NY Times Retro Report: The Cost of Campaigns

Watergate, Nixon, illegal campaign contributions, soft money and dark money. It's got it all plus some really awesome remarks by Sen. John McCain on the matter. NY Times takes on sides and no prisoners in this under 13 minute review of what went on in the Watergate Scandal and what is going on today. Brilliant piece and the positioning today against what led a president to resign 30+ years ago really makes you realize just how far we've fallen.



**Ran a search, didn't see it but we all know how well that works.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Great post. What used to be wild corruption is now business as usual. That people still defend the status quo is beyond comprehension.

Someone once said The reason Politicians try so hard to get re-elected is that they would "hate" to have to make a living under the laws they have just passed for everyone else; maybe a little truth in that, no?

Either way let's say I give One million dollars to a campaign and you give nothing... My man wins .... I need a zoning restriction lifted because I want to build a Casino in your neighborhood.. The way this system works today I have a million reasons to get my way and you have none..

As far as I am concerned all political campaign adds need to be taken off T.V. and out of news papers.. Only allow 4 debates for the parties concerned where the mud can be slung and the candidates records can be exposed.. Fascism is where we are going or have already arrived..

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Great post. What used to be wild corruption is now business as usual. That people still defend the status quo is beyond comprehension.

Yep. It's really frightening how the illegal activities of one disgraced president have come to be legalized. When I thought of Watergate, I'd think "scandal", "illegal wiretapping", and that sort of thing. The money aspect of it just didn't register for whatever reason so watching this actually astounded me. Of course, I was a little kid during Watergate so I didn't know all the ins and outs; however, it's really startling to realize that these things that Nixon did came to be legal status quo under that same indignant nation. It makes me wonder if it was simply such a slow progression that was sneaky as hell that they didn't relate the formation of PACs to it being just another venue for soft or dark money. Really quite astonishing what creeps in.

a reply to: 727Sky

So true, lol, and that is the point, isn't it? You get somebody in office who is willing to even dramatically change things where you live because some company is offering to send a big enough sum your way for your next election. When the Supreme Court ruled that money = speech in Citizens United, it was really saying "you can buy democracy". Even if those ads were found to be ineffective, it is still a purchasing of democracy as a donation to a candidate's party allows that foot in the door. With those re-elections, if you want more, well then you're going to have to play ball. It's no wonder that we do have some many hijinks going on with legislation. Wasn't it a few years ago where Boehner was caught passing out envelopes with checks in them just before a vote on a bill? It's disturbing really and both parties play that particular game.

Perhaps unfortunately those ads are protected free speech so that's kind of the problem, too. Take away the ads and well, that smacks at the First Amendment. No matter which way I look at it, those ads being run by those groups funded by god knows who are going to be protected by that First Amendment. It's kind of like getting painted in a corner, isn't it?