WHO will spend more in independent ads: Corporations or Unions???

[Land Shark]

Answer: It doesn't matter. Corporations certainly dwarf unions in total money but corporations don't need to spend a dime in order for million dollar independent ad campaigns to have a Powerful Deterrent Effect on Politicians.

Just how many million dollar swift boat ad campaigns can any given politician survive?? One or two, max?

This now explains, if it didn't already, why politicians are gutless, and why the structured choices we are presented with so often consist of Full Corporatism vs Corporatism-Lite. The 'beauty' of it is that corporations often don't have to spend a dime to control the political process, they do so via the deterrent effect of the threat of million dollar ad campaigns.

It's even possible that unions in some elections will spend more than corporations (but I tend to doubt it). But even if that were the case, the corporate money is bigger and more powerful and acts even when it is NOT spent!

I recommend ya'll point this out whenever false frames are thrown out that suggest that union money is a saving grace or somehow equalizes the playing field. Besides, the number of issues that unions are interested in is much smaller than the number of issues corporations as a whole wish to project power on.

[endless october]

1. corporations.

unions have been gutted too much by NAFTA and trade agreements to even come close to what corporations will spend.

[rucky]

2. Yep. They've already invested in their influence, and it's paying off.

They don't spend that much dough without knowing they'll get returns from it.

[lunatica]

3. My union has no money to spend on ads

It's run by union members who don't get paid and has a paid staff of two or three people per local.

[FBaggins]

4. Corporations... but the unions will be more effective

Corporations will clearly spend more (they HAVE much more), but will largely split their contributions (and/or focus on known incumbents)... while the unions will throw their support heavily in our direction.

[Land Shark]

5. But, you don't seem to have responded to the deterrent effect idea in the OP. Your thoughts?

[FBaggins]

6. I dont' buy it.

No offense. I think that the silent threat really works better in the other direction. I think that few corporations (particularly larger/national ones) can afford to lean too heavily in one direction because that would threaten half of their customers. Would you give YOUR business to a company that gave 85% of their political spending to far right candidates?

This is why you often see large corporations donating large sums to BOTH political conventions.