Fairly unlikely. Quite a few people in the US(60%) are in favour of a wealth tax.
For better or for worse, the narrative in the US is slowly shifting to class differences rather than the usual culture war dog whistle issues. No matter how much the ultra wealthy wring their hands and try to explain their plight, the people are less and less inclined to be sympathetic when they are seeing the full effects of the K shaped recovery we've been in since the GFC.
I think they are implying she lost not because a wealth tax is unpopular with voters, but unpopular with the rich people who buy elections to avoid paying taxes.
For any non-Americans reading this, note that saying "x% of Americans support [vaguely progressive policy] (i.e. universal healthcare, wealth tax, $15/hour minimum wage, mandatory paid family leave) is basically irrelevant to whether the policy will actually get passed. The US system of government is is intentionally and explicitly designed so politicians are not accountable to private opinion, and so the representatives of a small percentage of the population can stop legislation that is popular with the majority from getting passed.
> When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
What I'm saying is that if you read about the history and creation of the US Constitution, the people who created it clearly and unambiguously expressed their distrust in giving too much political influence to the general public, and made limiting popular influence one of their main goals. Some examples of this are the way the Senate is apportioned and the 6-year Senate term, the Electoral College and the way that it's apportioned, how difficult it is to amend the Constitution, and the lifetime tenure of federal judges. If you're interested, there's a good paper going over the motivation behind the Constitution, how it was created, and how it was ratified: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3370359
The key thing here is to look at the trend over time, esp the last few years. There has been a steady rise in support for a wealth tax since the GFC, with a sharp rise in recent years.
It's difficult to relitigate this, but I put it to you that Trump #1 lost because COVID happened while he was President, and Biden lost because the post-COVID money fountain transitory inflation was particularly bad right at the end of his presidency, and a significant number of voters simply didn't notice that the Democrat candidate had changed (you can still see this even from punditry!)
Low info voters are very, very bad at dealing with causation. Either for events in the past or events in the future. They tend to follow an algorithm more like "has my life improved recently? Then incumbent, else challenger". Much of the rest is differential turnout. Especially when all the constituencies have been gerrymandered six ways from Sunday.
I guess we'll see in a couple of days. The voter verdict on Trump #2 does not look positive, and this is going to reflect on every candidate with an R by their name.
Kamala Harris lost because of the shady primary the democrats won. The public didn't like it.
The USA assumed Donald Trump #2 would be similar to Donald Trump #1(Trump mostly golfing).
I’m not “maga”, and I’m not eligible to vote anyway(not a US citizen) and there is no way I would have voted for her anyway.
You may consider how many potential voters the Democratic Party has lost through its anti democratic practices. There were no democratic processes to select her as the Democrats candidate.
Similarly, Hillary was premiered via “super delegates” that took the vote from Bernie Sanders.
I believe we are seeing a similar fallout in these midterms for the republicans.
I think it’s far more likely that most voters are completely unaware of the inside baseball, and vote based on how they’re feeling about things that affect them personally. As Clinton said, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
I think Kamala Harris lost because she was the default candidate after Joe Biden, influenced by age-related bad judgement, insisted on running for a second term.
But I also think US presidents pick bad vice presidents on purpose, and that both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden himself were picked because they were bad presidential candidates.
There are two reasons why you would pick a bad vice president: one, probably the major one, is that the president gets to appease both the vice president's followers (hey, at least we got the vice president!) and the other losing candidates followers to some degree (hey, at least that vice president is so bad, they won't be a shoo-in as the president's successor!)
The other reason is that they want to discourage impeachment and assassinations. You may think that's stupid, but as my rule #1 says, powerful people believe all the stupid things regular people believe. So even if it is stupid, if we have thought about it, they have thought about it too.
He was definitely not "mostly golfing", he was actively destroying US allies and was actively helping US adversaries, and obvious from the Capitol incident that he already started building a fascist dictatorship.
> The damage he did was low-to-moderate, all things considered.
I don't think that's true. I'd say it was more like a Phantom Menace, like arming a ticking bomb with a postponed effect.
> Now, the damage is beyond repair. The USA is fucked, on a downward spiral that will be difficult(near impossible) to correct.
Yeah. Instead of MAGA, he managed to loose the USA's remaining superpower status in just a few years, that's some achievement history will surely remember.
But I don't think everything is lost, although extremely hard and might take at least a century or so to correct (assuming no further damages, that China won't take over and of course that there will still be a human civilization to speak of by the end of the century).
From the perspective of the architects of his policies, The Heritage Foundation, things are roughly going as they want, and these losses are a price worth to pay to ensure what they want to happen, happens.
Their perspective is relatively simple. Unhinged, but simple.
They believe the US is strictly incapable of remaining as the sole global superpower, and that due to cultural this and that, risks falling into a middle power or worse. Hence, they want to resuscitate the pre-WW1 notion of imperial Spheres of Influence, in which the world is carved between Great Powers that dominate their surroundings, and to make sure the US stays as one for decades to centuries. The US Sphere would be the Americas plus a small piece of Europe.
For this to work, a few things are needed:
a) The middle powers, and the weak countries, must all learn their place, that they have no real agency, that they must submit to the Great Power that dominates the sphere they're inserted into, and that if they revolt they're going to experience all manners of pain, from economic warfare to actual hot war in their territories.
b) The other strong countries must agree with this project, so although they're enemies on the long run, they must unite in the process of carving the world into those Spheres, and not to interfere too much with the other powers doing their own carving. Any current potential interference (Taiwan, Ukraine, Iran etc.) is a piece in the table to be used in negotiating the future frontiers between their Spheres.
c) And, internally, a shared culture, where the majority becomes supportive of this via the indoctrination appropriate to each case for the long run.
That's the gist of it. Everything else, including the public face of the implementation, are details that can be replaced as long as the overall strategy keeps advancing.
I scorn trump as much as the next socially-adjusted human, but this is overstated:
> he managed to loose the USA's remaining superpower status in just a few years
America is still the most powerful military force and the largest economy, and mickey mouse has recognition in places where they carry water from wells in pots. A beast that size keeps lumbering a long time after brain death.
Trump has shredded other nations' trust in America as a partner, but he has not made it possible to ignore. Ignoble but not ignorable.
If we run the clock forward, then declining arms exports due to sovereignty concerns wool make the USian defence industry harder to sustain. But that takes decades to play out.
The damage was small because other countries assumed he’d be a 1 term president.
Like Iran didn’t retaliate for US assassinating their leaders in term 1.
But also because every day builds on the previous one. His first year he hadn’t figured out he could use CBP (ICE) to remove US citizens from protests but by year 4 he had figured it out.
Interestingly enough Democrats raised $2.3B and Republicans raised $0.2B last presidential election cycle (1), it’s clear that the more monied party are the Democrats, my take here is that the Republicans are either more grassroots and don’t need to convince as many Americans to vote for them or they are far more efficient with capital during campaigns. PAC spending was also within 9.7% of one another in 2024 (2).
Democrats spent closer to $6.7B in 2024, Republicans outspent them at $7.6B.
Dunno what is wrong with your numbers, but they're significantly undercounting, and likely [deliberately] excluding all the SuperPAC money that Republicans got from megadonors.
(Musk alone spent $290M on the 2024 election, so your $0.2B number is ludicrously low)
I’m personally very data-driven so if you have a source, I would be happy to have it reviewed. I do think fundraising and PAC money is counted separately but that’s counted in the second source in my parent comment.
It’s true that there were very high individual contributions during the 2024 election cycle and I think this could be somewhat attributed to the assertion that these donors face a targeted existential threat and as self interested actors they’re contributing to candidates who will mitigate risk and impacts.
I also did notice that between 2022 and 2024 there’s a flipping of the script where George Soros in 2022 was the top donor (1) but was then replaced by a donor for the Republicans in 2024. Of course I think the top donors always make themselves subjects for management at newspapers to delegate to their employees to report on. We can ask why the script flipped, perhaps the Democrats have been losing wealthy donor or perhaps the Democrats had a fragile strategy that depended on a wealthy donor who transferred power to his son who donates less.
I think the best question to ask is “How do we as Americans ensure that each individual voter has the fairest voting power and has equal and sufficient access to relevant information and is educated enough to make an informed voting decision with sufficient judgment.”
Wouldn’t it be great if all the money Musk dumped into this election was wasted? I guess it’s still not that much money for him, but the repudiation of these tactics would be wonderful.
Musk largely dumped the money into the election to prove to everyone he can keep dumping money perpetually into every election. Its a pain to deal with $400 Million this year, but can you imagine 2028, 2030 or 2032? Its going to be a constant onslaught until we figure out a way to mitigate Citizens United vs FEC
Even if Democrats win, Musk has proven that his money is now part of our political system moving forward.
With the executive powers that the Supreme Court has allowed Trump, the next president could simply nationalize SpaceX.
Of course the Supreme Court will change its mind about executive powers soon after the next election, because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
(Judge unconstitutionally refuses to accept appointment of other judges, situation escalates into a proper physical "lock the doors vs storm the building" conflict.)
> because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you really think the Trump administration’s FEC would fairly decide which movies are allowed to be shown in the months before elections? Because that’s the power that law granted the government.
If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda, then the problem is the voters, not the propaganda. Anyone so easily manipulated can’t be trusted to decide who is in power. It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.
I note that in the UK political parties just .. aren't allowed to run TV ads at all, but have a set of broadcast slots allocated for free to them. This certainly makes it a lot quieter. While there are serious problems with UK libel law, it also restricts ability to run the levels of overt "Jim eats puppies" libel that is seen in US elections.
> It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.
Even in the US free speech does not allow you to simply sell fraudulent goods and services. There has to be some sort of defense in the system against lying, or the entire process just turns into competing to write the worst fantasy about your opponent.
Selling fraudulent goods & services is a violation of copyright or contract law, not free speech laws. Putting a UL logo on a product not tested by UL means you are violating their copyright. And you can claim your product does almost anything, but if someone buys it and it doesn’t, and it can be shown that you deliberately misled them, then you can get in trouble.
Both of these examples are nowhere close to the power given to the government before Citizens United: a censor who chooses what people are allowed to read or hear in the months before elections. Unlike copyright or contract law, the punishment was before the fact, not after. And it applied to films people paid to see, not just ads.
The SC could have made a way more limited finding about movies without unleashing the superPAC hell we find ourselves in. Why did a case about a limited run movie enable people to run ads during football games?
> If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda
Buddy, advertising works, there is a reason why coca-cola does it.
If you don't think people can decide whether statements made in ads are true or false, then why trust them to decide who makes & enforces laws? Either they're rational adults or they're not.
You're saying you want Trump's FEC to decide what ads can be shown during a football game. Do you really think that would be an improvement?
> then why trust them to decide who makes & enforces laws?
Firstly, it's not black and white: humans are swayed by propaganda, but not entirely.
Historically:
We tried feudalism, and we have run limited experiments with one-party states.
Classical republics with a citizen class might obviate the fuckwit-voter problem somewhat; but the French Revolution made the idea of a political underclass unpalatable, and I'm not sure the conditions still hold. Classical Athenian education was sufficient to prepare the gentry for the problems of classical Athens; society today has more moving parts.
Benevolent and wise dictatorship would be nice, but the "benevolent" and "wise" parts may be unrealistic expectation.
I like anarchy, but i don't believe it scales to nation size.
I am open to being convinced that some given form of government would be ideal, but i very much doubt that i can be convinced that there's any path to get there, and I'll always be skeptical that the given idea will be as sweet as promised in practice. Revolution tends to pan out badly.
We are all motes in a complex system. The fact that we can perceive and reason about that system is a cosmic cruelty.
> We are all motes in a complex system. The fact that we can perceive and reason about that system is a cosmic cruelty.
I like how you put this. I feel the same. Effectively too self-aware and intelligent as a species still hooked into the same primitive nervous system as our ancestors and animal cousins.
I think the real lesson of the french revolution is that the petty nobility will run things right into the ground for a quick buck if you let them.
I don't think it was that the lower class was disenfranchised, it was that disenfranchising them made the petty nobility comparatively over-enfranchised.
This isn't exactly a hot take. All those memes about good times and weak men resonate for a reason. The British hereditary nobility did better, a little, but also were very much not great.
And of course there's a pretty obvious parallel between these groups of people the the professional managerial class in modern western societies that lack a rigid social class.
We are social animals not the god's replica, it means we got biases and one of the strongest is that we behave like a flock to ensure cohesion and shared responsibility to increase our survival.
So no people are influenced by everything, saying otherwise is preposterous, it's how we found out about PTSD which we didn't even believe at first to be psychological but physical hence the name shellshock.
The question is how much and what are the ultimate effects of the daily exposure to something.
I'm saying that in living memory we had campaign contribution limits (still do!) and we also had limits in outside groups buying advertising intended to swing elections. Maybe Trump's FEC wouldn't have enforced them but then campaigns have standing and can sue directly.
What you’re missing is that, yes, human minds are actually feeble in some ways. And you’re not even immune either!
Firstly, consider how freaking adaptable humans are. Even though you would hate moving somewhere with really poor living conditions, you would get used to some degree of it within several months or years. People have health problems they… just kinda get used to and ignore (which causes them problems down the road).
My point: it’s part of being human to adapt to your environment.
So here’s the problem: if you have enough money, you can influence other people’s environments. Specifically, their information environments. If your information environment is extremely negative and stressful, you’ll tend to feel more negative and stressed too.
And not to mention, have you heard about how the human brain is so susceptible to addiction when technology manipulates dopamine response? So social media companies are also manipulating your attention by spending money.
This isn’t some personal failing in you or me or anyone else. This is billionaires and tech giants manipulating very normal aspects of humanity to make more money and control politics.
Like, you’re seriously telling me there’s nothing wrong with billionaires buying up and merging nearly all of the media companies and newspapers in America? It’s just our feeble brains that are the problem?
Give me a break. The problem is that because of technology, anyone with enough money can very easily manipulate and influence the information we consume and the media we’re attentive to.
That gives a small number of people frankly too much power in a society. And your argument is that whoever “figures out” this hack of… having a lot of money… should have the right to control elections, because humans can’t be trusted.
I personally find that argument incoherent.
The real question is: why exactly should a society put up with a power dynamic that gives 99% of people less power and worse lives?
If one accepts your claim that elections are manipulated by the wealthy, then it makes no sense to give the government the ability to restrict what people are allowed to see or read before an election. Doing so would cement current power structures, not subvert them.
Your original comment on how humans function as a hyper-rationalized cognitive being, is just wrong. Cursory research into neuroscience, biology, psychology, medicine etc. would show how this idea has been proven to be entirely false. We are closer to proving there's no free-will, than to having total control.
Interesting that you ignore everything of substance in the excellent good-faith responses to your comment, especially the actually interesting parts in discussing new information outside your existing worldview. I can't see what picking up on a separate and almost irrelevant point to counter by declaring a non-obvious outcome, without giving any reasoning, achieves.
It's been 100 years since such a view and attitude towards people was popular.
But life was better in the 1990s when the government restricted the kinds of SuperPAC ads that are in common use today.
Furthermore, we can look at other democracies (Briton, Australia, Canada, France, Germany) and see how their campaign finance laws work in contrast to ours, as well as the level of debate / manipulation that occurs in those countries. Most are in agreement that SuperPACs would be considered full scale corruption in other countries.
Voters' minds are made deliberately feeble. Check the kind of thing taught in private religious schools paid for by public money in the US in strongly red areas, and you'll see a significant chunk of what that is. Creationism and millenarist biblical literalism are thoroughly enforced at all curricular levels and across all disciplines.
> Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you really think the Trump administration’s FEC would fairly decide which movies are allowed to be shown in the months before elections?
Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you think Trump would have won?
If Citizens United gone the other way, would Elon Musk be contributing $350 million in 2024 and $400 million in 2026?
Super-billionares / Trillionares are now favored by our political class because of Citizens United. Donald Trump, if he won, would have been off the backs of working class people and the whole Elon Musk / DOGE thing, as well as the whole Ukrainian Starlink disruption thing, probably would have never happened.
----------
The person on the throne matters far less than the system that surrounds the throne. Yes the person matters a little bit, but the system forces people into a specific shape. And will continue to force our leaders into that shape as long as we continue this system.
Some of that is just air time spend, that goes into the pockets of the not so liberal these days media. And other material spends.
Unfortunately a large part of that "wasted" money supports and feeds the underbelly of treasonous madness spewing peopogandist monsters, that also in many cases have kids to feed, college to pay for, and perhaps some ferraris to buy.
The Dems are kind of famous as the consultant class party and New Republic had a very good recent article pointing out what a massive spendy ecosystem this all is! They attribute 73% of all donation money as going to consultants. Not ad spends not staff or travel. https://newrepublic.com/article/216304/consulting-class-eati...
My gut expectation is that maybe it's not quite such a large base of so so many consultant shops, but that the GOP side is even more good ole boy networks with even more grift and even more very very well paid propogandists, willing to spin and spew the ridiculous anti-social fearmongering din they flood us with. This is a hop alway but the GOP has been in full grifter mode for a while now, and I expect the same below as we find above. Kristi Noem managed to spend $220m on a video promoting border security, with way less than a million for the shoot itself and $143m going to the primary, Safe America Media. Or the DHS radically overpaying for warehouse internment camps. https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/prairie-cor...https://www.propublica.org/article/kristi-noem-dhs-ad-campai...
These are bolder grift within the government itself, not SuperPACs which presumable are somewhat more effective. But I feel pretty strongly it's likely the din producing monsters are getting incredibly filthy rich from selling out America to these plutocratic insurrectionist Business Plot monsters. This money is alas fueling hell itself.
If you are taxed as a (lower than 100%) percentage of your donation, there's still a calculus that could make any amount worthwhile if leading to a lower percentage tax/higher percentage gain on your entire principal.
How does that dynamic work if the tax that is collected is used to publicly fund all candidates equally? There can be reasonable rules around parties/candidates having a basic threshold of nominations/support etc.
But this doesn't help with taxation of the rich. There are very few ways the rich can't easily dodge. Tying tax to something they actually spend money on and can't really hide it because of the scruitany on the spending of poliitcal parties would be one such additional way.
That would make it more expensive but still worth it for a billionaire who really cares about their favorite getting elected.
All of that money should go to lower funded candidates so spending above the limit becomes self defeating. Republican mega donors might end up supporting a small communist party more than their own.
Tax campaign related spending at 200% after you hit a limit, and distribute the money to smaller candidates so donating more becomes self defeating.
There is no hard cap and no limit on doing things that don't cost money so no one is ever prevented from speaking (that would open censorship challenges). It doesn't need to survive strict scrutiny because all candidates are treated equally making it viewpoint neutral topic discrimination. And Congress has a long established power to tax basically anything they want.
I believe Hawaii already has, by redefining what rights corporations have under their state constitution. If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good my friend. Closing a loophole that's done so much damage to the country is a good thing, even if there's another loophole waiting to be found.
The dynamic is that corpos are chartered/registered by states, both domestic (operating in the state its chartered in) and foreign (operating in a different state than where its chartered).
Federal regulation would make a mess of the idea due to preemption, eliminating the state regulatory option and leaving us with just the federal options of a Constitutional amendment or impeaching/replacing the Supreme Court and repudiating their openly corrupt precedent (decree).
Also the court follows laws. There are numerous cases where weird stuff happens with supreme court rulings only because congress never passed any law regarding whatever it is.
Yes, we need a vastly larger supreme court, probably with a reorganization such that there are smaller panels that hear cases, etc, like happens with other courts.
The current court is completely partisan and has zero judicial theory other than backing partisan power and oligarch power. They have the final say on how to interpret the constitution but reject the founding principles of the USA.
And far better checks on whether or not a SC member has been bought. There is so much evidence of this and yet everybody just sits around as if they couldn't possibly do anything about it. A politicized Supreme Court is worse than nothing because it concentrates insane power in the hand a few un-elected people.
There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions". Where is the line? Should every charity that "raises awareness" be banned? Should every sponsored Youtuber be forced out of political commentary? (I mean, I don't hate the idea completely ....)
There's the skeezy links behind organisations that support a political stance, and claim no real links to politicians. But we know that it's all kinda bs with strong links between the "nonaffiliated" "Political Action Committees" that claim to just represent causes and ideas, and the politicians who just happen to be close friends with the organisers. But it's rarely totally black and white.
> There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions".
There's a free speech issue to letting money make someone's speech be heard louder than others, making most other people's speech technically free, but inaudible.
Most countries have limitations on the broadcasting of political opinions and candidate support for periods before elections.
These laws don't work as well these days with the importance of social media (and it's mostly the same rich Americans that take advantage of this to meddle into European affairs) but at least the principle is there, while I think the fundamentalist way that the US interpret "free speech" prevents anything from being doable at all to curb the undue influence in politics that money can give.
> These laws don't work as well these days with the importance of social media
Indeed, as the UK is finding out at the moment, the existing rules are insufficient and it's turning out that a rule is only a rule if it is enforced anyway.
There’s a fact about the spend in this that’s so transparently obvious on the face of it that it hardly needs to be remarked upon, and yet the fact that the newspaper of record studiously refuses to remark upon it has led to its total omission from the political discourse, to the degree that both its blinding obviousness and the fact that it’s considered gauche to mention it mean we can’t really talk about what’s happening in our politics right now.
Sorry, was there a fact about the spend that you wanted to mention? I didn't see it in your post.
Maybe the newspaper of record also got distracted on the way to saying it because they treat the effect of elections as irrelevant and report on it like they're talking about drafting players for the NBA.
panick spending , panick politics, by the zionists and there allies.
the 1.2 billion is only the anty they must declare, the big spend is behind closed doors to outright steal whatever seats they can. All for a genocide cult with no future.
Every policy has winners and losers. There is no set of policy that any single voter supports entirely. Getting elected is a game of eliding over details so that you remain rosy-tinted and so that you don't get mauled on bikeshed details. Governing is a game of horse-trading to get as many policies that you like implemented with as few as you don't like.
In that context, no politician with perfect integrity can be successful. People with information but who lack nuance will always be outraged that their candidate sold out.
When you sarcastically call politicians scum, it adds no fucking information. The politician that you like cannot exist.
I have no difficulty with condemning anyone who joined Epstein in his crimes. I also have little difficulty in tolerating anyone who worked with him while unaware of his crimes. In between, there's an enormous grey area based on whether or not you shun people based on rumour. How many rumours went round your school, and how many of then did you believe?
If they have the money for this, they have the money to pay more in taxes.
Why do you think they're dumping money into the election?
Because they're greedy and self absorbed.
Because they see it as their civil duty. Or to pay less and make more. You can decide
Exactly. A large part of Kalama Harris's loss was her wealth tax point.
Fairly unlikely. Quite a few people in the US(60%) are in favour of a wealth tax.
For better or for worse, the narrative in the US is slowly shifting to class differences rather than the usual culture war dog whistle issues. No matter how much the ultra wealthy wring their hands and try to explain their plight, the people are less and less inclined to be sympathetic when they are seeing the full effects of the K shaped recovery we've been in since the GFC.
I think they are implying she lost not because a wealth tax is unpopular with voters, but unpopular with the rich people who buy elections to avoid paying taxes.
I rarely see discussions that bring up why money seems to always win elections.
I feel like people don't want to discuss this because the root cause is likely that people are easily manipulated by ads.
For any non-Americans reading this, note that saying "x% of Americans support [vaguely progressive policy] (i.e. universal healthcare, wealth tax, $15/hour minimum wage, mandatory paid family leave) is basically irrelevant to whether the policy will actually get passed. The US system of government is is intentionally and explicitly designed so politicians are not accountable to private opinion, and so the representatives of a small percentage of the population can stop legislation that is popular with the majority from getting passed.
The result of this design can be found in studies like https://archive.org/details/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_th... :
> When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
In every country the poor are less likely to vote. Bending democracy in their favour is what rich people do.
What I'm saying is that if you read about the history and creation of the US Constitution, the people who created it clearly and unambiguously expressed their distrust in giving too much political influence to the general public, and made limiting popular influence one of their main goals. Some examples of this are the way the Senate is apportioned and the 6-year Senate term, the Electoral College and the way that it's apportioned, how difficult it is to amend the Constitution, and the lifetime tenure of federal judges. If you're interested, there's a good paper going over the motivation behind the Constitution, how it was created, and how it was ratified: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3370359
Source ?
There are many, for example
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2026/10/28/tax-wealth...
The key thing here is to look at the trend over time, esp the last few years. There has been a steady rise in support for a wealth tax since the GFC, with a sharp rise in recent years.
It's difficult to relitigate this, but I put it to you that Trump #1 lost because COVID happened while he was President, and Biden lost because the post-COVID money fountain transitory inflation was particularly bad right at the end of his presidency, and a significant number of voters simply didn't notice that the Democrat candidate had changed (you can still see this even from punditry!)
Low info voters are very, very bad at dealing with causation. Either for events in the past or events in the future. They tend to follow an algorithm more like "has my life improved recently? Then incumbent, else challenger". Much of the rest is differential turnout. Especially when all the constituencies have been gerrymandered six ways from Sunday.
I guess we'll see in a couple of days. The voter verdict on Trump #2 does not look positive, and this is going to reflect on every candidate with an R by their name.
Even on this site, pundits such as yourself don’t notice that the candidate changed. Biden did not lose, he withdrew. Harris lost.
Kamala Harris lost because of the shady primary the democrats won. The public didn't like it. The USA assumed Donald Trump #2 would be similar to Donald Trump #1(Trump mostly golfing).
At least, that's my understanding.
> Kamala Harris lost because of the shady primary the democrats won.
I'd like to see some evidence for that being the reason Harris lost. I know maga was up in arms about it, but they weren't voting for her anyway.
I’m not “maga”, and I’m not eligible to vote anyway(not a US citizen) and there is no way I would have voted for her anyway.
You may consider how many potential voters the Democratic Party has lost through its anti democratic practices. There were no democratic processes to select her as the Democrats candidate. Similarly, Hillary was premiered via “super delegates” that took the vote from Bernie Sanders.
I believe we are seeing a similar fallout in these midterms for the republicans.
I think it’s far more likely that most voters are completely unaware of the inside baseball, and vote based on how they’re feeling about things that affect them personally. As Clinton said, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
I think Kamala Harris lost because she was the default candidate after Joe Biden, influenced by age-related bad judgement, insisted on running for a second term.
But I also think US presidents pick bad vice presidents on purpose, and that both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden himself were picked because they were bad presidential candidates.
There are two reasons why you would pick a bad vice president: one, probably the major one, is that the president gets to appease both the vice president's followers (hey, at least we got the vice president!) and the other losing candidates followers to some degree (hey, at least that vice president is so bad, they won't be a shoo-in as the president's successor!)
The other reason is that they want to discourage impeachment and assassinations. You may think that's stupid, but as my rule #1 says, powerful people believe all the stupid things regular people believe. So even if it is stupid, if we have thought about it, they have thought about it too.
And she lost because she is a woman (in a U.S. presidential election).
Trump #2 is only finishing what he started, the direction didn't change.
No, but the magnitude has changed.
> The USA assumed Donald Trump #2 would be similar to Donald Trump #1(Trump mostly golfing).
What are you talking about?
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why Iran started the nuclear arm race in the first place https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-iran-deal-then-and-now/
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why Putin got his hands on modern drone technology https://asiatimes.com/2026/02/irans-drones-giving-russia-a-c...
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why there's now a high tension in Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Korea%E2%80%93Unite... https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/17/politics/fact-check-trump...
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why the USA is so dependent on (now more and more expensive) oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_fi...
Donald Trump #1 is (one of) the reasons why Britain went through Brexit https://ukandeu.ac.uk/trump-and-brexit-two-nations-divided/
...etc.
He was definitely not "mostly golfing", he was actively destroying US allies and was actively helping US adversaries, and obvious from the Capitol incident that he already started building a fascist dictatorship.
I am not saying Donald Trump #1 was some success story. The damage he did was low-to-moderate, all things considered.
Now, the damage is beyond repair. The USA is fucked, on a downward spiral that will be difficult(near impossible) to correct.
> The damage he did was low-to-moderate, all things considered.
I don't think that's true. I'd say it was more like a Phantom Menace, like arming a ticking bomb with a postponed effect.
> Now, the damage is beyond repair. The USA is fucked, on a downward spiral that will be difficult(near impossible) to correct.
Yeah. Instead of MAGA, he managed to loose the USA's remaining superpower status in just a few years, that's some achievement history will surely remember.
But I don't think everything is lost, although extremely hard and might take at least a century or so to correct (assuming no further damages, that China won't take over and of course that there will still be a human civilization to speak of by the end of the century).
From the perspective of the architects of his policies, The Heritage Foundation, things are roughly going as they want, and these losses are a price worth to pay to ensure what they want to happen, happens.
Their perspective is relatively simple. Unhinged, but simple.
They believe the US is strictly incapable of remaining as the sole global superpower, and that due to cultural this and that, risks falling into a middle power or worse. Hence, they want to resuscitate the pre-WW1 notion of imperial Spheres of Influence, in which the world is carved between Great Powers that dominate their surroundings, and to make sure the US stays as one for decades to centuries. The US Sphere would be the Americas plus a small piece of Europe.
For this to work, a few things are needed:
a) The middle powers, and the weak countries, must all learn their place, that they have no real agency, that they must submit to the Great Power that dominates the sphere they're inserted into, and that if they revolt they're going to experience all manners of pain, from economic warfare to actual hot war in their territories.
b) The other strong countries must agree with this project, so although they're enemies on the long run, they must unite in the process of carving the world into those Spheres, and not to interfere too much with the other powers doing their own carving. Any current potential interference (Taiwan, Ukraine, Iran etc.) is a piece in the table to be used in negotiating the future frontiers between their Spheres.
c) And, internally, a shared culture, where the majority becomes supportive of this via the indoctrination appropriate to each case for the long run.
That's the gist of it. Everything else, including the public face of the implementation, are details that can be replaced as long as the overall strategy keeps advancing.
I scorn trump as much as the next socially-adjusted human, but this is overstated:
> he managed to loose the USA's remaining superpower status in just a few years
America is still the most powerful military force and the largest economy, and mickey mouse has recognition in places where they carry water from wells in pots. A beast that size keeps lumbering a long time after brain death.
Trump has shredded other nations' trust in America as a partner, but he has not made it possible to ignore. Ignoble but not ignorable.
If we run the clock forward, then declining arms exports due to sovereignty concerns wool make the USian defence industry harder to sustain. But that takes decades to play out.
The damage was small because other countries assumed he’d be a 1 term president.
Like Iran didn’t retaliate for US assassinating their leaders in term 1.
But also because every day builds on the previous one. His first year he hadn’t figured out he could use CBP (ICE) to remove US citizens from protests but by year 4 he had figured it out.
I think you misunderstand the direction of the trade.
Interestingly enough Democrats raised $2.3B and Republicans raised $0.2B last presidential election cycle (1), it’s clear that the more monied party are the Democrats, my take here is that the Republicans are either more grassroots and don’t need to convince as many Americans to vote for them or they are far more efficient with capital during campaigns. PAC spending was also within 9.7% of one another in 2024 (2).
1- https://www.fec.gov/data/raising-bythenumbers/ 2 - https://academic.oup.com/psq/article/140/3/439/8157144?utm_s...
Democrats spent closer to $6.7B in 2024, Republicans outspent them at $7.6B.
Dunno what is wrong with your numbers, but they're significantly undercounting, and likely [deliberately] excluding all the SuperPAC money that Republicans got from megadonors.
(Musk alone spent $290M on the 2024 election, so your $0.2B number is ludicrously low)
I’m personally very data-driven so if you have a source, I would be happy to have it reviewed. I do think fundraising and PAC money is counted separately but that’s counted in the second source in my parent comment.
It’s true that there were very high individual contributions during the 2024 election cycle and I think this could be somewhat attributed to the assertion that these donors face a targeted existential threat and as self interested actors they’re contributing to candidates who will mitigate risk and impacts.
I also did notice that between 2022 and 2024 there’s a flipping of the script where George Soros in 2022 was the top donor (1) but was then replaced by a donor for the Republicans in 2024. Of course I think the top donors always make themselves subjects for management at newspapers to delegate to their employees to report on. We can ask why the script flipped, perhaps the Democrats have been losing wealthy donor or perhaps the Democrats had a fragile strategy that depended on a wealthy donor who transferred power to his son who donates less.
I think the best question to ask is “How do we as Americans ensure that each individual voter has the fairest voting power and has equal and sufficient access to relevant information and is educated enough to make an informed voting decision with sufficient judgment.”
1 - https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-hub/contributors?tab=b...
Not sure why that dataset excludes the Republican candidate that ultimately won that election, but it does.
Edit - sorry he's there, but showing as the 13th highest raising candidate w/ $3.8MM raised (compared the $2.3B from the Democratic incumbents).
Which underscores the point - most of the money being deployed for that candidate isn't reflected in those numbers.
Wouldn’t it be great if all the money Musk dumped into this election was wasted? I guess it’s still not that much money for him, but the repudiation of these tactics would be wonderful.
It won't be.
Musk largely dumped the money into the election to prove to everyone he can keep dumping money perpetually into every election. Its a pain to deal with $400 Million this year, but can you imagine 2028, 2030 or 2032? Its going to be a constant onslaught until we figure out a way to mitigate Citizens United vs FEC
Even if Democrats win, Musk has proven that his money is now part of our political system moving forward.
With the executive powers that the Supreme Court has allowed Trump, the next president could simply nationalize SpaceX.
Of course the Supreme Court will change its mind about executive powers soon after the next election, because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
That's why you need the Polish solution: https://notesfrompoland.com/2026/10/30/chaos-at-polands-cons...
(Judge unconstitutionally refuses to accept appointment of other judges, situation escalates into a proper physical "lock the doors vs storm the building" conflict.)
> because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
I assume the /s was implied?
Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you really think the Trump administration’s FEC would fairly decide which movies are allowed to be shown in the months before elections? Because that’s the power that law granted the government.
If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda, then the problem is the voters, not the propaganda. Anyone so easily manipulated can’t be trusted to decide who is in power. It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.
I note that in the UK political parties just .. aren't allowed to run TV ads at all, but have a set of broadcast slots allocated for free to them. This certainly makes it a lot quieter. While there are serious problems with UK libel law, it also restricts ability to run the levels of overt "Jim eats puppies" libel that is seen in US elections.
Total UK spend in 2024 was about £70m or about £1 per citizen. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
> It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.
Even in the US free speech does not allow you to simply sell fraudulent goods and services. There has to be some sort of defense in the system against lying, or the entire process just turns into competing to write the worst fantasy about your opponent.
Selling fraudulent goods & services is a violation of copyright or contract law, not free speech laws. Putting a UL logo on a product not tested by UL means you are violating their copyright. And you can claim your product does almost anything, but if someone buys it and it doesn’t, and it can be shown that you deliberately misled them, then you can get in trouble.
Both of these examples are nowhere close to the power given to the government before Citizens United: a censor who chooses what people are allowed to read or hear in the months before elections. Unlike copyright or contract law, the punishment was before the fact, not after. And it applied to films people paid to see, not just ads.
The SC could have made a way more limited finding about movies without unleashing the superPAC hell we find ourselves in. Why did a case about a limited run movie enable people to run ads during football games?
> If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda
Buddy, advertising works, there is a reason why coca-cola does it.
If you don't think people can decide whether statements made in ads are true or false, then why trust them to decide who makes & enforces laws? Either they're rational adults or they're not.
You're saying you want Trump's FEC to decide what ads can be shown during a football game. Do you really think that would be an improvement?
> then why trust them to decide who makes & enforces laws?
Firstly, it's not black and white: humans are swayed by propaganda, but not entirely.
Historically:
We tried feudalism, and we have run limited experiments with one-party states.
Classical republics with a citizen class might obviate the fuckwit-voter problem somewhat; but the French Revolution made the idea of a political underclass unpalatable, and I'm not sure the conditions still hold. Classical Athenian education was sufficient to prepare the gentry for the problems of classical Athens; society today has more moving parts.
Benevolent and wise dictatorship would be nice, but the "benevolent" and "wise" parts may be unrealistic expectation.
I like anarchy, but i don't believe it scales to nation size.
I am open to being convinced that some given form of government would be ideal, but i very much doubt that i can be convinced that there's any path to get there, and I'll always be skeptical that the given idea will be as sweet as promised in practice. Revolution tends to pan out badly.
We are all motes in a complex system. The fact that we can perceive and reason about that system is a cosmic cruelty.
> We are all motes in a complex system. The fact that we can perceive and reason about that system is a cosmic cruelty.
I like how you put this. I feel the same. Effectively too self-aware and intelligent as a species still hooked into the same primitive nervous system as our ancestors and animal cousins.
I think the real lesson of the french revolution is that the petty nobility will run things right into the ground for a quick buck if you let them.
I don't think it was that the lower class was disenfranchised, it was that disenfranchising them made the petty nobility comparatively over-enfranchised.
This isn't exactly a hot take. All those memes about good times and weak men resonate for a reason. The British hereditary nobility did better, a little, but also were very much not great.
And of course there's a pretty obvious parallel between these groups of people the the professional managerial class in modern western societies that lack a rigid social class.
This is not as black and white as you portray it to be.
Humans are inherently irrational, but that doesn't mean they can't make good decisions as a group [0].
But we can also be convinced to not trust our own eyes, at least in the short term.
[0]The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (2004) is a great book covering this idea.
We are social animals not the god's replica, it means we got biases and one of the strongest is that we behave like a flock to ensure cohesion and shared responsibility to increase our survival.
So no people are influenced by everything, saying otherwise is preposterous, it's how we found out about PTSD which we didn't even believe at first to be psychological but physical hence the name shellshock.
The question is how much and what are the ultimate effects of the daily exposure to something.
I'm saying that in living memory we had campaign contribution limits (still do!) and we also had limits in outside groups buying advertising intended to swing elections. Maybe Trump's FEC wouldn't have enforced them but then campaigns have standing and can sue directly.
What you’re missing is that, yes, human minds are actually feeble in some ways. And you’re not even immune either!
Firstly, consider how freaking adaptable humans are. Even though you would hate moving somewhere with really poor living conditions, you would get used to some degree of it within several months or years. People have health problems they… just kinda get used to and ignore (which causes them problems down the road).
My point: it’s part of being human to adapt to your environment.
So here’s the problem: if you have enough money, you can influence other people’s environments. Specifically, their information environments. If your information environment is extremely negative and stressful, you’ll tend to feel more negative and stressed too.
And not to mention, have you heard about how the human brain is so susceptible to addiction when technology manipulates dopamine response? So social media companies are also manipulating your attention by spending money.
This isn’t some personal failing in you or me or anyone else. This is billionaires and tech giants manipulating very normal aspects of humanity to make more money and control politics.
Like, you’re seriously telling me there’s nothing wrong with billionaires buying up and merging nearly all of the media companies and newspapers in America? It’s just our feeble brains that are the problem?
Give me a break. The problem is that because of technology, anyone with enough money can very easily manipulate and influence the information we consume and the media we’re attentive to.
That gives a small number of people frankly too much power in a society. And your argument is that whoever “figures out” this hack of… having a lot of money… should have the right to control elections, because humans can’t be trusted.
I personally find that argument incoherent.
The real question is: why exactly should a society put up with a power dynamic that gives 99% of people less power and worse lives?
If one accepts your claim that elections are manipulated by the wealthy, then it makes no sense to give the government the ability to restrict what people are allowed to see or read before an election. Doing so would cement current power structures, not subvert them.
Your original comment on how humans function as a hyper-rationalized cognitive being, is just wrong. Cursory research into neuroscience, biology, psychology, medicine etc. would show how this idea has been proven to be entirely false. We are closer to proving there's no free-will, than to having total control.
Interesting that you ignore everything of substance in the excellent good-faith responses to your comment, especially the actually interesting parts in discussing new information outside your existing worldview. I can't see what picking up on a separate and almost irrelevant point to counter by declaring a non-obvious outcome, without giving any reasoning, achieves.
It's been 100 years since such a view and attitude towards people was popular.
But life was better in the 1990s when the government restricted the kinds of SuperPAC ads that are in common use today.
Furthermore, we can look at other democracies (Briton, Australia, Canada, France, Germany) and see how their campaign finance laws work in contrast to ours, as well as the level of debate / manipulation that occurs in those countries. Most are in agreement that SuperPACs would be considered full scale corruption in other countries.
Voters' minds are made deliberately feeble. Check the kind of thing taught in private religious schools paid for by public money in the US in strongly red areas, and you'll see a significant chunk of what that is. Creationism and millenarist biblical literalism are thoroughly enforced at all curricular levels and across all disciplines.
> Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you really think the Trump administration’s FEC would fairly decide which movies are allowed to be shown in the months before elections?
Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you think Trump would have won?
Yes, he would have won. Clinton & PACs spent almost twice as much as him in 2016. In 2024, Biden/Harris spent 2.5x more than him.
That's not the point.
If Citizens United gone the other way, would Elon Musk be contributing $350 million in 2024 and $400 million in 2026?
Super-billionares / Trillionares are now favored by our political class because of Citizens United. Donald Trump, if he won, would have been off the backs of working class people and the whole Elon Musk / DOGE thing, as well as the whole Ukrainian Starlink disruption thing, probably would have never happened.
----------
The person on the throne matters far less than the system that surrounds the throne. Yes the person matters a little bit, but the system forces people into a specific shape. And will continue to force our leaders into that shape as long as we continue this system.
> And will continue to force our leaders into that shape as long as we continue this system.
What system? Seriously, there are infinite number of systems, it's not a binary choice despite what the ms media and some politicians are claiming.
Some of that is just air time spend, that goes into the pockets of the not so liberal these days media. And other material spends.
Unfortunately a large part of that "wasted" money supports and feeds the underbelly of treasonous madness spewing peopogandist monsters, that also in many cases have kids to feed, college to pay for, and perhaps some ferraris to buy.
The Dems are kind of famous as the consultant class party and New Republic had a very good recent article pointing out what a massive spendy ecosystem this all is! They attribute 73% of all donation money as going to consultants. Not ad spends not staff or travel. https://newrepublic.com/article/216304/consulting-class-eati...
My gut expectation is that maybe it's not quite such a large base of so so many consultant shops, but that the GOP side is even more good ole boy networks with even more grift and even more very very well paid propogandists, willing to spin and spew the ridiculous anti-social fearmongering din they flood us with. This is a hop alway but the GOP has been in full grifter mode for a while now, and I expect the same below as we find above. Kristi Noem managed to spend $220m on a video promoting border security, with way less than a million for the shoot itself and $143m going to the primary, Safe America Media. Or the DHS radically overpaying for warehouse internment camps. https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/prairie-cor... https://www.propublica.org/article/kristi-noem-dhs-ad-campai...
These are bolder grift within the government itself, not SuperPACs which presumable are somewhat more effective. But I feel pretty strongly it's likely the din producing monsters are getting incredibly filthy rich from selling out America to these plutocratic insurrectionist Business Plot monsters. This money is alas fueling hell itself.
This is an old article. Musk has spent close to half a billion himself this election cycle.
Establishing a wealth tax based on the rolling 10 prior years worth of PAC donations would feel somewhat fitting. A basis point per $50k or something.
You could just tax political donations or political ads. I'd suggest 50% federal tax, 25% state tax, and 25% local tax.
If you are taxed as a (lower than 100%) percentage of your donation, there's still a calculus that could make any amount worthwhile if leading to a lower percentage tax/higher percentage gain on your entire principal.
How does that dynamic work if the tax that is collected is used to publicly fund all candidates equally? There can be reasonable rules around parties/candidates having a basic threshold of nominations/support etc.
Maybe donations to political parties could be just taxed at 200% (technically ~76% but 200 sounds better)?
To give a million to any party you have to pay 2 in tax.
Even better, tax progressively. 0% under $100, 200% above $1000.
I think the key thing is to make the tax payment a fraction of the donor's excessive wealth, rather than a multiple of the payment.
Musk dumping $360M into a political race is trivial to him. Making it cost three times as much to make the donation isn't a huge factor.
Making contributions have an impact on the donors total wealth will democratize these massive campaign spends.
What other countries do is cap the max an individual can donate at like $1500 or something. Works fine.
I don't know why this wouldn't be reasonable for the USA.
But this doesn't help with taxation of the rich. There are very few ways the rich can't easily dodge. Tying tax to something they actually spend money on and can't really hide it because of the scruitany on the spending of poliitcal parties would be one such additional way.
That would make it more expensive but still worth it for a billionaire who really cares about their favorite getting elected.
All of that money should go to lower funded candidates so spending above the limit becomes self defeating. Republican mega donors might end up supporting a small communist party more than their own.
We can't stop them using money for influencing politics. But this way the society could get a fair residual from that activity.
Is there any viable road to campaign finance reform that is also constitutional?
Tax campaign related spending at 200% after you hit a limit, and distribute the money to smaller candidates so donating more becomes self defeating.
There is no hard cap and no limit on doing things that don't cost money so no one is ever prevented from speaking (that would open censorship challenges). It doesn't need to survive strict scrutiny because all candidates are treated equally making it viewpoint neutral topic discrimination. And Congress has a long established power to tax basically anything they want.
I believe Hawaii already has, by redefining what rights corporations have under their state constitution. If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
> If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
Or it creates an entirely new problem. People like this don't just go away after hitting a single roadblock.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good my friend. Closing a loophole that's done so much damage to the country is a good thing, even if there's another loophole waiting to be found.
If it isn't done federally then it isn't done.
The dynamic is that corpos are chartered/registered by states, both domestic (operating in the state its chartered in) and foreign (operating in a different state than where its chartered).
Federal regulation would make a mess of the idea due to preemption, eliminating the state regulatory option and leaving us with just the federal options of a Constitutional amendment or impeaching/replacing the Supreme Court and repudiating their openly corrupt precedent (decree).
> If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
If we just change the rules, the game will stay exactly the same? Sorry, but this awfully naive.
That's how all changes to the law work... First you change it, then you enforce it.
There always was. You just have to make sure your Supreme Court isn't bought and paid for by the same people who wish to buy elections.
Also the court follows laws. There are numerous cases where weird stuff happens with supreme court rulings only because congress never passed any law regarding whatever it is.
Yes, we need a vastly larger supreme court, probably with a reorganization such that there are smaller panels that hear cases, etc, like happens with other courts.
The current court is completely partisan and has zero judicial theory other than backing partisan power and oligarch power. They have the final say on how to interpret the constitution but reject the founding principles of the USA.
And far better checks on whether or not a SC member has been bought. There is so much evidence of this and yet everybody just sits around as if they couldn't possibly do anything about it. A politicized Supreme Court is worse than nothing because it concentrates insane power in the hand a few un-elected people.
There are no checks because (US) Supreme Court judges aren't subject to any laws making non declaration of gifted RV's and expensive holidays illegal.
That said - yes, they need anti corruption / bribery regulation, fixed terms, and those terms to be co-prime wrt political fixed terms.
* https://www.abc.net.au/science/archive/articles/2001/11/27/4...
What do you want to ban?
There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions". Where is the line? Should every charity that "raises awareness" be banned? Should every sponsored Youtuber be forced out of political commentary? (I mean, I don't hate the idea completely ....)
There's the skeezy links behind organisations that support a political stance, and claim no real links to politicians. But we know that it's all kinda bs with strong links between the "nonaffiliated" "Political Action Committees" that claim to just represent causes and ideas, and the politicians who just happen to be close friends with the organisers. But it's rarely totally black and white.
> There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions".
There's a free speech issue to letting money make someone's speech be heard louder than others, making most other people's speech technically free, but inaudible.
Most countries have limitations on the broadcasting of political opinions and candidate support for periods before elections.
These laws don't work as well these days with the importance of social media (and it's mostly the same rich Americans that take advantage of this to meddle into European affairs) but at least the principle is there, while I think the fundamentalist way that the US interpret "free speech" prevents anything from being doable at all to curb the undue influence in politics that money can give.
> These laws don't work as well these days with the importance of social media
Indeed, as the UK is finding out at the moment, the existing rules are insufficient and it's turning out that a rule is only a rule if it is enforced anyway.
The authors of the First Amendment were not ignorant of the “volume” afforded by expensive printing presses.
Truth in advertising laws.
Allow civil suits when promises made aren't kept.
for US politics to go back to normal - there should be a limit on the money a candidate can raise from donors.
no more PACs. limit ad-runs to two a day.
because the ads are just lies and hogwash - they don't even spread ideas or inform voters.
I aggressively block all online ads and I still get these political ads coming through, a dozen a day, to my mobile number. It’s insufferable.
who actually can defend this being good for our society? (that’s not affiliated with a super pac)
https://archive.ph/hYaHF
How is Elon Musk only being reported as $90M when other sources say it’s more than $400M+? Seems like this is a big discrepancy.
Example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/...
It's a two month old article - the reporting on Musks contributions is more recent.
Ohh that makes sense. I believe talking about the recent numbers is more appropriate because a lot of money pours in towards the end.
There’s a fact about the spend in this that’s so transparently obvious on the face of it that it hardly needs to be remarked upon, and yet the fact that the newspaper of record studiously refuses to remark upon it has led to its total omission from the political discourse, to the degree that both its blinding obviousness and the fact that it’s considered gauche to mention it mean we can’t really talk about what’s happening in our politics right now.
Helluva world we’ve written ourselves into.
They do call out the fact that the megadonors are overwhelmingly Republican about halfway down the article.
Sorry, was there a fact about the spend that you wanted to mention? I didn't see it in your post.
Maybe the newspaper of record also got distracted on the way to saying it because they treat the effect of elections as irrelevant and report on it like they're talking about drafting players for the NBA.
Musk isn't Jewish, if that's what you're insinuating.
panick spending , panick politics, by the zionists and there allies. the 1.2 billion is only the anty they must declare, the big spend is behind closed doors to outright steal whatever seats they can. All for a genocide cult with no future.
Let me guess, they are all really nice people with no links to Epstein between them /s
Every policy has winners and losers. There is no set of policy that any single voter supports entirely. Getting elected is a game of eliding over details so that you remain rosy-tinted and so that you don't get mauled on bikeshed details. Governing is a game of horse-trading to get as many policies that you like implemented with as few as you don't like.
In that context, no politician with perfect integrity can be successful. People with information but who lack nuance will always be outraged that their candidate sold out.
When you sarcastically call politicians scum, it adds no fucking information. The politician that you like cannot exist.
I have no difficulty with condemning anyone who joined Epstein in his crimes. I also have little difficulty in tolerating anyone who worked with him while unaware of his crimes. In between, there's an enormous grey area based on whether or not you shun people based on rumour. How many rumours went round your school, and how many of then did you believe?