Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Ah, if only Alan hadn't gone back into the witness protection program again.................

He'd be on here wailing about the Citizen's United decision, evil corporate donations, and how much out of state money Gov. Walker used to beat his noble opponent yesterday. As a public service to my fellow travelers an advance B.S. alert to keep in mind during the next 5+ months. That being the misinformation about campaign contributions.

First the observation of a paradox. When then Sen. Obama outspent Sen. McCain in 2008 by something around 3 to 1, it only warranted a passing mention. Often couched in phrasing that pointed out how much valid support Obama was getting based on the dollar flow. Now? Well, if Mr. Romney is able to raise as much, and worse if he raises more, it will be illegitimate money.....evil corporate money.....buah ha ha....

Second, an alternate game as we saw in so much "reporting" yesterday. You may have heard that Walker outspent his opponent by 7 to 1....that's why he won. And most of it was "out of state money", as if to invlidate those contributions. Well, the truth is somewhat different. The two parties (making that distinction because there were more than just two candidates for one office, there was also the Lt. Gov, and four state senate seats in play) benefitted from nearly the same amount of donations; Media Cite False Spending Differential To Explain Walker Win For fun though let's just play with the numbers the whiners were using yesterday. They said Walker got $30 million, to Barretts $4 million (rounded for discussion sake). And they would add that 2/3 of Walker's contribution came from "out of state". Some math......that means $10m from in state. So, let's assume that ALL of the money they claim went to Barrett was from in state (not realistic, but still works for the real point here). That means that STILL from in state contributions Walker pulled 2 1/2 times more support.....yes, in state contributions. So what's the point? Surprise, the news is spun.

Lastly, NONE of this has to do with the Citizen's United decision. That decision relates only to federal campaign finance.......NOT state level elections. And another point, the Citizen's United decision benefits BOTH labor unions as well as corporations.

Facts don't support the whines.................but then, that's not really a surprise either is it?