Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

[LV426]

Before I retired when I was teaching I would give my students a question about whether if they got change for a $20 when they only gave the clerk $10 would they return the money. I kept their anonymous answers until later when we discussed the money issue. I then asked whether they thought most politicians sell their votes for money and then matched up their answers.

Those who said they would not return the change were most likely to say politicians sell their votes. I theorized (with no evidence) that it shows those who are more financially motivated assume others are also.

Those who said they would not return the change were most likely to say politicians sell their votes. I theorized (with no evidence) that it shows those who are more financially motivated assume others are also.

Weird, because I was in the exact same exercise when I was in college and we came to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion you did.

So did you publish these findings in this experiment you claim to have run? No? You didn't publish? Have you ever published?

[LV426]

You are on ignore LV. I am sure you are whining like a bitch though because I am correct. You are getting your ass kicked.

So then you don't know if Flash is "kicking my ass" or not because you're too chickenshit to read my responses.

Way to self-own dumbass.

[Flash]

You have every possible tool at your disposal to prove your case and you're choosing not to use them.

You made this weird claim that "liberal groups" donated to Warren and AOC and when asked "what groups?" you refuse to do the work.

So what am I supposed to take away from that?

I shouldn't have to prove your point for you. Since you claimed legislative votes are determined by those who contributed to their campaign that would mean the liberal voting records of AOC and Warren must be due to their bribes by liberal donors.

You are too lazy to prove your own point and then throw doubt on your point by questioning whether AOC and Warren are bribed by campaign donations. This was your claim--I shouldn't have to prove it for you because you are unable to present evidence to support it.

[LV426]

I shouldn't have to prove your point for you..

It was YOUR POINT Flash.

You are the one who entered it.

Now you're backing away from it.

So lazy.

[LV426]

I shouldn't have to prove your point for you. Since you claimed legislative votes are determined by those who contributed to their campaign that would mean the liberal voting records of AOC and Warren must be due to their bribes by liberal donors.

Right, and who are those donors? Are they small donors or are they large donors that bundle? You don't even know because you won't do the work. Instead, you just lazily make broad assumptions and then run away from scrutiny of those assumptions.

It's not the first time you've done that either. It's habitual with you. It's a pattern. Every worst instinct of yours has been exhibited by you on this thread; broad assumptions, arrogant ignorance, sophistry, unverifiable anecdotes intended to bridge a credibility cap.

This thread should be called "Flash's Greatest Bad Faith Hits".

[Flash]

Weird, because I was in the exact same exercise when I was in college and we came to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion you did.

So did you publish these findings in this experiment you claim to have run? No? You didn't publish? Have you ever published?

That is why I said it was just an idea without any supporting evidence. It was not an "experiment" but just to generate a discussion. Read the posts more carefully before asking stupid questions.

You were in college?

[LV426]

You are too lazy to prove your own point.

WTF are you talking about? I've proven my point over and over on this thread; you're the one who refuses to engage with it because you have some personal issue with me.

If politicians and candidates didn't have to spend 90% of their time raising money, what would they be doing to attract voters instead?

It's a pretty easy question because the answer is right in the Constitution; represent the people.

[LV426]

IYou are too lazy to prove your own point and then throw doubt on your point by questioning whether AOC and Warren are bribed by campaign donations

And I answered that stupid and dishonest sophist question two different ways:

1. Who is donating to those folks? Are they large donors, or are they small donors? This is the work you refuse to do because you're lazy.

2. If we go with the premise that money buys influence, doesn't that mean our entire campaign system is flawed if candidates have to rely on raising money instead of raising votes by offering policies and plans their constituents want? And doesn't that mean that those with more money will naturally have more influence on the candidate who is looking to raise money???

You whined that it would be TOOO HARDZZZZ to find out what your constituents want...and if you think that, then representative democracy is not the political system for you.

[LV426]

This was your claim--I shouldn't have to prove it for you because you are unable to present evidence to support it.

And it is answered very easily by asking, who is donating to them?

You don't want to do that work because doing so would reveal that most -if not all- of the donations those specific folks received were from small donors.

Opensecrets even lists out PAC spending and fundraising for candidates. On AOC's Opensecrets page of donors, that % is literally zero.

So AOC is "bought" by small donors that she engages not at $10,000-a-plate dinners in wine caves, but via her social media platforms. That's how a modern politician reaches their constituency to know what their constituency wants. She also does town halls all the time, is totally willing to sit down for interviews, and most importantly puts in the effort in her actual job duties; meeting with constituents, crafting and voting on legislation, attending committee hearings. Those three things are solely an elected Representative's job as defined by our Constitution.

Notice how "fundraising" isn't included there.

[LV426]

That is why I said it was just an idea without any supporting evidence.

LMAO!



How'd that work out for you?

It was not an "experiment" but just to generate a discussion.

To generate a discussion by way of an experiment.

So what were the controls?

Admit it...you just made the whole thing up.

[Flash]

LMAO!



How'd that work out for you?




To generate a discussion by way of an experiment.

So what were the controls?

Admit it...you just made the whole thing up.

As usual, personal insults and diversions when you have nothing to support your original claim.

[Flash]

And it is answered very easily by asking, who is donating to them?

You don't want to do that work because doing so would reveal that most -if not all- of the donations those specific folks received were from small donors.

Opensecrets even lists out PAC spending and fundraising for candidates. On AOC's Opensecrets page of donors, that % is literally zero.

So AOC is "bought" by small donors that she engages not at $10,000-a-plate dinners in wine caves, but via her social media platforms. That's how a modern politician reaches their constituency to know what their constituency wants. She also does town halls all the time, is totally willing to sit down for interviews, and most importantly puts in the effort in her actual job duties; meeting with constituents, crafting and voting on legislation, attending committee hearings. Those three things are solely an elected Representative's job as defined by our Constitution.

Notice how "fundraising" isn't included there.

Where does the Constitution say "meeting with constituents, crafting and voting on legislation, attending committee hearings" are the duties of a rep??


So, she wasn't bribed by wealthy donors? That just destroyed your entire argument.

[LV426]

As usual, personal insults and diversions when you have nothing to support your original claim.

Well, you're the one who took a hard right turn into Unverifiable Anecdote Land.

[LV426]

So, she wasn't bribed by wealthy donors? That just destroyed your entire argument.

How does it destroy my argument?

[LV426]

So, she wasn't bribed by wealthy donors? That just destroyed your entire argument.

Well, you can just look at her donors on Opensecrets and see for yourself.

But that requires effort, which is something you're just not that into.