Do you want money to determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election?

Money certainly can influence elections but it is unfortunate that so many people seem to vote without using their brain. We as citizens of this great country have a responsibility to become informed not by a 30 or 60 second ad but by studying the candidate’s positions and history before casting our ballot. There is too many who vote along party lines without finding out what/who they are voting for.

Blame it on money, the evil PAC's if you will but I will blame it in lazy stupid people.

The fact is that advertising costs and the one who reaches the most people with the most money "usually" wins. That isn't always the case though.

No, but it might. Super PAC's should be outlawed.

Any time politicians can be bought by Big Money, the forthcoming election is bound to be rigged in the favor of Big Money.

.... but is will, as it has done for years ... BIG MONEY a-l-w-a-y-s wins

If we had public financing of elections, and no private money going to elections it would save taxpayers money. Right now several billionaires are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the elections. They are buying our democracy away from the people!!

But it will and it will also decide the house and senate. Our whole electoral process and system of representation needs a major overhaul and our Constitution desperately needs fixing with some major changes like term limits and strict campaign finance limits.

Despite my wishes, money has already determined the outcome. Romney and Obama are both owned by Wall St and the International banking cartel known as "Federal Reserve". The election is just for show. Fat cats always hedge their bets.

ME NOT TO DETERMINE IT.

Actually, not really. How much money one has to begin with, has little to do with how well the economy is going to be.

I like the idea that ideas trump the amount of money spent but I don't know if it is the case ;-)

I wish that were the case. But I suspect most voters will fall prey to the hit pieces in the last month of the campaign. Voters are more influenced by emotions than facts.

Good point.

It's the same here in Britain, just on a smaller scale.
Some people want the tax payer to fund the parties, but by the time I have gotten into my car, driven over the other side of the country to kick them in the nuts, they have moved on.
I would like to see some kind of spending cap per campaign in this country. Don't know how that would work over there.

But it will play a major part. We have the best democracy money can buy.

Yes. Romney will outspend Obama.

no

is there a choice?

Let's be different this time.

In all reality when has money ever not determined the outcome of an election? But the thing I find most amusing as of late is the Obama supporters whining about the money being spent and raised on the election. Seems when Obama was raising tons of cash heading towards his $1 billion projected donations they had no concerns. Now that Obama's donations have dropped off and Romney is out raising him they start complaining. Just more proof that the hypocrisy of the liberal/progressives knows no bounds.

But it always does.

Money has determined the outcome of every election in our history. Only those who don't value success seem to be preaching we must get money out of politics.

I don't consider bribery as being anything 'successful' ...

Influence is purchased through word, deed, or increased access. Successful people understand these things, the average Joe doesn't.

In politics, influence is purchased through bribes ('campaign contributions') ... no 'contributor' shells out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars without expecting a hefty return in the form of favorable legislation ... that's how politics works and that's how I, an "average Joe" fully understand it ... and, when one reviews legislation closely, these facts are borne out.

You are correct, that is the way it has always worked, from the days of our founding. That influence is not always necessarily campaign contributions.

True ... but generally some type of 'compensation' is involved ... hence my term of 'bribe(s)'

It has always been that way.

True enough ... sadly so ... and tarnishes the 'halo' of "We, the people ..."

It is still We the People, and if you want to be a part of it I suggest you become wealthy enough to influence someone else.

Except for perhaps the very fist election(s), it's always been about money/compensation ... and, most people simply don't become rich enough to influence anyone ... and rarely due to lack of effort -- usually 'aptitude' or 'happenstance' or opportunity ... generally, a combination of the previous ... as for me, personally, too late in life.

It was that way in the very first election as well. The wealth of the new aristocracy courted Washington to run. You are correct, very few possess the planning, preparation, and ambition to become wealthy enough to influence others. That is what is wrong with society. It is always due to lack of effort, only the envious and the unsuccessful think wealth is achieved through luck and happenstance.

You and I have divergent viewpoints on achieving success ... I believe that it is, indeed, a certain amount of luck as well as happenstance ... most often, you have to be 'at the right place at the right time' to become truly wealthy and/or successful ... if it were only a matter of proper preparation and effort, the vast majority of society would be wealthy/successful ... the current crop of (college) graduates are a prime example ... for the number of graduates, there is an insufficient number of available positions in (very many) of the fields for which they prepared ... I certainly can relate to that situation, as I was a 'victim' of those type of happenstance(s) when I received my degree (accounting major) ... that's why the vast majority wind up working at what's available ... because their 'life' demands it ... and, eventually, their 'dreams' fade ... the "Horatio Alger' myth is just that, a myth.

Then you haven't become successful. Life is nothing more than the circumstances you allow to happen. If you are prepared for the known and unknown nothing just happens to you.

As I said, we have divergent viewpoints as well as philosophies ... and, from experience, one never can be prepared for the unknown ... that's why it's the "unknown" ... for example, 'you' simply don't know what will, or will not, happen, even tomorrow, therefor one cannot 'prepare' for 'it'.

Yes you can prepare for it. That is the fallacy of those who think life is what just happens to you.

Well, just how do you propose anyone prepares for the "unknown"? ... with that argument, events such as the space shuttle disasters would not have occurred inasmuch as all the unknowns had been prepared for by all parties involved

With the most recent space shuttle disaster they knew there was damage to the insulating tiles. That was a known risk they were willing to take, it didn't work out too well.
Being prepared is more than just preparing for what you know can happen. It is being prepared for what your wildest imagination can contemplate. While you will not be prepared for all that happens you will be far better off than those who just think there is nothing they can do about the unseen.

Yeah ... well, "Good Luck" to you in your preparation(s) for ALL eventualities ... as for me, I'll continue to 'cross the bridges' as I get to them.

And you will continually be surprised.