Lots of people might also think that it's perfectly normal in a democracy that you can buy your personal congressman, a supreme court judge or even a presidential candidate. This has a long tradition especially in the US and is probably kinda normalized by now for some strange reason. I think it can't be wrong to emphasize that this is neither normal nor desirable in a functioning democracy.
I think that might be a little bit worse, because money donated directly to a candidate could be used for personal enrichment rather than just improving chances of election, making becoming a politician to solicit bribes a more viable business.
Presumably for the same reason that obviously corrupt constitutional judges cannot be removed from office or even be prosecuted: It's in the US system. It's a system that has more of a plutocracy than a democracy for the people - it's been that way for a long time; especially since Reagan undid many of Truman's "new deal" reforms.
It always seemed to me like some ambitious lawyer could leverage the Citizens United decision to say that if speech is money, and in a democracy everyone should have an equal voice, that wealth inequality is unconstitutional.
this will be right after it is decided that it is, and only is, trained and organized state militias (i.e. present day national guards) with rights granted in the 2nd.
This class of corruption that is acceptable and has extended to the Supreme Court in tandem with regulatory capture has resulted in a system of governance that is pretty much totally owned by monied interests. Difficult to see how this toothpaste will grow back in the tube short of some awful events and times for everyone.
Statistically campaign funding is a pretty good indicator of which side wins, iirc companies like cambridge analytica were even rumoured to offer money back garauntees if they couldn't win you the election.
Was anyone still on the fence about that?
Lots of people are busy with their lives and don’t have time to connect all the dots
Keep them busy. Keep them entertained. Keep them afraid. Keep them ignorant. Profit.
This is why asshats say "empty hands are the devil's tools".
Bread and circuses
That's by design.
Lots of people might also think that it's perfectly normal in a democracy that you can buy your personal congressman, a supreme court judge or even a presidential candidate. This has a long tradition especially in the US and is probably kinda normalized by now for some strange reason. I think it can't be wrong to emphasize that this is neither normal nor desirable in a functioning democracy.
I've been called a cOnSpIrAcY theorist for less.
How does Musk get away with that then?
The loophole is the super-pac is legally not trump's campaign. It's an independent organization that just happens to promote trump's campaign.
Citizens United.
Yep, the supreme court has potentially done more to fuck up America than even Reagan.
That’s saying a fucking lot. And oh my god I think you might be right, after the last few years.
Never heard this comparison before but it is truly depressing to think about.
Combined with SpeechNow.
Citizens United made it so anyone can essentially Incognito Mode additional donations forever.
But SpeechNow rules this does not cause an electoral problem, so why not just make donating money protected First Amendment speech.
I think that might be a little bit worse, because money donated directly to a candidate could be used for personal enrichment rather than just improving chances of election, making becoming a politician to solicit bribes a more viable business.
Presumably for the same reason that obviously corrupt constitutional judges cannot be removed from office or even be prosecuted: It's in the US system. It's a system that has more of a plutocracy than a democracy for the people - it's been that way for a long time; especially since Reagan undid many of Truman's "new deal" reforms.
Lol! You thought you were living in a democracy?
It always seemed to me like some ambitious lawyer could leverage the Citizens United decision to say that if speech is money, and in a democracy everyone should have an equal voice, that wealth inequality is unconstitutional.
this will be right after it is decided that it is, and only is, trained and organized state militias (i.e. present day national guards) with rights granted in the 2nd.
One can hope.
There's lots of money in politics.
This class of corruption that is acceptable and has extended to the Supreme Court in tandem with regulatory capture has resulted in a system of governance that is pretty much totally owned by monied interests. Difficult to see how this toothpaste will grow back in the tube short of some awful events and times for everyone.
Where is the video or xTwitter Post of Elon saying this? Or the leaked documents showing he is donating... can't find it anywhere...
Unless the most money can guarantee someone to win, how is it an oligarchy or an auction?
Statistically campaign funding is a pretty good indicator of which side wins, iirc companies like cambridge analytica were even rumoured to offer money back garauntees if they couldn't win you the election.