politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Before someone else mentions it:
Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money, but until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter. Plus there being more small donors is good news since it helps campaigns be less reliant on big money
You either play by the rules of the game to change the rules of the game or just lose by default.
Needs?
Biden spent over a billion and Kamala will dwarf that.
And even with that much money. We're still just punting a bunch of states.
If over a billion dollars isn't enough to run a full court press, how much is?
Like. At what point would you say they have enough money and the priority should shift to getting votes and not money?
I legitimately can't figure out how that much is "spent" except as a feedback loop to get more donations. A never ending hamster wheel where regular Americans are priced out of influence because a billionaire can give 960k to the "victory fund"
How many small donors are able to even come close to the actual 2.something thousand?
We can't do shit about getting money out of the general yet, but the reason is u til we get it out of Dem primaries, the majority who make it to the general won't want to ban it.
The only way to fix everything is to fix the dem party first.
* the biggest reason being that the Supreme Court overturned a prior law to stop super pacs from having unlimited spending in Citizen United. Sure, maybe Congress could pass the same law again only for the court to overturn it 6-3
You have to fix the Supreme Court for that. It'd be difficult to regulate spending in primaries either because money is "free speech" according to them
What happens to all of this money after she stops campaigning?
It's great she's getting support, but how much money does someone really need to run for office, and what is all of it spent on?
Unspent campaign money is a whole thing but it usually gets transferred to a future campaign, other candidates, state/local/national party, or used to create a “Leadership PAC,” which is like a slush fund to donate to peers. A more honest example of a Leadership PAC might be someone with unusual star power (like AOC) raising a shitload of money in a safe seat and so using funds to donate to progressive candidates in tougher races. A shadier example might be the Speaker of the House using their fundraising ability to let people know that if they expect a donation, he or she expects their vote on a bill. And I’m sure you can imagine a thousand undeniably corrupt ways to use a Leadership PAC.
They could also refund donors or donate to a real charity if they’re done with politics or trying to stay in donors’ good graces for the next try. But that’s not what ambitious politicians (basically all of them) typically do.
But unless a candidate drops out or is in a safe seat, they really do try to spend every dollar that comes in almost as it comes in. There’s a very good likelihood a candidate ends up in the red at the end of the campaign and has to solicit donations even after the race is over to pay vendors, staff, etc.
Interesting. Thank you.
https://gprivate.com/6d8n4
I'm not clicking on a random link that looks like that, sorry.
Yes, needs.
Unfortunately, that's needed.
The problem is it's an arms race. After Citizens United opened the doors, Republicans got flooded with money from secret corporate donations.
Dems need to match that, else they can't afford to campaign on an even playing ground with the GOP.
I mean this comment from the OP was insightful,
Moving on..
Everything is kinda ambitious. How about just reversing Citizens United and getting campaigns back down to a reasonable amount of spend first?
I wonder if one shared and split pot of money for campaigning would help but guess you'd need some way to let individuals support their personal choice
There already sort of is one in the US for candidates who exceed a certain threshold of the vote. It comes with spending limits that could be exceeded by a lot by raising money outside it, so parties stopped taking it. Plus tax payers have to opt into doing it, and the rates of people doing so have dropped over time
If you've ever filed US income taxes and seen the question
"Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund"
That's what it's referring to