Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soros and Bush Rivalry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soros and Bush Rivalry

    Hello,

    This morning, I read an article, which amuses me greatly. Billionaire George Soros, who grew up in Hungary, told the news media that he would donate more than $10 million to Democratic Party through various under-table deals. Soros said that he is determined to contribute something to the oust of Bush in 2004 election.

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/991865.asp?vts=111120030917

    It really amused me to see Democrats claiming to be the champions of the people, i.e. the minority groups and a seemingly fanatical belief in the so-called "majority" of whatever it is. Now, the Democrats are glad to have Billionaire Soros practically buying off the Party to do his bidding. It's interesting to note that before Bush came on the stage, Soros didn't contribute much to the Democratic Party. Apparently, Soros has a lot of gripe with Bush.

    Soros is attempting to close the gap between the Democrats and Republicans' war chests. Apparently, Soros will succeed in doing that, but I have to wonder how the Democratic nominatees will react to such changes.

    Dan
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

  • #2
    I don't think $10 million is enough to change things. Bush gets $10 million in a good week. Anyway, I think most Democrats would like to change the entire fundraising system so big money isn't as important in elections. Guess who stops them?
    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chuck
      I don't think $10 million is enough to change things. Bush gets $10 million in a good week. Anyway, I think most Democrats would like to change the entire fundraising system so big money isn't as important in elections. Guess who stops them?
      Both Democrats and Republicans. They don't want the soft money to be stopped at all. Both need it anyway to finance the increasingly expensive ad spots and their own propaganda machines.

      A lot of Americans like the idea of limiting soft money, but in practice, it's difficult to do that, because of an apparent lack of interest on part of Americans to donate their money to both parties. If Americans are unwilling to finance their own parties via en masse, then the soft money may be the only real answer at least for both parties.

      Interestingly enough, in 2000 election, Bush had money largely financed by individual contributions, according to this, nearly 42% came from such contributions. PAC only consisted 1%, and the federal funds consisted of 35%. Bush was not financed by some powerful businessmen. It's also interesting to note that Al Gore had poor individual contributions, but was largely funded by federal funds, nearly 60%.

      And to keep this in mind, it's not just presidential candidates that need money, it's about every political contest that is going on all over the country. The local candidates can't raise money fast enough, so they has to borrow from their own parties respectively. This is where soft money comes in. This is area where it's nearly difficult to stop it.

      Dan
      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

      "Aim small, miss small."

      Comment

      Latest Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X