Michelle: 'There’s too much money in politics, but write a big, fat check'

You can't make this crap up folks.

Does the left even listen to themselves speak?

Why is it that the left always complains about Republicans raising money, but never look in the mirror and see their own Democrat party raising tons of money?

Obama outraised both McCain and Romney, but yet the left doesn't see past their partisan blinders to criticize their own side.

And now we have the first lady speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

Michelle Obama complains about money's influence on politics, then asks for 'fat check'

 

I think it's rather obvious what her point is; that funding being thrown at candidates from special interest groups is a negative thing in politics, as it indeed is when corporations are essentially buying candidates to push their agenda, and that financial support from citizens is a way to combat that.

It's not particularly strange a thing to say, neither is it hard to understand her point.

 

How are corporations buying candidates? They give them a bunch of money to run ads and such? That doesn't make me vote for them... doesn't make anyone vote for them. In fact you can find out where candidates are getting their money from... I like to do such and vote against those who get lots of money from corporations and groups I don't particularily like. Its why I don't vote R or D.

hahah when a democrat who gets tons of money from corporations (and whose husband has completely outraised any of his competitors in funds) points to the other side and says corporations are supporting them, give us money to beat them its hilarious and sad.

Yeah its not strange, its just relying on the ignorant to write them a check while they do the same thing they are criticizing.

 

Barry got his so I guess it's time to limit everyone else.

 

Only stupid people vote for a candidates based solely on how many TV/Radio ads they see/hear.

 

Which unfortunately, America (and the world) has a great abundance of.

Advertising works. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a billion dollar business.

As for OP, while I agree with the sentiment, the irony is super thick on this one lol

 

I don't care what Adam's Apple Moochele says. I can't think of a less relevant person. She has the attention of what, 12% of the population. Just go away, Weezie.

 

Yes, Barry spent more in 2008 than Bush and Kerry spent in 2004 combined.

 

I think the amount of money in political ads, etc. is trivial. The 2012 elections cost about $6 billion. (Presidential race alone about $2.6 billion). Coke (a single company) spent over $11 billion in adverttising in 2012.

 

Your comparing apples to oranges. Candidates have limits on what they can spend, whereas private companies don't. Plus Coke advertises world wide, not just in the US.

 

Money here isn't the problem.

It's what they do for the money that's the problem.

Of course people who seek to abuse power will congregate in places where power is consolidated. It's the power we need to limit, not the money. Take away the power to do and so will go the money to do it with.

 

The point is the amount of money in political advertising is still small compared to single products. A better analogy would have been coke vs. pepsi, I agree. Proctor and Gamble spent about $4.9 billion in advertising in the U.S. Apple over a billion.


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-35-companies-that-spent-1-billion-on-ads-in-2011-2012-11?op=1

 

Which is fine, but we aren't talking about business advertising.