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

The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

bloodinthemachine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#71

Post by tines »

gruez wrote: post #57
tines wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."

>The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. You realize republicans can make the same argument to bash unions?

Sure, I don't have a problem with unions being restricted from political donations either.

Just like corporations can be regulated for monopoly (which by the logic that "corporations, as mere groups of people, have all the same rights as people" should be unregulatable because individuals have the right to assemble), we can regulate them for other things, without contradiction.

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#72

Post by akramachamarei »

WalterBright wrote: post #37
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich love the concept of voting with your wallet, because by definition they get shitloads more votes than you.

Ballot harvesting should be made illegal.

How you define it, exactly?

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#73

Post by thatmf »

doodlebugging wrote: post #19

Probably a sign that it is past time to tightly regulate all AI-aligned companies and their products to set up guard rails to prevent this level of corruption. I am a person who lives in a state where it is totally legal for lobbyists to walk the floor of the state legislature handing out envelopes of cash to any representative who will line up behind their proposed legislation. Bribery buys state laws here and it bu…

I am very curious- what state?

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#74

Post by gruez »

monocasa wrote: post #67
gruez wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions generally can't donate to political campaigns ??? https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/carpenters-joiners-union/su... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/service-employees-internati... >and can't do things like strike in solidarity with other unions which would be pretty clearly be speech if we're counting corporate donations to political campaigns as speech. Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with poli…

> ??? It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign. > Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations. Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.

>It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign.

Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says

>NOTE: Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Figures on this page include contributions and spending by affiliates.

and indeed, I don't see any candidates. This more or less matches the recipients list for unions.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/citadel-llc/summary?id=D000...

> Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.

Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding up a bunch of signs, and not say... walking off the job?

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#75

Post by monocasa »

gruez wrote: post #74
monocasa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ??? It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign. > Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations. Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.

>It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign. Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says >NOTE: Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Figures on…

> Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says

No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet.

> Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding up a bunch of signs, and not say... walking off the job?

How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#76

Post by akramachamarei »

otikik wrote: post #43
gruez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never? Even the whole "corporations are people too" meme where this sentiment presumably originated from is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean corporations have the same rights as people, it just means they can conduct transactions and can sue/be used. It doesn't mean they can vote.

Corporations can vote now. If they own land. In some states. Which is fine, they only get one vote. But they can also divide a piece of land into small plots, make a bunch of shell companies, each one owning a small piece of land, and vote using that.

This was discussed previously on Hackernews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295460

Isn't this just on Fenwick Island? And the state would have to approve the (possibly suspicious) creation of numerous shell companies for this purpose.

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#77

Post by sph »

vinyl7 wrote: post #50
dragontamer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is not possible with today's politics. But it can become possible as soon as January 2027 politics, which is largely determined by the 2026 November election.

For decades people have proclaimed that we can fix things in the next election...but that has never happened in all of my existence and do not expected to happen in my life time. It's pure carrot chasing

> For decades people have proclaimed that we can fix things in the next election

The secret of modern democracy is figuring out 2/4 years is how long it takes for people to forget the electoral promises that weren’t delivered upon.

But hey, next time my party is going to fix the economy, housing and corruption! Just remember to vote!

I still wonder how many elections does it take for one to see the farce of it.

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#78

Post by gruez »

monocasa wrote: post #75
gruez wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign. Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says >NOTE: Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Figures on…

> Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet. > Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding u…

>No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet.

So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax breaks and do whatever politicking they want?

>How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?

Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#79

Post by monocasa »

gruez wrote: post #78
monocasa wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet. > Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding u…

>No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet. So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax break…

> So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax breaks and do whatever politicking they want?

The alternative is neither get to do politicking rather than only those who aren't formally working for some public good.

> Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?

Yeah, it's called a protest.

They're allowed to walk off for their own issues. It's solidarity strikes that are banned. Ie. the nature of the speech is what makes it illegal.

Re: The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections

#80

Post by rectang »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #68
voidfunc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats aren't winning the Senate. They are not lock ins for the House either. I dont know what is so difficult about this for you.

Are you proposing a different solution? Or are you content to be a cynic that does nothing?

The goal should be to run up the score of the popular vote as much as possible even in the face of anti-democratic shenanigans like gerrymandering or statistical voter suppression, e.g. how the SAVE act would make it harder for women (who lean Democratic) to exercise their right to vote (because it will require more documents for people who have changed their last name to prove their identities).

Manipulating the election and perpetuating minority rule rather than responding to popular will has its limitations. We need to be prepared for a second civil rights movement.

Post reply on HN