A Quote by Bradley A. Smith

Incumbents don't like it, but political competition is a good thing. Incumbents usually outspend challengers by better than 3 to 1. Super PACs, which tend to support challengers, have nullified some of this advantage.
The reapportionment of 2002 designed congressional districts that favored incumbents of both parties, leaving virtually no room for challengers to be elected. Of 435 members of the House of Representatives, only four incumbents lost to nonincumbents of the other party. In all, 96 percent of incumbents were re-elected. (It was only 90 percent in 1992 and 1982 after the previous reapportionments.)
The case may very well be that Congress is willing to restrict campaign contributions because it has these privileges. It is true that incumbents normally get larger contributions than their challengers. The opponents at least get some money, but they do not have access to the perquisites of the incumbent.
For many years, we have had these campaign finance reforms, and they have been failures. Money is more coursing through our system than ever before. Incumbents have used the laws to advantage themselves. And one of the reasons I think they have been failures is we have tried to crush down the money in places like the political parties, and it has squished out into opaque super PACs and sort of hidden channels.
The Internet is too transformative for incumbents to not want to try to stifle or curb it - incumbents in the sense of multinational corporations, governments, take your pick.
The incumbents just have a ton more money because they have rigged the system to help themselves, because they have these networks of small donors. Meanwhile, the amount of people, the incumbents being reelected has just been - that has been going up and up and up.
Further-more, partisan attachments powerfully shape political perceptions, beliefs and values, and incumbents enjoy advantages well beyond the way in which their districts are configured.
Incumbents have long promoted regulation in the name of protecting consumers when their actual goal is to block new entrants and stifle competition.
Relative to the taxi industry, Uber is a sustaining innovation; that is, it makes customers' lives better. Uber targeted mainstream markets with a better service for existing customers, and it succeeded in serving them better than the incumbents.
History has shown that incumbents tend to fight trends that challenge established ways and, in the process, lose focus on what matters most: customers.
Rules designed to ensure competition ensure that innovators with new ideas can challenge incumbents on a level playing field.
Bouncing a sitting president requires conscious action, a national decision to redirect the country's course. This cuts against the grain, and that's why incumbents have a natural advantage.
The Gunnar Challenge offers new workouts every day, a meal plan and daily 'verbal vitamins,' which are a motivational video or workout tip. The thing that really makes the program work is the forum, where Challengers can communicate with each other and with me.
What we have are - some of the big political donors behind the super PACs are big on promoting more of these trade agreements which cost us jobs - another reason that we need to end political action committees and have only individual donations with their donations being disclosed completely with names and addresses and other information.
Somehow, people act like I have no competition, but the thing is, the competition is so good that it forces me to be better than I even thought was possible.
The most powerful ideologies are not those that prevail against all challengers but those that are never challenged because in their ubiquity they appear as nothing more than the unadorned truth.
Do not be scared of the incumbents.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!