Slashdot Mirror
2016 Election Cycle Led By Billionaire Donors
Nicola Hahn writes: The pluralist stance of American politics contends that true power in the United States has been constitutionally vested in "the people" through mechanisms like the electoral process, freedom of speech, and the ability to establish political parties. The traditional view is that these aspects of our political system result in a broad distribution of power that prevents any one faction from gaining an inordinate amount of influence. And today the New York Times has revealed the shortcomings of this narrative by publishing the names of the 158 wealthy families that have donated almost half of the money spent towards the 2016 presidential race. This group of donors is primarily Republican and is dominated by interests in the banking industry. These facts lend credence to the idea that national policy making is influenced heavily by a relatively small group of people. That the American body politic is largely controlled by a deep state.
Today, the New York Times published a damning report on the portion of water that is wet, showing that 100% of water molecules are, in fact, quite wet. The report even tested salt water and brine water, which were also wet. This report may shed light on the traditional view that water is dry.
Once you get past the Pavlovian reaction to "socialist", you'll find that he is the only candidate NOT dropping to his knees in front of the latest batch of plutocrats. If nor no other reason, a victory for him would be a victory for democracy remaining in the hands of the people.
You're looking at money received directly by campaigns, which are subject to fairly strict limits ($2,600 from an individual to any one candidate, for example). The NY Times article is about political donations given by individuals and families, which can go to PACs; many of these donations are unlimited, by ruling of the Supreme Court:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States
Unless they're directly buying votes, then that remains true. I'm not sure why we're equating advertising dollars with votes, because they aren't the same thing.
The point I think is that once elected representatives are more likely to legislate in favour of their donors than their constituents.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
bernie sanders largest contribution out of ~15 million is 15,000 from google.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Apparently that's the exception to the rule, because...
In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning
And that was in 2008. It's only gotten worse since Citizens United (2010). If you think our governance is not hopelessly corrupted by money in politics, then I've got a bridge you might be interested in.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
For all man's accomplishments, we're still largely at a tribal stage where we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so. It's millions of years of evolutionary baggage that we need to overcome as we move forward.
it's about controlling. You're viewing the money issue in a vacuum, assuming it's the only factor at work here. The key to politics is to get out the vote. It's to make people who have a hundred other things to worry about and are exhausted at the end of the day drag their tired asses to the polls and vote. You do that with advertising. You make sure they don't forget to vote after their second shift at the Arby's or after the meds that keep their heart pumping kick in.
There's more to it. You Gerrymander so the people who vote against you don't count. You shut down pulling offices so they can't vote. You make it so signing up to vote gets them Jury duty they can't afford to serve. When you're a billionaire with an entire society's wealth at your disposal you can hedge your bets.
There's two really easy solutions to this. a. You're not allowed to donate to a politician you can't vote for and you're not allowed to buy advertisement in a race you can't vote in. There's your free speech issue solved. b. Mandatory voting. It's like Jury duty on steroids. Everyone over 18 votes unless their declared legally incompetent.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So people elected by 15% of the eligible population ends up as the Representative. No wonder they don't listen to you. You did not elect them. 85% of America did not elect them. You find it in the polls. 85% of America has negative opinion of their Reps.
If mere 15% more people arm themselves with facts, start showing up in the polling booth, register as independents to vote for the best candidate from either party, the influence of money on the politics will wane. Don't blame the rich people for being jerks. Blame the non-so-rich people for being lazy and ignorant.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And with that first comment, you perfectly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the desire for a just society. Up until the seventies, the blue collar middle class grew and thrived. People could work a single job and buy a house, raise a family, live a modest lifestyle, and be perfectly content. But since then those with wealth used it to undermine that culture, and thus began the decades-long erosion of the middle class and working families, all while those with wealth saw their prospects improve.
Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook. There's much less opportunity to start a business. I'm not saying none, but much, much less. People just want a chance to give their children more than they had, to take risks to get ahead, to see their labor rewarded. Instead of taxing the rich more I'd much rather see a livable wage—or better still—a basic income guarantee that would bring these opportunities back to all of society.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
The real news is that the mainstream media (NYT) is reporting on it. Also, that money is influential is obvious, but the degree to which it is influential is finally being measured. With numbers backing up observation, and MSM exposure, something may have to be done about it.
Online tech forums are fond of saying the MSM is a puppet of government. Here we have an instance where it isn't.
That's news for nerds.
No, the majority of Americans think Progressivism is some type of car insurance company, and socialism is Hitler, Stalin, and Satan all rolled up into one. They want their government "run like a business" but then also scream when that "company" has "layoffs". A corporation has zero ethics and zero empathy, and only is concerned with quarterly dividends...I don't understand why anyone would want their government run like that.