Bloomberg learned this from watching the Yankees buy Pennants and World Series, for decades. The fact that he had a huge hand in changing the laws so that he could run for a third term when New Yorkers voted against it at least twice, is so easily forgotten. What a putz. I would be so pissed if I lived in NY City.

Yes, it's disgusting. And just like Obama. Money wins, Democracy loses. And Bloomberg is ruining this city.

It's time for America to fight back. And they are. Unfortunately, as yesterday's elections show, Americans seem to think Republicans have the answers...when they don't. Obama thinks the same way as Bloomberg, in fact took many officials from his cabinet from New York, so we have a major problem with Democracy in this country.

FIGHT BACK FIGHT BACK FIGHT BACK.

And good post.

why we need more than 2 parties

Julie, Bloomberg is from another party, he is an Independent, aka the Independently wealthy party.

Stellaa,
Thanks for highlighting the nightmare of the best elections that money can buy. Campaign Finance Reform will never have any teeth until the idea that spending money is somehow tied to free speech is shown to be the foolish interpretation that it is.

Limiting the amount of money that can be spent on a political campaign would help insure a level playing field. That’s not limiting freedom. That’s attempting to abolish graft.

Rated and appreciated.

I so agree with hybalean-Julie...we need more than a 2 party system and this kind of campaign spending is more than obscene.

omg, I just read the article, Stella! he was a Republican last time I'd read anything about him
sigh
so much for the ideal of the independent parties :(

Mary and Stellaa I still love the concept of more than 2 parties, and will enjoy voting green for the rest of my life probably, but *bangs head against desk repeatedly* wtf! Independents are supposed to make it HARDER to own the system, not easier.

You want to lessen money as a focus in campaigns, then you have to make it easier for the candidates to access money. I know. Counterintuitive.

We capped what each candidate could get on a per person basis in reaction to Watergate. We also did not index that cap to inflation. In rough terms, then, it was three times as much effort to get the same buying power before McCain Feingold than it was when the law was enacted.

And we have work arounds the per person cap. Sure, money gets in, but it takes time and effort and staff. Time and effort and staff that could get the message out.

So independently wealthy guys can maneuver. Think Romney, Perot, Malcolm Forbes, and Jon Corzine.

The true evil of watergate was lack of transparency. Insist on full disclosure and remove the caps. If I, for example, could convince Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to underwrite a campaign, and everyone knew, what would be the big deal. Instead, a guy like me has no shot, as he has to go out and convince all these folks $5,000 at a time rather than, say $1M at a time.

As long as the voter knows, what is the difference. Remove contribution caps, and you will lessen the importance of fundraising in the political process and give guys other than the fabulously wealthy a chance.

Make it public funded, and all the tin foil helmets can get in. Appeal to the people -- some wealthy -- would not be a filter or requirement.

Remove the caps to lessen the dependence.

Gwool, what you are telling me is that we should just accept that we are plutocratic oligarchy.

Frankly, why do they need all this money? I would make tv and radio adverts illegal. There can be public forums that must be covered by television and radio as part of their licensing. The idea that candidates are communicating any valid message via broadcast advertising is mind boggling.

Wow. $100M. Did he spend ALL of it? I really need a new roof, the chimney of my chimney is condemned and my deck needs to be replaced. I am on a fixed income and don't see any repairs happening anytime soon. Maybe Mr. Bloomberg will send me some money, or maybe I'll win the lottery! Yes! That's a GREAT plan! Sigh...

Stellaa,
You get huge extra respect for using the term “plutocratic oligarchy” and actually knowing what it means.

Thanks Dennis, having a bit of a skirmish with Gordon about some things, he just called me a "dummie"

And yet we wait to hear what the Supreme Court will say about the "Citizens United V. the FEC" which they heard in special session last September.
While she looks to be a party of one, thank god for Ms Sotomayor. She is the only one to have the cojones to ask "exactly where does the 14th amd. or the Constitution itself say that corporations are people?"
This is the question that we all need to ask, answer and fight for. As for individuals spending their own money, one only needs to look at Italy and see what happens. You get a lounge singer who gets mob money, buys up 90% of the entire country's media (beginning to sound like Murdock anyone?) and gets himself elected to the top position 3 times!
Glad to see your spotlight on this Stellaa.

Stelaa: The challenge there is in terms of speech. You want to express yourself and you want to buy the opportunity to do it, is limiting the ability to do that limiting free speech? That's the dicey aspect of campaign limits, as I see it. It's a tough issue there.

And that stuff still gets out through PACs and other gray entities established to get around the personal donation caps. Full disclosure to avert a Milk Fund under Bebe Rebozo makes perfect sense. But the death of newspapers and other conventional mediums reduces outlets. Sure, social networks are picking up steam as evidenced by Dean and Obama's success, but the TV spot is still the key message medium right now. Cracking down on that cracks down on speech and hence is more nuanced than we think.

Not calling you a dummy, just suggesting there are more issues involved.

You left out the political machinations of cirumventing the term limits law without putting to a referendum of voters. He had to break that law before he could buy the election.

The NY Daily News had for its Headline words to the effect, Last Chance to Deliver.

Since I'm not a NYC resident, I couldn't cast vote against him. Though I would have over the way he skirted the term limits law.

Gwool, I quite don't understand how the argument is made about speech. They are buying time to market the campaign, in my plan they would have unlimited access to speak, debate and send written information.

Tim, you make a great point about the supreme court.

Oh one more thought about Bloomberg. He just paid $100 mm to become a lame duck.

Sheep good point, I did not mention the term limit thing. Do you think he will go for governor or president? I do find the Dem & union slince hypocritical.

Wow.

I guess one way to look at it is like his own private economic stimulus

Definitely for clean elections. signed the petition in California and I've written to congress for HR 3099. I'd love it if we had more than 2 parties.

A third party is not the answer. Why you ask? Because it is money that wins and a third party won't have any unless it is a party of one obscenely rich guy. In order for a third party to raise the cash necessary to be competitive in enough congressional or senatorial elections to have an impact on policy, they too will have to sell their souls to the same people who are holding our current two-party system in the palm of their hand. If you want to truly return this country to a representative form of government, then we will have to publicly finance all elections. No private money and no PAC. Until then, it is the “Golden Rule” of Government – He who has the gold will make the rules!

One other thought, why is it that a man is willing to pay $100 million for a job that pays what 200k? What is in it for him? I believe in selfless service to one’s Country but that one starts to set off all kinds of alarms in my head.

100 million dollars and he barely won - money well spent.

As Will Rogers said so succinctly long ago, we have the best government money can buy.

Yeah, I have issues with Bloomberg's path to victory myself. Good points.

Fiorina (who has not one thousandth the ability nor record of Mike Bloomberg) has indeed declared her candidacy for the Senate seat currently held by Barbara Boxer and here is Boxer's official response:

“California needs a Senator who will fight to create jobs — not a failed C.E.O. who laid off 28,000 Americans and shipped jobs overseas.”

“California needs a Senator who will fight to create jobs — not a failed C.E.O. who laid off 28,000 Americans and shipped jobs overseas.”

Barbara Boxer losing is not such a bad idea. Probably won't happen.
Too many stupid voters.

Seems odd to complain that a rich guy used his own money to stimulate the economy and help out non-profits. If this is obscene then the $787 billion stimulus which shakesdown the average American is the equivalent of snuff pornography. Bailing out GM and the fat cat unions too.

McGarrett50,
I think you comparing apples and oranges. There is a big difference in spending money to keep the U.S. economy from flying off a cliff and what Bloomberg has done here. He was not helping a non-profit or stimulating the economy. He was simply buying votes. Remember, the voters (you know the little guy) turn down not once but twice his bid to change the law and allow him to have a third term. But if you have enough money you can get the city council to do just about anything and so he did. They basically said the will of the people is trumped by the guy will the bucks, period. That is why he had to outspend his opponent by about $93 million and only won by about 50k. That is not democracy or a benevolent rich guy riding to the aid of the poor. What is it is an obscene use of money to buy an office he should not be in. That will be the death of this country.
As far as “fat cat unions” go, I let you think about that this Sunday while you watch football. But while you do that, you should also contemplate who got you weekends off, 40 hour work week, paid sick leave, paid vacation, employee health care, and who was really responsible for establishing the middle class in this country. You may not want to hear it and I know you won’t every except it but the truth is it was a brave bunch of guys who stood up and banded together to make rich guys pay a decent wage so we can all enjoy a little more. Unions are not anywhere near the problem in this country. If you want to find the problem go look at the reckless Wall Street Bankers whose greed very nearly sent this country into another great depression and forced the government to have to step in just to keep the soup lines from once again forming.

Tom,
I had that same thought last night as I passed the Capital Building on my way to dinner. It saddens me to think it but it saddens me even more that it was true.

Bloomberg spent $100 million, his opponent spent just $7 million. Bloomberg won by only a few points. Seems like Thompson got a lot more out of hius money than Bloomberg.

Here's another problem with your premise. Corzine outspent Christie by a factor of almost 3 to 1. Christie won anyway. Perhaps money doesn't buy votes after all.

Why, apart from the power rush, does Bloomberg want to be mayor, AGAIN. I have to think that being Mayor of NY is a thankless job, pretty much. He doesn't collect a salary.

I have to think he loves it. He got the the term limits overturned so he could serve again. I have not heard that many complaints against him. He's not exactly a wing nut right winger and though he doesn't call himself a Dem, he kind of is.

At least the money spent on his campaign was pretty much his own. Lets not forget that as horrifying and wasteful as those numbers sound, they are an economic stimulus of their own, and spent right in his backyard. Printers, media of every variety (print, TV, radio, internet), caterers, hotels, it goes on and on. Think about where Bloomberg spent that money. A direct injection right into the heart of NY.

I'm not arguing that it's right or fair that he had so much money at his disposable for the election. I don't know what the answer is. Is Bloomberg sitting at home and thinking, shit, those were the most 50k votes ever! Or is he thinking thank God I spent all that extra money when I realized we were in a horse race, would have sucked to have lost by a nose, for want of a little more cash when you've already spent 98 million. The extra 2 can make all the difference.

It is obscene though. Big time. The man must have money to burn.

The problem with limiting spending without limit free speech is a genuinely sticky area. Any legislated solution will no doubt be complex and full of loopholes, just like current campaign finance laws. I'm a pessimist.

We certainly lack the ability to figure out who gave the money to whom (or what). This was the weakness that Tom DeLay exploited to the max. (Gee, what ever happened to his trial? Note to self: look it up.)

A third party would certainly help! Some other election reforms might be useful, too. Ranked voting methods, anyone?

You said it all. If you got enough money, then you can just spend your way into office.

Nice work if you can buy it.

Glad to see you have survived the Attack of the Randroids. I just knew they would flock to your last post! They always move in herds.

Strangely, they never go Galt.

Totally mind-boggling... Thanks, I wouldn't have heard about this otherwise.

And then, just to demonstrate how out of touch Bloomberg is, he hosts a lavish party, with a hackneyed "man of the people" theme, by serving hot dogs and sliders...all while being served by black-tuxed waiters and fine china.

What a tool.

I don't think there are any campaign finance laws that have been proposed that will prevent people from using their own money to fund their campaign.

If that's the case, then people like Bloomberg and Corzine can dump all the money they want into their campaigns. And spending lots of your own money isn't a surefire way to win. It worked for Bloomberg, but it didn't work for Corzine.

Besides, we want bazillionares to spend money to stimulate the economy. =)

For those calling for more that 2 parties, Canada has that. It doesn't make the money issue any less relevant. Two separate subjects in my opinion. Money corrupts any system, but the question is, how do you function without it? Spending caps is one way. Donation caps. Not allowing corporations to donate - weill there is always a work around for that.

~sigh~

Bloomberg's approval ratings were dropping. People were sick of getting flyers every day. People were very aware of the money being spent. At the victory party, B's people gave out "common man" food - hot dogs, hot pretzels... served by young men in tuxedos.

I think in another month, he'd have lost.

It is not far fetched to see third party candidates win major elections. Consider just north of NY Hoffman almost won the 23rd district by less than 4 thousand votes. And that is a total unknown. Just what would happen if viable candidates from both parties stepped forward and said enough with the partisanship of the republicans and democrats and will work with everyone for the common good of this country.

After this last election I will only vote third party. It is throwing away my vote to vote either democrat or republican. If there is no third party canidate I try and vote the incumbent out.

Oh, and let me just add that the political landscape is littered with the carcasses of very wealthy people who thought their money could buy them political office. For example, how did those two Presidential campaigns turn out for Ross Perot? And how did Steve Forbes do?

I have a feeling that Carly Fiorina is going to be another very wealthy person who thought she could buy her way into office, but who will be undone by associations with Enron style accounting while she was at Lucent and AIG style shareholder value destruction while she was at HP.

If I don't see some form of that used by Barbara Boxer, I will show up at her office myself and tell her she needs to fire all of her marketing people.

Not so well.

Well, I see a simple rule. You can spend only two times what the office you are running for pays. Period the end.

No one needs to spend the kind of money that was spent in the last election. I see the roundabout freedom of speech argument, but they are free to speak, they will have all the free airtime they want.

Frankly, I don't like the plutocrats having unlimited resources to spend on campaigns. It does not stimulate the economy, it just lines the pockets of sycophants.

What DO candidates spend money on? Television spots? Mailers? I seldom see ANYTHING from ANY candidate -- there is usually a tidal wave of "voting guides," usually from local GOP/fascist organizations, but virtually nothing from candidates. Where does the money go?

Stellaa, you're telling me you really think no jobs were created by the spending of Bloomberg?

Someone had to sell the ads he bought. Someone produced them. Someone printed the fliers he produced. Someone stuffed and mailed them. Someone created the database which he tapped into. Someone delivered them.

Are all these people sychophants?

Besides, spending lots of your own money is not a surefire way to win election. It didn't work for Steve Forbes, it didn't work for Ross Perot, and it didn't work for John Corzine this time.

You're getting into dangerous territory when you tell people what they can and cannot spend their own money on.

As for your no advertising rule, you've got to be kidding. That might work in small towns and rural areas, but when you've got millions of people to reach, you've got to use advertising. And please don't say, well, we'd have public forums and require the networks to cover those. That does not give you the kind of reach that running an ad during the World Series does.

Yes, it is unfair that people like Bloomberg and Corzine and Perot and Forbes can blanket the airwaves with their ads. Hell, Ross Perot even bought a full hour during prime time to make his pitch to the country.

Well, life just isn't fair. Some people are born wealthier, some are born smarter, some are born more telegenic, and some are born stronger.

But despite the advantage that wealth gives some candidates, they often lose. John McCain owns eight houses, but he lost to the less well off candidate. Ross Perot was far wealthier than Bill Clinton, who was born dirt poor. So was George Bush Sr. But Clinton won.

I say let them spend their money. First of all, it's theirs to spend. Second, it often fails.

Tony, I don't agree with your calculus. A pay off is a a payoff. I don't care what the end result is. Sorry. You can rationalize anything. This is like the feudal times where the lord of the manor would give out offerings to the peasants. Please, this is not a modern democracy.

Dangerous territory is when the networks (cable and other), television stations fuel the election process to get the advertising dollars. Look at the presidential elections, those millions went to the local and national television. Dangerous? If it's dangerous to say that political decision should not be made via Madison avenue, then I am dangerous. There is no freedom of speech in this idiocy we call campaigning. It actually shuts down speech.

You have all equated freedom with the capacity to buy time for your message. Time to make your message should be free and available to all, it's the only way to have freedom of speech. So many alternative voices are completely shut out of the system. We don't have campaigns, we have tv spot buying opportunities. What is funny is that he airwaves are public and then the bastards sell them so that we can hear from those running for office.

If you think that is fine and dandy, then you deserve the shit you get.

Stellaa, who is getting paid off? You're equating ad buys with payoffs. I'd like to know why you say that. That just doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like Bloomberg got out there and said, hey, everyone who votes for me will get ten new c-notes. That's a payoff. Buying advertising is not.

There is free speech. You and I may not be able to afford to buy air time to get our message out, but so what? Please tell me where it says in the Constitution that private organizations like media companies have to allow us to use their assets to get our message out. Remember, the first amendment applies to the government, not to private entities.

And keep in mind that candidates DO get free airtime to get their message across. How many debates did we see last year? That was free airtime.

But the bottom line is freedom of speech does not equal free airtime. You've got the right to express yourself. You do not have the right to force a private company to give you airtime to express it, or to force a newspaper to give you space for free.

It was once said that "freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." That certainly applies here.

$157 per vote. It would have been easier to send a quid-pro-quo check to each voter and skip the middleman.

Sometimes it takes a lot of time and effort NOT to be a stupid voter, and the kind of time and effort it takes is a luxury for many.