin recall
Click to expand...

A small portion of the information posted in the two links...you must have missed it.
 
So if Walker won because of how much money he spent, does that mean Obama won in 2008 for having outspent McCain 3 to 1?

You libs are real pieces of work.
 
cawacko said:
Would you like to tout your education credentials?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with reading a link and comprehending it? I see you and Baalim are attempting to hijack the thread...also, I don't know who you are either...so what?
 
cawacko said:
You're leaving out the millions funded by unions and other out of state people to fund the recall to begin with. Did you think Walker wasn't going to raise money to try and keep his job?
Click to expand...

i did not leave out the union raised funds

you mean bought his job continuation by any means possible...
 
Baalim said:
So if Walker won because of how much money he spent, does that mean Obama won in 2008 for having outspent McCain 3 to 1?
Click to expand...

No. The contributions for Obama were already revealed to be largely the result of millions of individuals making small donations. There's a difference between the outspending by the public for Obama's victory and the outspending by corporations for Walker. Try to focus.
 
Haiku said:
What does that have to do with reading a link and comprehending it? I see you and Baalim are attempting to hijack the thread...also, I don't know who you are either...so what?
Click to expand...

Shut up troll. Your 'don't care about education' trash is the attempted hijacking.

Let's see Mother Jones only tells one side of the spending story? Now why would that be? Why would they want to hide the millions that unions spent while emphasizing the money that Walker received? Because trolls like you eat it up?
 
Bijou said:
No. The contributions for Obama were already revealed to be largely the result of millions of individuals making small donations. There's a difference between the outspending by the public for Obama's victory and the outspending by corporations for Walker. Try to focus.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama's attempt at raising $1 billion is mostly coming from the 'little people'. That is a good laugh. I have no problem with Obama raising the money he feels he needs for re-election. But please save us the regular folk talk. He's in my City again today for the third time in the last month or so with another $35k a head fundraiser. There's noting 'little people' about that.
 
cawacko said:
Yes, Obama's attempt at raising $1 billion is mostly coming from the 'little people'. That is a good laugh. I have no problem with Obama raising the money he feels he needs for re-election. But please save us the regular folk talk. He's in my City again today for the third time in the last month or so with another $35k a head fundraiser. There's noting 'little people' about that.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about his current campaign. Further, while it's true that Obama had plenty of corporate-favoring donations during 2008, it was the individual donations that put him over the top. Fact.

Yes, Hollywood's moneyed elite definitely prefers Obama to the most boring man in the world. :D
 
This shouldn't even be a partisan discussion; whether it's corporations or unions, spending on campaigns & in DC in general is completely out of hand.

People don't get it; or they do, and they're just too busy w/ their lives to do anything about it. Our government & most of its politicians are effectively paid for by the highest bidder.

Oh - and for all you "money is speech" people...time to wake up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top