U.S. political campaigns to cost $6 bil

For 6 billion dollars we could just hire better politicians, might actually be cheaper in the long run if you think about it.

I make that about 60 bucks a voter (or so). Might be better for the economy just to give it all directly to them......

@Wakarimasen,

I make that about 60 bucks a voter (or so). Might be better for the economy just to give it all directly to them......

No we can't have that , clearly it would be better for everyone if you gave $6000 to each one of the 1% ers instead. I am sure they promise to use it wisely. The 99% just don't understand how to handle money, ans would probably just squander it on food or clothes for their children. Anyway they are quite happy to feed of the crumbs trickling down their masters legs. /sarcasm

I blame on the United States Supreme Court on Citizens United Decision That Created Super Pacs.

GOP, Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers are a Commander in Chief among American Talibans and we, the Democrats, are trying to stop them. They have been pouring over 10 times more SuperPac money to destroy Obama. They are making sure Obama will be a president of one term.

Some states are already are starting investigations on illegal superpac money. Over10,000 attorneys are on sideline waiting for state voting recount calls. We may not find a president on November 7th.

Once Obama is re-elected,the election law will be challenged for amendment to the US Supreme Court. . That is the reason this election is critical.

$6B to force the voters to choose between Statist A or Statist B. Not a very good bargain. Who is on the receiving end of this loot, I wonder. I'll wager much of it goes to alphabet-soup media outlets for airing the propaganda.

The "winner" will be contested almost assuredly given that a huge swath of the nation will at best have limited power and transportation on election day. It should be postponed for at least a month, but that won't happen. Watch for rioting.

Just wasting so much money to elect a person to be president, anyway after the election Mitt Romney is still Mr Romney and Barack is President Barack Obama. Barack the better choice and talk sense.......

such a lot of money simply to replace corporate americas representative puppet in the white house - its all just a pantomime....

6,000,000,000 USD! The equivalent of 6 gallons of gas per inhabitant!

Obviously USA in on the edge to launch a new political system.

I have got a few suggestions on how to call it. But feel free to participate in producing the necessary neologism: Marketingocracy, Lobbycracy, Dollarcracy, Mediacracy, Soapcracy, Teacracy, ToopoortohaveanIDcracy, ...

I doubt it will last as long as the incredibly modern model developed by their founders centuries ago.

But let's develop a bit more. According to wiki, about 140,000,000 people will vote.

6,000,000,000/140,000,000=42.86 USD

Can you imagine that? Each vote value is 43.- USD! And this is not counting all the volunteer work!

Crazy! Isn't it?

The 99% just don't understand how to handle money, ans would probably just squander it on food or clothes for their children.

Actually, yeah that's exactly why it wouldn't work. That's why the economy doesn't suddenly get bright and cheery after tax return season, it's a blurb and then goes back to normal. For sustained economic growth we would require savings and investments in capital goods and businesses, most people don't do that.

The few comments about this topic makes me thinking that the money spent for the presidential election is much more taboo than the one spent for healthcare!

I'm quite skeptic on how to conclude about that...!

Sad really. 'Cause after all the sound and fury, Obama will be re-elected, the Dems will hold the Senate and the House will stay the same.

There is hoping, of course, that Republicans lose the House. But I doubt it.

Oh, well, what a waste of time and money for everyone. Except the add guys.

For sustained economic growth we would require savings and investments in capital goods and businesses, most people don't do that.

Yawn. We've heard this crap for thirty years, and it lead to the greatest economic collapse of our times.

No, since you insist on making a light-switch argument, here it is:

sustained economic growth does not come from giving more money to the rich. It comes from expanding the middle class.

Since $6B is chump change compared to the US federal budget the special interests will fight to the end to get their favorites elected. At the end of the day it won't matter of Obama or Romney is elected, the cash will flow to the people with political connections. What the US needs is Teddy Roosevelt. Instead the choice is between Daddy Warbucks and Wile E Coyote.

Zichi

When was that time? Anytime before, well, 1990, good luck if you were a black guy. Or a Jew. Or an Atheist. Or of Mexican decent. Or gay.

Sorry, your golden age never existed.

At the end of the day it won't matter of Obama or Romney is elected, the cash will flow to the people with political connections

Oh really.

So, tell me: do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq?

Elections matter.

We've heard this crap for thirty years, and it lead to the greatest economic collapse of our times.

Bull. Investments in capital goods is crap and by business I mean actual businesses, not necesarily corporation. I put up some money for my brother who owns a scrap yard to buy new equipment, now he makes more money and I make money too. Thanks to interest rates kept at artificially low rates you have economies based on excessive liquidity spurred on by rampant debt and government spending.

sustained economic growth does not come from giving more money to the rich. It comes from expanding the middle class.

I dare you to find a post of mine that says that anybody should give anybody anything. Right now the government is subsidizing a whole slew of businesses that you probably agree with, I want that to stop. I want people to save their money or invest it rather than buying stuff, the government wants people to spend more money and take on more debt.

You don't want money to stop going to the rich, you just want it to go to the rich people that you agree with. You don't get many winners when government keeps picking losers and nobody got to be middle class by taking on debt. Stop subsidizing all businesses, rehash the tax code for a fair or flat tax, re-evaluate the impact of regulations and the unintended consequences they've had, and call me in the morning.

Having said as I listed above, I just need to add one more important fact that the SuperPacs are inviting foreign money pouring into US political campaign INDIRECTLY. It is illegal for candidates to accept the foreign money DIRECTLY. But it is no brainer. They can set up US legal subsidaries one-man office here in US to receive foreign money and the money can be passed on to Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.

How would you like that oil country like Saudi and financier China may be behind the SuperPacs? The recent Supreme Court decision has to be challenged once Obama is elected.

The Question

Look, like I wrote to begin with: since you insist on making a light-switch argument, you've toggled the switch the wrong way.

If you want to argue a more nuanced position, that would be another thing.

"Cost?"

That is not cost, that is an investment. A lot of it is private money and the givers do it because they are veery clear how much more that invetsment will return if their guy wins....

That part of the taxpayers money that is spent here is wasted anyway. If it pays for the lies in what the US call an election, or a journey to mars or one of the wars that a Nobel Peaceprize winner has to run, makes absolutely no difference. Every peope has the kind of government it deserves...

Look, like I wrote to begin with: since you insist on making a light-switch argument, you've toggled the switch the wrong way.

I guess one way to keep thinking you're right is to avoid engaging others in conversation.

If you want to argue a more nuanced position, that would be another thing.

I don't think you can get more nuanced than arguing the merits of government oversight of interest rates. On this topic and just about everywhere else I'm more than willing to go over the finer details of all things economic or political in nature. You seem to prefer marginalizing and/or ignoring those with points counter to your own so the balls in your court, I'm game.

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

6billion that could easily help something more substantial...like the deficit...

Some states are already are starting investigations on illegal superpac money. Over10,000 attorneys are on sideline waiting for state voting recount calls. We may not find a president on November 7th.

More than 780 election observers from the US Dept of Justivce are on the way to 28 states making sure there will be no cheaters on the election day. Most of them are lawyers.

American politics are in mess.