5 ms·

Frankly, I consider it a "win" for all of us that people who try and buy political seats from their own cash fail. I don't know what it is but I find it deeply

by cletus 16y ago

Frankly, I consider it a "win" for all of us that people who try and buy political seats from their own cash fail. I don't know what it is but I find it deeply unsettling when the likes of Jon Corzine pump so much of their own money into these things, particularly when they're former business types. You have to expect that if they're putting in $60+ million of their own money they expect to get that back at some point.

itiztv 16y ago
You're damn right.
staunch 16y ago
I think it's pure ego that drives someone to spend $160M to win the governorship. It's a luxury, not an investment.
nostromo 16y ago
Totally agree, it's very heartening. Stevin Levit has done some research that shows that political spending doesn't have much effect at all in races that aren't super close. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/mccain-the-media-money-and-montesinos-and-obama-too/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/mccain-the-... Bloomberg spent over $100mm just to get re-elected to his third-term as mayor. Most likely he would have won if he had spent $10mm. In the end, having that $100 million wouldn't have effected his lifestyle one bit, so why not?
SkyMarshal 16y ago
Were it not the case that contemporary politicians essentially can't win without spending millions of dollars, I'd agree with you hands down. But as it is, either they're billionaires that fund themselves, or they get funded by Wall Street, Telecoms, Big Oil, Tech, Defense Industry, other billionaires, etc. I think I'm more comfortable with a billionaire spending his own money, than a non-billionaire completely in the pocket of some particular industry. At least with the former, the payoff they're looking for could alternately be fame, love, legacy, or simply because being in government is the one thing they haven't done yet (besides maybe going to space). With the latter, the payoff will certainly be shaping the laws in their favor, sometimes at the expense of the country or overall economy.

by cletus 16y ago

itiztv 16y ago

You're damn right.

staunch 16y ago

I think it's pure ego that drives someone to spend $160M to win the governorship. It's a luxury, not an investment.

nostromo 16y ago

Totally agree, it's very heartening. Stevin Levit has done some research that shows that political spending doesn't have much effect at all in races that aren't super close. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/mccain-the-media-money-and-montesinos-and-obama-too/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/mccain-the-... Bloomberg spent over $100mm just to get re-elected to his third-term as mayor. Most likely he would have won if he had spent $10mm. In the end, having that $100 million wouldn't have effected his lifestyle one bit, so why not?

SkyMarshal 16y ago

Were it not the case that contemporary politicians essentially can't win without spending millions of dollars, I'd agree with you hands down. But as it is, either they're billionaires that fund themselves, or they get funded by Wall Street, Telecoms, Big Oil, Tech, Defense Industry, other billionaires, etc. I think I'm more comfortable with a billionaire spending his own money, than a non-billionaire completely in the pocket of some particular industry. At least with the former, the payoff they're looking for could alternately be fame, love, legacy, or simply because being in government is the one thing they haven't done yet (besides maybe going to space). With the latter, the payoff will certainly be shaping the laws in their favor, sometimes at the expense of the country or overall economy.