Thanks John Roberts!
It’s been turtles all the way down since the Citizens United decision.
Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
21–30 of 69 posts
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#22From one perspective I am not against lobbying in general. The idea is that legislator don't have the full context and don't know the impact of their work - so they welcome industry or matter experts. Which is quite reasonable. I would argue that the job of the legislator is to know what they are doing, but I can see it being hard for specific technical issues that really benefits from first hand experience. I am not…
Yeah, I don't mind walmart making a psa about theft if that's what they want to do with their money. I very much do have a problem with them putting their thumb on the scale and donating millions to one political candidate over another.
You want to hire a lobbyist to show up and educate a senator on soybean production, more power to you, but it shouldn't come with a check.
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#23> It also leaves out the $106 million-plus Google co-founder Sergey Brin has spent in California fighting a proposed wealth tax and other issues Damn, I can't think of a better argument for wealth tax if one dude alone is willing to spend $100m to fight it. He clearly has too much.
The passing of Dolly Parton has really had me thinking how much good these unfathomably rich people and corporations could do. It enrages me to think of how many people $106 million could have helped.
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#24I’ve always wondered why candidates need so much money. I mean, this doesn’t go directly into their pockets, it’s largely used to fund ads, right? I have a pet theory about political ads that I would love to find data to be able to confirm/deny. My theory is that those political ads don’t actually convince anyone about who to vote for, and aren’t intended to. Instead, it’s about convincing the people who already supp…
[deleted]
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#25"Citizens United" turned "one man, one vote" into "one dollar, one vote" It must be overturned. It was a bogus ruling.
> It must be overturned. It was a bogus ruling.
Don't I have a right to buy a $10 yard sign? A $100 bard sign? A $1000 billboard? A $10K radio ad? A $50K book printing?
Why should I lose any of these rights because I join with others to help me afford it?
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#26> It also leaves out the $106 million-plus Google co-founder Sergey Brin has spent in California fighting a proposed wealth tax and other issues Damn, I can't think of a better argument for wealth tax if one dude alone is willing to spend $100m to fight it. He clearly has too much.
The passing of Dolly Parton has really had me thinking how much good these unfathomably rich people and corporations could do. It enrages me to think of how many people $106 million could have helped.
What's really interesting is when you look at how much good they could do without ever actually affecting their lifestyle at all. What actually is $100 million to a trillionaire? What could he do with 1,000,000,000,000 that he can't do with 999,900,000,000?
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#27I’ve always wondered why candidates need so much money. I mean, this doesn’t go directly into their pockets, it’s largely used to fund ads, right? I have a pet theory about political ads that I would love to find data to be able to confirm/deny. My theory is that those political ads don’t actually convince anyone about who to vote for, and aren’t intended to. Instead, it’s about convincing the people who already supp…
I think you may be taking for granted the political dupoloy and candidate equality.
Third-party candidates are almost always unknown and remain unknown to the public, because they have no money to advertise and achieve name recognition, get their message out. The pay-to-play nature of elections preserves the duopoly of the major parties.
Consider also primary campaigns: typically an incumbent has vastly more money to spend than challengers, who are again usually unknown.
When it comes to general election campaigns between two duopolist candidates, there is usually less of a difference in fundraising ability, so it may seem like money doesn't matter a lot. I see campaign donations as more of an entrance fee than a guarantee of victory. It's gatekeeping, where the gates are closed to any politician who can't be purchased by wealthy interests.
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#28I’ve always wondered why candidates need so much money. I mean, this doesn’t go directly into their pockets, it’s largely used to fund ads, right? I have a pet theory about political ads that I would love to find data to be able to confirm/deny. My theory is that those political ads don’t actually convince anyone about who to vote for, and aren’t intended to. Instead, it’s about convincing the people who already supp…
This depends on the ad. Professional political analysts make it a job to understand whether they need to increase voter turnout, convince fence-sitting voters, etc, and shape ads that target those demographics.
Low voter turnout is much more of a problem in the US where voting isn't compulsory.
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#29"Citizens United" turned "one man, one vote" into "one dollar, one vote" It must be overturned. It was a bogus ruling.
That's a tough ask of a court where half its members (including the chief justice) were caught not only accepting lavish gifts from wealthy individuals who brought cases before the court, but where the outrage was that the gifts were merely undisclosed.
Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms
#30"Citizens United" turned "one man, one vote" into "one dollar, one vote" It must be overturned. It was a bogus ruling.
> It must be overturned. It was a bogus ruling. Don't I have a right to buy a $10 yard sign? A $100 bard sign? A $1000 billboard? A $10K radio ad? A $50K book printing? Why should I lose any of these rights because I join with others to help me afford it?
A lot of very effective democracies work better by making it so that one individual is does not have a disproportionately larger voice, so the idea that you can spend arbitrary amounts on speech just because it's speech doesn't really follow.