Georgia 6th District Election Results

[wu_shizzle]

Over 30 house reps dont live in their own district. It shouldn't have been a big deal.

That house seat was won bt over 20 points in november. It really wasnt a surprise that rep won. Trump is a whole different ball game than regular reps so thats why it didnt make a difference

Yes the point spread was closer, but Ossoff didn't get anymore votes than the Democrats got in November.

So he was able to depress Republican turnout at a cost to Democrat donors of $30 million.

I think it's time the Liberals move on to Acceptance in their stages of grief.

[ShockingButTrue]

Yes the point spread was closer, but Ossoff didn't get anymore votes than the Democrats got in November.

So he was able to depress Republican turnout at a cost to Democrat donors of $30 million.

I think it's time the Liberals move on to Acceptance in their stages of grief.

It does appear the Anger stage is going to be rather -ahem- "enduring."

[jdshock]

Yes the point spread was closer, but Ossoff didn't get anymore votes than the Democrats got in November.

So he was able to depress Republican turnout at a cost to Democrat donors of $30 million.

November was a presidential election. I would bet that there were significantly more voters than typically turn out for special elections. I've seen several other people make this argument that the money didn't increase turn out at all, and that's just not true.

[wufan]

I think they have. I think money is irrelevant in campaigns anymore due to ease if information

I think federal campaigns should be equally funded by tax dollars after the primaries.

[MoValley John]

I think federal campaigns should be equally funded by tax dollars after the primaries.

No. No federal money. I hate federal money thrown into elections. Even though it might violate some sort of free speech, limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend on an election would help.

Okay, the Supreme Court would strike it down, but cap spending at $1mm per candidate.

[jdshock]

No. No federal money. I hate federal money thrown into elections. Even though it might violate some sort of free speech, limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend on an election would help.

Okay, the Supreme Court would strike it down, but cap spending at $1mm per candidate.

The only real way I see this taking hold is a constitutional amendment. There are a few groups out there right now working on building support for an amendment like that. Depending on the exact wording, I think I'd be all for it. In my opinion, most ordinary people would also be for it. Unfortunately, it would have very little support from big donors, by its very nature.

[CBB_Fan]

The only real way I see this taking hold is a constitutional amendment. There are a few groups out there right now working on building support for an amendment like that. Depending on the exact wording, I think I'd be all for it. In my opinion, most ordinary people would also be for it. Unfortunately, it would have very little support from big donors, by its very nature.

It would heavily depend on the type of spending restricted. If it is $1M per campaign, but outside sources are unaffected then large donors will be ecstatic. That would further increase the power of independent and "independent" 501 (c)(4) organizations, as they could spend many times what an actual campaign could. This was the main impact of the Citizens United case, which held that independent organizations have the right to spend money to influence elections without restriction.

Another issue is that McCutcheon v. FEC ruled that aggregate restrictions were unconstitutional. That means an individual is limited in what they can donate to a single campaign, but not to multiple campaigns or a political party in general.

In the first case, large donors can donate anonymously and in any amount. They lose out on their ability to explicitly say "I gave you $X, give me Y," but anonymity has its own benefits and being able to outspend the masses gives them even more influence. A single large donor could finance an overwhelming ad presence.

In the second, nothing prevents donating to a single party and having that party launder that money back to the races or through its own action committees. Large donors would lose the ability to impact specific races (barring under the table promises by the party), but they would gain influence over the party and again would gain power relative to the masses.

It isn't easy to answer, even with an amendment. I believe money has a way of finding the path of least resistance to politicians, and it takes a consistent and thorough effort to build and maintain a dam preventing this. You can't just make an amendment and hope the dam stays up forever, turn your back and it is bound to spring a leak in record time.

[MoValley John]

It would heavily depend on the type of spending restricted. If it is $1M per campaign, but outside sources are unaffected then large donors will be ecstatic. That would further increase the power of independent and "independent" 501 (c)(4) organizations, as they could spend many times what an actual campaign could. This was the main impact of the Citizens United case, which held that independent organizations have the right to spend money to influence elections without restriction.

Another issue is that McCutcheon v. FEC ruled that aggregate restrictions were unconstitutional. That means an individual is limited in what they can donate to a single campaign, but not to multiple campaigns or a political party in general.

In the first case, large donors can donate anonymously and in any amount. They lose out on their ability to explicitly say "I gave you $X, give me Y," but anonymity has its own benefits and being able to outspend the masses gives them even more influence. A single large donor could finance an overwhelming ad presence.

In the second, nothing prevents donating to a single party and having that party launder that money back to the races or through its own action committees. Large donors would lose the ability to impact specific races (barring under the table promises by the party), but they would gain influence over the party and again would gain power relative to the masses.

It isn't easy to answer, even with an amendment. I believe money has a way of finding the path of least resistance to politicians, and it takes a consistent and thorough effort to build and maintain a dam preventing this. You can't just make an amendment and hope the dam stays up forever, turn your back and it is bound to spring a leak in record time.

Yup.

I don't have the answer, but I firmly believe that if you need to spend more than $1mm to get your message out to one congressional district, there is probably something wrong with your message. I don't know how to get the pacs shut down, but it needs to happen.

[wufan]

Yup.

I don't have the answer, but I firmly believe that if you need to spend more than $1mm to get your message out to one congressional district, there is probably something wrong with your message. I don't know how to get the pacs shut down, but it needs to happen.

If you fund it through gov (and I am a small government guy), and eliminate private donations, doesn't that shut it down?

[MoValley John]

If you fund it through gov (and I am a small government guy), and eliminate private donations, doesn't that shut it down?

Yeah, but then you have to determine which candidates qualify. If I'm in the Green Party, I'm pissed that I didn't get funded. How do we fund independents with no affiliation?

[wufan]

Yeah, but then you have to determine which candidates qualify. If I'm in the Green Party, I'm pissed that I didn't get funded. How do we fund independents with no affiliation?

Independent parties can raise funding up to the max provided the two major parties. If they win election, then the funding can be governmental.