Uh no, rather than ignore them I'm shining a light on them because that's where Walker had his greatest advantage. It wasn't his rather large conventional spending advantage that was most in his favor, it was everything that falls outside of that. So much of the non-disclosure "issue ads" fall outside of the conventional accounting of what constitutes campaign spending, and that's where the disparity was largest and where Walker derived his biggest advantage.

The "pro-Walker" side simply swamped the "anti-Walker" side in outside expenditures, in every characterization of that phrase. It easily eclipsed a 10:1 disparity, and we would know definitively how stark the contrast was had so much of Walker's (and Republican) advertising not come through dark money channels.

From your own source #4:



I'd like to remind you to stop lying, again.

No one is saying Walker didn't enjoy a huge money advantage. Quirks in election laws do that. You're still grossly mischaracterizing the money involved.

koch money trickles down so many different streams and through such webs of intrigue into campaign ad sthat Robert Ludlum couldn't even follow it.

Lol, you Liberals and your boogeymen. And trickle down suddenly works for you?

No seriously though, all the money spent in the election mattered for naught, polls showed voters weren't really identifying as unsure of their votes. The money made less difference in this election than most.

Not really a bogeyman when we get Republicans admitting they will basically do whatever they want as long as the money keeps flowing every time the Koch's throw a party.

Don't believe he said anything about single issue voters. It's just one more issue in a long line where the GOP has alienated the next generation of voters.

And this is different than George Soros funding a machine to make sure liberlols are elected to secretary of state in every state? Because all that matters is who counts the votes, amirite?

Soros spends tens of millions on political donations. The Koch's spend hundreds of millions. If anybody is a boogetman its Soros, and if ever there was an example of false equivilance bullshit, its right here. And if you start searching make sure to be careful because koch for the most part launder it through other companies so the "official" numbers will show up as about double Soros, but there's far more than the ten million or so in lobbying that shows up.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 16 2015 11:21am

What exactly is falsely equivalent about some of the richest men in the world spending untold millions on politics?

That's from MotherJones' day-after accounting, which is obviously far from a complete summary given the nature of filing deadlines. It was used to dispel that fantasy-land notion you mentioned earlier, not to be an accurate portrayal of the comprehensive funding advantage that Walker had. That's obviously not even available the day after an election (well, again, to people who understand elections).

Neither ignorance nor the echo-chamber is going to help get around Walker's massive financial advantage in the recall. As a presidential nominee his advantage in outside money wouldn't come close to approaching the disparity of the recall. He'd have the same advantage that Mitt Romney did over Obama among outside groups but that's about it. Any increase would probably just be the continuation of the trend already in place: Republicans are becoming increasingly dependent on big-money groups that don't have contribution limits.



False equivalence bullshit isn't going to work here. Name-dropping George Soros a voluntary admission that you're in a bubble. He is in no way comparable to the Koch Brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, or the Crossroads Network. Even if you were to substitute in "Democracy Alliance," of which he is just a part, it would still be false equivalence. They aren't equal.