Politics

[Ndaccountant]

In our country it takes sacrifice to do anything, that's why my hopes of a bright economic future for the US aren't so high.

I think it would go over much better if the sacrifice was shared equally. In an environment where revisions to the law are being used for political favors, it's difficult for some to ignore.

To be clear, neither party has a monopoly on this, I am just using this law as an example.

 

[Wild Bill]

Isn't that a good thing? Going to school, getting started in a job, picking up a trade. That's what young people do and this gives them the freedom to do that without the pressure of not being covered hanging over their heads. Especially today when employers are looking for ways NOT to offer benefits like health plans to new employees (employees in general really).

It encourages laziness, in my opinion. The pressure of fending for myself made me tougher, savvier and more resilient. I poured concrete in the summer while I was in college and law school to pay for necessities like health insurance, booze and food during the school year. I would have preferred chasing pussy, drinking and lounging around but it wasn't an option.

 

[BobD]

I think it would go over much better if the sacrifice was shared equally. In an environment where revisions to the law are being used for political favors, it's difficult for some to ignore.

To be clear, neither party has a monopoly on this, I am just using this law as an example.

I wonder if equal sacrifice is possible? I think it's a relative thing.

 

[chicago51]

I think when looking at the ACA you have look at it compared to the status quo which sucked. Insurance in a societal aspect is part assuming the risk as a society (insurance pool) so that nobody is left without of treatment. Not letting insurance the sickest people through (denial of pre existing conditions and kicking people off for reaching lifetime limits) in the pool was horrible statement on us as a society. So I think for a comparison to the status quo it was an improvement.

When it comes to taking on the special interest in health care from the insurance companies, the doctors, hospital executives, drug companies, mal practice lawyers, the medical industrial complex, etc the ACA did not do much. It did give us some consumer protections from insurance company abuses and mandate 80 percent premiums be spent on healthcare but that is a blimp on the radar when it comes to the problems of the health care industry.

Hopefully more people insured and more importantly the emphasis on preventive care brings down cost long term but I'm not optimistic about it.

I think the best and most realistic way forward is for states to come up with their own plans and opt out which they are allowed to do as long they can offer the same access and level of coverage as the ACA.

I think universal catastrophic / basic care with supplemental private coverage for those that want more choice and options is the best way to go but I don't see us going their as the desire to take on the special interest in health care isn't there so it is gonna be up to the states.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

When asked prior to the enrollment period what success would look like for Obamacare, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that it be when about 7 million people signed up in the next six months. That in and of itself is not as important as the fact that GOP detractors seized on that number. When the implementation of the enrollment period stumbled over the first month, I heard Rebublicans repeat that 7 million number time and time again. There is no way the Dems would sign that many people up and that was proof positive that the law was broken and ineffective. They repeated the number and repeated the number until anyone who was interested knew that HHS Secretary set the bar. When it really looked like there was no way that many people would sign up, the GOP used it as a club to beat Obama with. They, in effect, accepted the challenge when it looked like there was no way they could lose the argument.

Fast forward six months and we hear the announcement that 7.1 million Americans have signed up. Nobody said that 47 million would sign up in the first open enrollment. The government estimate was always 7 million. And even with a long, painful, and publically humiliating delay, they surpassed that goal. Now, all of the republicans who railed against the law and its sloppy implementation are faced with the reality that they underestimated the nation's appetite for Obamacare. A Washington Post poll a couple of days before implementation actually showed that more Americans were for the ACA than against it (48% to 47% I think), once again disproving the GOP talking point that "most Americans don't want the law." There are still those who will seek disparage the law, which is fine, even though they look increasingly foolish in doing so. They say things like, the 7.1 million doesn't matter, that it will bring costs down is the real measuring stick, or worse yet they deny the number of enrollees, even though it would be political suicide for the Dems to fabricate the number. At the end of the day, from a political perspective the GOP must admit that they, once again, got beat on an issue. Obama wins!!!! America's uninsured win!!!!!! The haters lose. Deal with it!

You're delusional.

Dream On Aerosmith Official Music Video - YouTube

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think when looking at the ACA you have look at it compared to the status quo which sucked.

The status quo sucked (and still sucks) because the third-party payor model has destroyed any sort of transparency in pricing. The Democrats wanted "Medicare for all" (universal single payor), which would have had a lot of advantages over the old system. But they feared that such a proposal would be too easy for the GOP to demagogue, so they settled for a half-measure that enshrined the worst components of the old system. The GOP, on the other hand, was too chicken-shit to propose a genuinely market-based alternative.

The ACA is not a significant improvement over the old system, and both political parties share the blame for that.

Insurance in a societal aspect is part assuming the risk as a society (insurance pool) so that nobody is left without of treatment.

Risk-pooling makes sense for unpredictable casualty events, not for services that are subject to consumer choice. Imagine what would happen to the price of food if everyone was forced to buy "Grocery Insurance" and the prices were obscured by a corrupt 3rd party bureaucracy.

When it comes to taking on the special interest in health care from the insurance companies, the doctors, hospital executives, drug companies, mal practice lawyers, the medical industrial complex, etc the ACA did not do much. It did give us some consumer protections from insurance company abuses and mandate 80 percent premiums be spent on healthcare but that is a blimp on the radar when it comes to the problems of the health care industry.

Those special interests wrote the ACA, and now the American people are married to those vampires through a welfare program that'll be damned near impossible to roll back.

I think universal catastrophic / basic care with supplemental private coverage for those that want more choice and options is the best way to go but I don't see us going their as the desire to take on the special interest in health care isn't there so it is gonna be up to the states.

We could have had that system if the GOP had the courage to propose it, or if the Dems hadn't felt compelled to ram something through when they briefly held a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Further proving the wisdom of divided government, which no one in Washington seems to care about anymore.

 

[chicago51]

I think it would go over much better if the sacrifice was shared equally. In an environment where revisions to the law are being used for political favors, it's difficult for some to ignore.

To be clear, neither party has a monopoly on this, I am just using this law as an example.

Aren't you in favor of unlimited political donations and corporate donations?

Isn't the political favors you speak a consequence of that? Money in politics? No?

This is why I can't figure out why those who want to get rid of wasteful bureaucracy and spending wouldn't want to get the money out of polilitcs. Is Democratic and Republican special interest one of many reasons for high spending you are against?

 

[chicago51]

The status quo sucked (and still sucks) because the third-party payor model has destroyed any sort of transparency in pricing. The Democrats wanted "Medicare for all" (universal single payor), which would have had a lot of advantages over the old system. But they feared that such a proposal would be too easy for the GOP to demagogue, so they settled for a half-measure that enshrined the worst components of the old system. The GOP, on the other hand, was too chicken-shit to propose a genuinely market-based alternative.

The ACA is not a significant improvement over the old system, and both political parties share the blame for that.



Risk-pooling makes sense for unpredictable casualty events, not for services that are subject to consumer choice. Imagine what would happen to the price of food if everyone was forced to buy "Grocery Insurance" and the prices were obscured by a corrupt 3rd party bureaucracy.



Those special interests wrote the ACA, and now the American people are married to those vampires through a welfare program that'll be damned near impossible to roll back.



We could have had that system if the GOP had the courage to propose it, or if the Dems hadn't felt compelled to ram something through when they briefly held a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Further proving the wisdom of divided government, which no one in Washington seems to care about anymore.

You are right.

Yes I fully realize we turned over the power over the insurance companies, medical industrial companies, drug companies, health providers, etc to fix the problem they created. Lol. So as you mention the fixed only the very worst of the problems. Then gave themselves millions of new customers.

Medical device industry is an example of this shameful crap. They lobbied so damn hard for Democratic politicians to pass the bill even with the medical devise tax because it gave them a huge increase in demand. Now that the law passed they are lobbying the GOP to get rid of their tax from the law.

I kind of fear the ACA will work half heartedly in bringing down the uninsured and it will actual only prolonged our existing system. Yet as a human being I have compassion for those that where locked and got coverage. No I do not think it was a significant improvement.

Interestingly Medicare for All does not require a filibuster proof majority. The Dems lacked political courage plain and simple. Medicare is already a law. Changing the eligibility age (the amount of spending) and the Medicare payroll tax (revenue coming) could have been passed under resolution which means they didn't even need that many centrist Dems from red states. Taxing and spending are budget matters which can be passed under resolution which can't get filibustered.

Raise Medicare payroll tax to from to 2.1 to 5-7 percent (with savings in cost probably be closer 5 than 7) , lower the eligibility age to 0. Save billions a year through price negotiations, reduced paper work, reduced bureacracy, and reducedmiddle man administration costs. What Medicare don't cover or don't give choices for those who can afford can buy supplemental private insurance. Also adds up to reduce cost and administrative burden on business, higher wages for employees, less job lock meaning more entrepreneurs, and a more level playing field for small business.

I always wondered why the business community does lineup against the healthcare complex for a more cost effective solution. Then I realized how current system helps destroy small business and reduces people will to take the chance of starting a small business. The elites that run the show think the rest of us our like children who need lstability. Well if you ain't gonna start that business on your own if you your wife and kids are gonna lose coverage. You are gonna sit at your desk play nice and be a good little worker boy because you and your family need health care.

The healthcare system sucks. As mentioned I don't see the federal government doing anything. Liberals snuck in a sneaky piece of language into Obamacare allowing states to opt out if they can find a way to offer their residents the same health care access.

Vermont is going for it and going state single payer in 2016. We'll how it works.

Personally I prefer a system where people who want more choices and options can still go with supplemental insurance than straight up 100 percent single payer. But I'd take single payer over this.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Aren't you in favor of unlimited political donations and corporate donations?

Isn't the political favors you speak a consequence of that? Money in politics? No?

This is why I can't figure out why those who want to get rid of wasteful bureaucracy and spending wouldn't want to get the money out of polilitcs. Is Democratic and Republican special interest one of many reasons for high spending you are against?

I am not sure where I ever said I was for that. I am not.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Single payer would work much better at then state than federal level.

I think it should all be up to the States.

 

[BGIF]

Aren't you in favor of unlimited political donations and corporate donations?

Isn't the political favors you speak a consequence of that? Money in politics? No?

This is why I can't figure out why those who want to get rid of wasteful bureaucracy and spending wouldn't want to get the money out of polilitcs. Is Democratic and Republican special interest one of many reasons for high spending you are against?

Did I miss your comment on union donations?

 

[chicago51]

Did I miss your comment on union donations?

Limit them all unions, non for profits, it be wrong to play favorites and start carving out exemptions then you end up getting rolled back to wear we started. We are certainly on our way back to 1900 when there was no limits on contributions and the rober barons owned Congress.

Money in politics is the original sin it is responsible for almost everything wrong with the right and the left.

There is still going to be debate over the size of government, how much for the poor is true much, but the debate will go back to make the country better. As opposed to pleasing special interest.

Right now this my sole issue and I'm point I'll vote for a Republican who saves a constitutional amendment on strict campaign donations over a Democrat that does not.

In fact any political talk I do with anyone I'm making this a part of the conversation.

I'm so pissed right now. We got a plutocracy right now not a democracy. Things are going in the wrong direction. The only way out that I see is an economic 1856, 1929 Armageddon type crash that just enrages everyone. Although this type of scenario is risky as great crashes tend bring the rise of far right and far left extreme authoritarian parties ala Germany and USSR.

 

[EddytoNow]

The government of, by, and for the people has taken one step closer to becoming the government of only the people with money to pad the pockets of the corrupt politicians. My doomsday prediction is looking better and better every day.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The government of, by, and for the people has taken one step closer to becoming the government of only the people with money to pad the pockets of the corrupt politicians. My doomsday prediction is looking better and better every day.

I'm getting the bunker ready with IrishPat. That's what he's been doing in his free time away from IE.

 

[Cackalacky]

The government of, by, and for the people has taken one step closer to becoming the government of only the people with money to pad the pockets of the corrupt politicians. My doomsday prediction is looking better and better every day.

Exactly. Every other problem or concern that anyone has right now has no reason to debate it until this is fixed. Both sides lost today as the only people making decisions will be those who have the money and whoever plays ball with those with the money. Any one with enough money can walk into a the RNC or DNC and say "I am going to contribute to every single candidate that backs what I want to happen. Are you in or are you out?" Game over.

Pissed does not even describe what I feel right now. This has been the biggest issue for me as long as I can remember caring.

 

[BobD]

Exactly. Every other problem or concern that anyone has right now has no reason to debate it until this is fixed. Both sides lost today as the only people making decisions will be those who have the money and whoever plays ball with those with the money. Any one with enough money can walk into a the RNC or DNC and say "I am going to contribute to every single candidate that backs what I want to happen. Are you in or are you out?" Game over.

Pissed does not even describe what I feel right now. This has been the biggest issue for me as long as I can remember caring.

Everyone should be pissed about this.We cannot let this stand.

I ran across this interesting article while I was looking up info.

Google Image Result for http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/dm_finance_chart1_300.gif

 

[Cackalacky]

Everyone should be pissed about this.We cannot let this stand.

I ran across this interesting article while I was looking up info.

Google Image Result for http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/dm_finance_chart1_300.gif

And everyone should realize that both parties will align themselves with the donors. So this is a total loss for those of us who have only our vote. I believe that a constitutional amendment begun at the state level is the only recourse the public has at this point. I do not think any law congress passes to restrict money will be upheld based on the previous 4 rulings by the SCOTUS.

 

[chicago51]

The government of, by, and for the people has taken one step closer to becoming the government of only the people with money to pad the pockets of the corrupt politicians. My doomsday prediction is looking better and better every day.

We had is the 1890s.

We have since passed the Tillman Act in 1907 banning corporate contributions.

Taft Hartley banning union contributions.

McCain Feingold which albeit flawed did place some reasonable limits on contributions. Perhaps it should have gone further.

The Supreme Court wants to roll this all back.

Perhaps we need a public election fund and only a public election fund. As McCain Feingold seem to overly favor incumbency.

Maybe we do need term limits though I would suggest that term limits with out campaign finance and real lobbying reform could very well make things worse. As if you the lobbyist job offers look even better when you know you can only stay in Congress 12 years. Plus when you got a much of new people on capital hill it is the lobbyist who know how to get things done.

We are in a tough spot here that is for sure.

 

[Ndaccountant]

And everyone should realize that both parties will align themselves with the donors. So this is a total loss for those of us who have only our vote. I believe that a constitutional amendment begun at the state level is the only recourse the public has at this point. I do not think any law congress passes to restrict money will be upheld based on the previous 4 rulings by the SCOTUS.

Can you help me understand this ruling better? I have not read a summary but only what has been reported on the radio.

From what I can gather, the only thing that changed here was how much a person can contribute overall, but not the amount it can contribute to one candidate. Is that an accurate summary?

 

[Cackalacky]

We had is the 1890s.

We have since passed the Tillman Act in 1907 banning corporate contributions.

Taft Hartley banning union contributions.

McCain Feingold which albeit flawed did place some reasonable limits on contributions. Perhaps it should have gone further.

The Supreme Court wants to roll this all back.

Perhaps we need a public election fund and only a public election fund. As McCain Feingold seem to overly favor incumbency.

Maybe we do need term limits though I would suggest that term limits with out campaign finance and real lobbying reform could very well make things worse. As if you the lobbyist job offers look even better when you know you can only stay in Congress 12 years. Plus when you got a much of new people on capital hill it is the lobbyist who know how to get things done.

We are in a tough spot here that is for sure.

They have rolled it back.... all the way

http://www.citizen.org/documents/students-citizens-united-guide-corporate-personhood.pdf

 

[Cackalacky]

Can you help me understand this ruling better? I have not read a summary but only what has been reported on the radio.

From what I can gather, the only thing that changed here was how much a person can contribute overall, but not the amount it can contribute to one candidate. Is that an accurate summary?

That is accurate but total donations by any one person are now unlimited where they were before as far as national and local levels. I believe it was $123,000.

Example:

Sorros, Addleson, Koch Bros can contribute unlimited sums to all candidates they choose. This also does not change anything relating to PACs. This basically means they can purchase wholesale any body of government. So for states, districts, municipality, where money is hard to come by, they can effectively buy any politician they want to achieve their desired outcome. And politicians are cheap, especially when purchased enmasse through the national party system.

If they want to get a piece of legislation passed all they have to do is now contribute to the majority in totality and its theirs (at a minimum). Want a "mandate?" then they contribute to all of the representatives. Don't want their money, then you will be out and someone who does will be in.

But this does not qualify as quid pro quo per the SCOTUS because there are buffers like lobbyists and PACs.

"Yeah, Buffer's... There were lots of Buffer's."

 

[Ndaccountant]

That is accurate but total donations by any one person are now unlimited where they were before as far as national and local levels. I believe it was $123,000.

Example:

Sorros, Addleson, Koch Bros can contribute unlimited sums to all candidates they choose. This also does not change anything relating to PACs. This basically means they can purchase wholesale any body of government. So for states, districts, municipality, where money is hard to come by, they can effectively buy any politician they want to achieve their desired outcome. And politicians are cheap, especially when purchased enmasse through the national party system.

If they want to get a piece of legislation passed all they have to do is now contribute to the majority in totality and its theirs (at a minimum). Want a "mandate?" then they contribute to all of the representatives. Don't want their money, then you will be out and someone who does will be in.

But this does not qualify as quid pro quo per the SCOTUS because there are buffers like lobbyists and PACs.

"Yeah, Buffer's... There were lots of Buffer's."

Perhaps I am naïve here, but is being able to contribute $2,600 to a 1,000 candidates really that big of a deal? I guess I see this as just an extension of the PAC's. By that, I mean PAC's could effectively do this already, so now the authority is given to individuals.

Please don't confuse this with me saying that I approve of PAC's or this ruling. I just am not sure if this really actually changes anything given the power the PAC's already had.

I also think that the Supreme Court is clearly telling Congress to amend the Constitution if that want this to change. Not sure how I feel about the Court doing it in this particular case, but I am generally in favor of the Court forcing Congress to act.

 

[Cackalacky]

Perhaps I am naïve here, but is being able to contribute $2,600 to a 1,000 candidates really that big of a deal? I guess I see this as just an extension of the PAC's. By that, I mean PAC's could effectively do this already, so now the authority is given to individuals.

Please don't confuse this with me saying that I approve of PAC's or this ruling. I just am not sure if this really actually changes anything given the power the PAC's already had.

I also think that the Supreme Court is clearly telling Congress to amend the Constitution if that want this to change. Not sure how I feel about the Court doing it in this particular case, but I am generally in favor of the Court forcing Congress to act.

Well, prior to this one person could only contribute up to roughly $70,000 for federal level seats and $50,000 for state level seats total for a total of about $123000...period. For a federal level election that is roughly 27 individuals and on state level that is 19 individuals. Fairly limited without including PAC money.

Now, say Sorros or one Koch Bro. can now contribute to the remainder of the seats as they see fit. The ability to purchase the majority is now in their hands. And to think that the influence stops at elections is naive (not saying you are but in general). Candidates are already knocking down Addelson's doors to get his money for this upcoming election cycle. Why? Because its the return on investment that is the payout.

SCOTUS is not wanting Congress to act. They have ruled (in baby steps) that money is speech. This is what they want. They have been purchased just as much as Congress has. Now Congress cannot make a law limiting contributions at all because it will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. The only way to change it is to amend the Constitution through a convention beginning at the state level, thereby making the limitations constitutional.

This is a big deal because one Koch Bro or Sorros can stockpile politicians in every district of every state and in every branch of government, whereas their personal influence was limited. PACs allow them to act as group whereas this allows them to make unilaterally beneficial purchases.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Well, prior to this one person could only contribute up to roughly $70,000 for federal level seats and $50,000 for state level seats total for a total of about $123000...period. For a federal level election that is roughly 27 individuals and on state level that is 19 individuals. Fairly limited without including PAC money.
Now, say Sorros or one Koch Bro. can now contribute to the remainder of the seats as they see fit. The ability to purchase the majority is now in their hands. And to think that the influence stops at elections is naive (not saying you are but in general). Candidates are already knocking down Addelson's doors to get his money for this upcoming election cycle. Why? Because its the return on investment that is the payout.

SCOTUS is not wanting Congress to act. They have ruled (in baby steps) that money is speech. This is what they want. They have been purchased just as much as Congress has. Now Congress cannot make a law limiting contributions at all because it will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. The only way to change it is to amend the Constitution through a convention beginning at the state level, thereby making the limitations constitutional.

This is a big deal because one Koch Bro or Sorros can stockpile politicians in every district of every state and in every branch of government, whereas their personal influence was limited. PACs allow them to act as group whereas this allows them to make unilaterally beneficial purchases.

Help me understand where my thinking is going astray.

Before this ruling, the max contribution was defined. However, that person could still give unlimited funds to PAC's, right? I guess I just don't see a difference if rich guy #1 contributed $10M to PAC's and $100K to individual candidates and now he can give $1M to candidates while donating $9.5M to PAC's. I realize PAC's can only contribute a certain amount to individual candidates, but the advertising and promotions is where the money is spent. So, if some rich guy wanted to spend $10M in an election cycle, he could before and he still can now.

Is this line of thinking incorrect? I guess I always assume that the people you mentioned basically had their own PAC anyway.

 

[Cackalacky]

Help me understand where my thinking is going astray.

Before this ruling, the max contribution was defined. However, that person could still give unlimited funds to PAC's, right? I guess I just don't see a difference if rich guy #1 contributed $10M to PAC's and $100K to individual candidates and now he can give $1M to candidates while donating $9.5M to PAC's. I realize PAC's can only contribute a certain amount to individual candidates, but the advertising and promotions is where the money is spent. So, if some rich guy wanted to spend $10M in an election cycle, he could before and he still can now.

Is this line of thinking incorrect?

I think what you are missing is the individual donor can now make an individual maximum contribution to an unlimited number of candidates. So a relatively few amount of donors can control many candidates instead of having to rely on PAC money or large groups of donors. Its basically ensuring and reinforcing a plutocracy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think what you are missing is the individual donor can now make an individual maximum contribution to an unlimited number of candidates. So a relatively few amount of donors can control many candidates instead of having to rely on PAC money or large groups of donors. Its basically ensuring and reinforcing a plutocracy.

Do you think the $2,600 to each candidate is a big enough to sway elections / purchase votes? Again, perhaps I am not seeing the whole picture here, but I would think that this ruling is not nearly as impactful as the citizens united case considering that amount founds flowing to individual candidates directly is not nearly as big as the funds PAC's spend on promotional material for the candidates.

 

[Cackalacky]

Do you think the $2,600 to each candidate is a big enough to sway elections / purchase votes? Again, perhaps I am not seeing the whole picture here, but I would think that this ruling is not nearly as impactful as the citizens united case considering that amount founds flowing to individual candidates directly is not nearly as big as the funds PAC's spend on promotional material for the candidates.

I think it is because of who the money comes from. Politicians are very cheap because if they play ball with their donors regarding beneficial legislation, they typically get rewarded later. These individual contributions will be much more important now that PAC money floods the system. It is much more personal.

PACs affect the public perception of candidates via money to travel and ads, etc. This will allow an individual to get personal with unlimited candidates and as I said purchase a majority. This really affects the power of you and me. Koch money has much more weight than my money. and therefore in the eyes of SCOTUS, more value. A vote is not a vote anymore. Plus the candidates will already be beholden to these people prior to an election. The implications are far-reaching in my mind.

On a personal note, my local representative was giving a speech to the public about an infrastructure improvement project that no one wanted. He was for it on the day of the public hearing. They were campaign checks given to him just before he spoke. He was investigated initially by SLED but then they decided they did not want to investigate it and stepped out of the way. Details of it got out to the public but now the investigation is in limbo and he may never be fully investigated. The check was for $1000 and was wrapped in a construction company brochure.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think it is because of who the money comes from. Politicians are very cheap because if they play ball with their donors regarding beneficial legislation, they typically get rewarded later.

PACs affect the public perception of candidates via money to travel and ads, etc. This will allow an individual to get personal with unlimited candidates and as I said purchase a majority. This really affects the power of you and me. Koch money has much more weight than my money. and therefore in the eyes of SCOTUS, more value. A vote is not a vote anymore. Plus the candidates will already be beholden to these people prior to an election. The implications are far-reaching in my mind.

Thanks for the insights and putting up with the questions.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Do you think the $2,600 to each candidate is a big enough to sway elections / purchase votes? Again, perhaps I am not seeing the whole picture here, but I would think that this ruling is not nearly as impactful as the citizens united case considering that amount founds flowing to individual candidates directly is not nearly as big as the funds PAC's spend on promotional material for the candidates.

Your intuition is correct -- this is overblown. Smart, big donors give uncapped amounts either to a PAC and/or to the National Committees (sometimes through a PAC).

The National Committees (DNC and RNC) raise hundreds of millions during presidential years. $2,600 to a candidate (or even every candidate) is peanuts, by contrast.

 

[Cackalacky]

Your intuition is correct -- this is overblown. Smart, big donors give uncapped amounts either to a PAC and/or to the National Committees (sometimes through a PAC).

The National Committees (DNC and RNC) raise hundreds of millions during presidential years. $2,600 to a candidate (or even every candidate) is peanuts, by contrast.

I whole-heartedly disagree. It is in no-way overblown. Because the next step, and it will be taken, is the striking down of the individual limit completely.

You are also negating the impacts to states and districts that do not have a lot of money. Its not just national elections. Money is very important at the local and state level.