DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=240427 ... id=queue-8

WASHINGTON — The 2012 presidential election was the most costly in history — but what did it buy?

Officials from the Federal Election Commission recently reported that the 2012 presidential election cost nearly $7 billion — reflecting spending by candidates, parties and outside groups.

That's expensive: "Like, twenty-eight Boeing 787s expensive. Or seventy private islands expensive. Or 50 billion polio vaccines expensive," said CNN's Kevin Liptak.

According to the FEC's breakdown, candidates spent $3.2 billion in 2012, Republicans and Democrats spent $2 billion, and outside groups (including super PACs) spent $2 billion.

Despite it being the most expensive election in history, FEC chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said she wasn't caught off guard by the number: "That's not really unusual. They're all record breaking," she said.

Why do we want a democracy, anyway? People would answer the question differently, but for me the core principle of a democracy is that sovereignty resides with the people.

So if sovereignty resides with the people, how do the people best exercise their sovereignty? Again, different people might answer differently, but for me it boils down knowledge, transparency and accountability.

Think of what could be done if that 7 billion dollars were spent on educating voters instead of influencing voters.

It's hard for me to look at Citizens United and say the outcome will be a better informed electorate and a government that is more transparent and accountable. Right now politicians respond to pockets, not people.

Politicians start their careers by trying to convince people with money that they have the best ideas.

But many of the successful ones end up convincing themselves that people with money have the best ideas.

but what did it buy?

More failed economic policies, more debt, more people dependent on welfare, more assaults on the Constitution, etc.

$7 Billion? That's half of what we spend on a holiday like Easter.

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/2011/ ... ease-year/

In the grand scheme of things, and considering it's money freely given, it's not a terrible number.

MeDotOrg wrote:Why do we want a democracy, anyway? People would answer the question differently, but for me the core principle of a democracy is that sovereignty resides with the people.

hmmm...i like that...but let us see where you take it

MeDotOrg wrote:So if sovereignty resides with the people, how do the people best exercise their sovereignty? Again, different people might answer differently, but for me it boils down knowledge, transparency and accountability.

sounds like a Judicial outline....is that really the best way to "exercise their sovereignty"? - to subvert that sovereignty with a social construct?

MeDotOrg wrote:Think of what could be done if that 7 billion dollars were spent on educating voters instead of influencing voters.

educating and influencing are not mutually exclusive....in fact, the former is likely a requisite for the latter.

MeDotOrg wrote:It's hard for me to look at Citizens United and say the outcome will be a better informed electorate and a government that is more transparent and accountable. Right now politicians respond to pockets, not people.

This is only a negative point if we assume that there is no value, virtue, or benefit in a system of "pockets".
I am not sure how one can successfully demonize money and maintain a free society.

MeDotOrg wrote:Politicians start their careers by trying to convince people with money that they have the best ideas.

so does every start-up in Silicon Valley.
Convincing the homeless and impoverished guy living in a tent by the freeway that your water purification system works has little impact on society as a large.

MeDotOrg wrote:But many of the successful ones end up convincing themselves that people with money have the best ideas.

Interesting how you have equated that with success.
Otherwise, how do we translate this all to exercising sovereignty?