I don’t care if it is the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, or Tom Steyer, I do not like it when billionaires spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try to decide our elections.
In a nationwide push to fight Republicans who deny the existence of man-made climate change, investor-turned-activist Tom Steyer has founded a Florida political committee, seeded it with $750,000 of his own money, and says he’ll spend far more to help Democrat Charlie Crist defeat Gov. Rick Scott.
Florida Democrats are buzzing about Steyer spending $10 million, which he won’t discuss. Republicans say the California Democrat is a phony environmentalist, but they nevertheless worry that his financial commitment could be real in Florida.
“It’s hard to look at the map of the United States and not understand that not only is Florida ground zero for climate [change], it’s the third most-populous state,” Steyer said in a sit-down interview Friday with the Miami Herald.
Sometimes I agree with what these billionaires are trying to accomplish and more often I disagree with their aims, but in neither case do I appreciate a political system that allows them to have this kind of influence.
If the guy really cared he would spend that money to educate, not turn an election.
.
Whenever one mixes money and politics the outcome seems to always be corruption. The losers are We the People.
Steyer isn’t as bad as many of the other nouveau riche money changers and/or tech/internet gazillionaires, but that’s a low bar.
The “I got mine” and well, maybe “we” all need to do something about carbon-pollution.
In a democracy, public policies should be debated and decided by the public and not dictated by gazillionaires. None of whom would exist if our taxation policies were rational and served our collective interests.
Sure, but why can’t we reform our tax policies? Same reason we can’t do anything about climate change. Defeat climate deniers, and you’re generally defeating anti-tax zealots at the same time.
While there may be a 100% overlap between wealthy climate deniers and anti-tax zealots, it’s not true that the anti-tax zealots are exclusive to climate deniers.
Oh, come on Boo. “Sometimes I agree with what these billionaires are trying to accomplish and more often I disagree with their aims, but in neither case do I appreciate a political system that allows them to have this kind of influence.”
I read your page because you are a font of pragmatic political analysis in the real world we inhabit. And that real world has a number of conservative billionaires spending vast amounts of money to win elections for their interests, generally being deeply dishonest in the process. Having a thoughtful billionaire spending large amounts of his money to support candidates who are fighting for dealing with our problems based on reality should only be seen as a good thing – until such time as laws are changed and we somehow get all this money out of politics.
Speak for yourself, I’m tired of bringing a stuffed animal to a gunfight.
aspect out of all this, almost never discussed.
The 2008 Obama campaign was the first to turn down federal campaign funding. As a result, it built the best field organization I have ever seen. My house was visited 6 separate times by volunteers. The campaign offices in Florida were well funded, and had resources. The legal protection effort was well funded.
In contrast I will remember the 2000 Florida Gore effort. Gore, it will be remembered had to pull out of Ohio because he didn’t have the money. The field organization in 2000 for Gore was a pale shadow of Obama’s in 2008. Some of this was the candidate, but I was on Gore’s campaign in Florida. We didn’t have the resources. Not enough phones. Not enough signs.
More money has allowed better funding of field organizations. Yes, I would do away with private money altogether. But most of the money is wasted on TV ads which simply get lost in the clutter.
I don’t like the influence of money in politics either, but as a Floridian who has had to put up with Governor Rick Scott for the past several years, I’m willing to make an exception just this once. Scott is an evil bastard who must be defeated.
My definition of billionaire in this instance would have to include those who preach on Sunday to their congregations despite IRS rulings forbidding churches to cross that line. The pulpits have become downright brazen in their directives to support causes even when they conflict with the teachings of the Church itself.
I don’t like the system either, but we are stuck with it at least as long as the right wing has control of the supreme court. The best we can hope for is a democratic majority in both houses and the presidency so we can get disclosure.
When you have big money working the opposite side and unquestionably the wrong side of an issue, it feels pretty good to me that there are people who have the money and are willing to use it to fight for the moral and ethical side, in this case global change
S/B global climate change
Step 1: Win the election.
Step 2: Fix the system.
Helping Republican Charlie Crist get elected as a Democrat is one of those practical accommodations that the national Democratic establishment loves. It keeps them from having to do populist politics.
If a billionaire wants to weigh in for climate change, one Senate seat is not going to do it. Financing a couple dozen House races in Texas and Oklahoma would be a better choice. After all the Koch’s put their money behind an anti-labor governor in Wisconsin, a formerly very pro-labor state.
The climate needs someone determined to win the war, not just help his buddy.