Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#61

Post by insane_dreamer »

tpmoney wrote: post #60
insane_dreamer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except that the _consequence_ of CU was basically unlimited spending on political campaigns by SuperPACs. the ACLU may have been right about the particulars they were arguing but they missed the bigger picture of how this would open the floodgates of campaign financing

The CU decision didn't foreclose the government from crafting a different law to address the issue in a more narrow and content neutral way, but congress being the dysfunctional clown show that it is, hasn't. CU also didn't really open any floodgates, it left the state of the law in the same state it was 8 years earlier. It's not like the BCRA was a law that had a long and storied history, it was passed and struck do…

absolutely, it's congress' fault too for not creating new election funding laws

you're right that CU didn't directly open the floodgates, though it did immediately unlock the option for companies to spend from their general funds without limit

But the bigger problem was SCOTUS' decision provided the reasoning that downstream courts could rely on in their decisions, and _those_ opened the floodgates (Speechnow.org vs FEC specifically)

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#62

Post by avidruntime »

alexgoodhart wrote: post #57
mynameisbilly wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People and corporations? Come on. The US has now in one decade nearly doubled its military budget from ~$630 Billion to ~$1.2 Trillion. ICE alone has received tens of billions in funds in the past year.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The real world doesn't require us to negate the commentary that the ultra wealthy people/corporations could be doing a lot more good than they're currently doing on the basis that the government is spending money irresponsibly/against the greater good.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#63

Post by avidruntime »

elevation wrote: post #25
k310 wrote: post #15

"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?

Doesn't the FEC already regulate contribution limits? The debate is where the line is and when the line comes into play. Society is a constant negotiation between individual freedoms and collective safety/social order. You have already ceded some rights in this vein. It is not controversial to see an unfairness in some citizens/their vehicles having many magnitudes more influence over the common citizen. Citizens United is a conduit to a standard that can be hacked by money. Arguably, the dilution of your own political leverage in this paradigm is a greater inhibition to your rights than a stricter contribution limit ever could be, in the long term.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#64

Post by SoleilAbsolu »

mynameisbilly wrote: post #23
oefrha wrote: post #8

> 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.

Hear hear! I am a nonprofit tech professional, and a monthly call with ~40 similar folks yesterday started with a discussion of Dolly's passing. At first I thought it was just about loving her music and/or personality, but it was also the fact that several folks, at different nonprofits with varied missions, had received significant funding from the many foundations Dolly had set up over the years.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#65

Post by DangitBobby »

elevation wrote: post #59
sensanaty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in your world the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else, how is that righteous? Especially when we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about corporations. Besides your premise is flawed to begin with, you most certainly cannot freely rent out a billboard and put anything you want on there, or a radio ad, or a book printing. Re…

> the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else As the heir apparent of the republican party, Jeb Bush raised a half-billion dollars from donors. He was politically connected, with a history of winning elections. His significantly outspent the other candidates -- and still lost. This isn't especially uncommon, money's influence alone doesn't determine el…

That doesn't mean money doesn't tip elections, it just means sometimes money isn't enough. Anyone who has played a pay to win game could have told you that for free.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#66

Post by goatlover »

elevation wrote: post #48
goatlover wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't have the right to spend disproportionately more on influencing an election than other people. That's not democratic. It very much favors the interests of the extremely wealthy. What would be most democratic is if tax money funded campaigns. Every candidate gets the same amount for that office. Take money out of the equation. It should not be a reason someone gets elected. That's corrupting and makes can…

> You shouldn't have the right to spend disproportionately more on influencing an election than other people The 1st amendment freedom of the press is by nature disproportionate! Most citizens do not own a printing press. Most presses aren't upstream of a national distribution network. Not all twitter accounts have millions of followers. "Evenness of influence" is not constitutionally guaranteed or even a natural out…

And I don't think individuals shown own media either.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#67

Post by lenkite »

openasocket wrote: post #19

I’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 always wondered why the US accuses other South-Asian nation states of deep corruption when they have the most gigantic corruption system in the world.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#68

Post by sensanaty »

elevation wrote: post #59
sensanaty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in your world the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else, how is that righteous? Especially when we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about corporations. Besides your premise is flawed to begin with, you most certainly cannot freely rent out a billboard and put anything you want on there, or a radio ad, or a book printing. Re…

> the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else As the heir apparent of the republican party, Jeb Bush raised a half-billion dollars from donors. He was politically connected, with a history of winning elections. His significantly outspent the other candidates -- and still lost. This isn't especially uncommon, money's influence alone doesn't determine el…

How many people who weren't "heir apparents" of extremely wealthy families/parties ended up on the ballots, though? Basically every US election comes down to a choice between 2 uber-wealthy people, and sometimes a 3rd equally uber-wealthy one manages to break through with some votes.

There isn't a chance in hell with the current system that anyone who doesn't come from a wealthy background, or at the very least has the backing of a rich sponsor, would make it anywhere near the top of the list, which is the entire issue.

Re: Corporate political donations shatter record at $646M so far for US midterms

#69

Post by helpfulfrond »

lenkite wrote: post #67
openasocket wrote: post #19

I’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 always wondered why the US accuses other South-Asian nation states of deep corruption when they have the most gigantic corruption system in the world.

It's technically not corruption because it's legal!
Post reply on HN