Obama Supporters Getting Perks

[duane1969]

And I will ask you again. Where is the evidence of this "special treatment"? You cannot claim that 19% getting perks and 81% NOT getting perks is evidence.

I can claim that top supporters getting perks while lower level supporters not getting support is evidence. The report says that 200 of Obama's top supporters have gotten positions or perks.

Show me how Joe Schmoe from Timbuktu who donated $5 got a perk and I will be convinced that I am wrong.

[habsheaven]

I have always supported a "pool". Everyone donates to a general pool and the poll is divided equally between candidate.

Who would bother to donate if their donation was being divided equally between the person they backed and the person they opposed?

[duane1969]

Who would bother to donate if their donation was being divided equally between the person they backed and the person they opposed?

Those who care about the success of the government. Those who only donate to get special perks and appointments to staff obviously wouldn't.

[habsheaven]

Those who care about the success of the government. Those who only donate to get special perks and appointments to staff obviously wouldn't.

Huh?? How would my $100 being divided among the candidates for campaigning benefit the government?

I must just be idealistic. When I make a political donation, I do it so that the candidate I want to win will have a better chance at doing so. I do it because I believe the candidate I am backing is the best choice for the country. How again does splitting my donation among his/her rivals help the country?

[Star_Cards]

This is the part I do not get. Why can't we assume that the 19% that got the perks were the most qualified and the 81% that didn't weren't the most qualified?

this true. all of those people could have been the most qualified people. we wouldn't really know one way or the other without being part of the process.

[theonedru]

Do you "hook up" your friends because they gave you money? This isn't nepotism or cronyism. It is buying political influence.

You mean bribery.....

[duane1969]

Huh?? How would my $100 being divided among the candidates for campaigning benefit the government?

I must just be idealistic. When I make a political donation, I do it so that the candidate I want to win will have a better chance at doing so. I do it because I believe the candidate I am backing is the best choice for the country. How again does splitting my donation among his/her rivals help the country?

$100 x 1,000,000 people = $100,000,000

It is more about civic duty than being motivated by self-benefit. Knowing that your donation went towards forwarding the democratic process and ensuring that the best candidate won instead of "he who has the most money wins" would be the point.

Take money out of the equation and you will see candidates speaking the truth about the issues instead of saying what their top contributors want to hear.

[habsheaven]

$100 x 1,000,000 people = $100,000,000

It is more about civic duty than being motivated by self-benefit. Knowing that your donation went towards forwarding the democratic process and ensuring that the best candidate won instead of "he who has the most money wins" would be the point.

Take money out of the equation and you will see candidates speaking the truth about the issues instead of saying what their top contributors want to hear.

This makes sense. Limit campaign spending to such a low amount that donors are irrelevant. Pooling donations on the other hand is completely illogical. No one would donate if that were the case. Civic duty or not.