Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different when looked at in a political context, especially to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar vernacular of politics in Toledo, Northwest Ohio ... and sometimes even the nation as a whole.
Campaign Contributions
1. Money raised for political purposes usually only mentioned these days in conjunction with "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission". This was a landmark US Supreme Court case in which, by a 5-4 decision, the Justices essentially held that money and speech could be considered the same thing when it came to campaign expenditure and that according to the First Amendment; the government was therefore prohibited from placing restrictions on such independent expenditures. The restraint of this prohibition was held to be true whether you were an individual, a corporation, or a union.
2. Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political left about the political right when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Governor Scott Walker recall vote of 2012 in Wisconsin, where the right apparently outspent the left by a ratio of 7 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.)
3. Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying'
and considered a travesty by the political right about the political left when they are outspent and lose the
issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Ohio "Issue 2" vote of 2011 (also known as SB5) in which the left apparently outspent the right by at least a ratio of over 3 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.)
4. Money raised by major party presidential candidates, the amounts of which are only released when they can do the most good to themselves and the most harm to their opponents. The candidate raising the greater amount attempting to prove (incorrectly) that the ability to raise campaign money equates to the ability to lead. The candidate raising the lesser amount of money usually thanking contributors for their cash before citing the 'Citizens United' decision as the reason that there is too much money in politics.
5. Money raised which has apparently led to a great deal more discussion of political issues, candidates, and elections around the country. It has likewise performed the function of no longer leaving the message delivered on these elections in the hands of representatives of the two major political parties, allowing independent voices from all sides of politics the opportunity to get their own messages across. While the results of such discussion are far from in, the increased level of discussion has been generally seen as a good thing, and the level of spending on campaigns while increased, has had no demonstrably negative effects on the electoral process.
5. Money raised which has apparently led to a great deal more discussion of political issues, candidates, and elections around the country. It has likewise performed the function of no longer leaving the message delivered on these elections in the hands of representatives of the two major political parties, allowing independent voices from all sides of politics the opportunity to get their own messages across. While the results of such discussion are far from in, the increased level of discussion has been generally seen as a good thing, and the level of spending on campaigns while increased, has had no demonstrably negative effects on the electoral process.
