All of that is already happening.
A handful of Oligarchs are using their TV stations, ‘news’ outlets, newspapers, Social Media outlets, etc… to affect the elections for their benefit.
You are afraid of something that is all ready happening.
No I am afraid you seem to want to remove the counter to it, which involves concerned citizen groups raising money to put their concerns forward on an equal footing and leave only the mechanisms affordable only to the very very rich.
1 Like
The money donated by citizens is largely driven by the oligarchs who control the media.
You aren’t paying attention, dinosaur media is dying, people are getting their news, journalism and commentary from substack and podcasts now. Which is why the big push for censorship under the banner of misinfo. As an example, Breaking Points, a subscriber youtube channel, crushes CNN ratings on the regular, beholden to no corporation.
1 Like
Sure you do.
This is less of a policy thing and more of a fundamental reaction thing: Generally, conservatives have a reflexive response to issues of fairness, free-ridery, etc. The idea that somewhere, someone might game public benefits or services or money, or whatever, is unbearable (I also think their targets for this ire are usually wrong, too, but that’s for another thread). This is primary. It’s often presented in anecdotes (e.g., the power and persistence of the Welfare Queen). On the surface at least, it makes sense.
I get it. It’s an understandable response. (I even hated group projects in school because of this: there’d always be some deadbeat.)
But how we contextualize it, understand it in the aggregate, and try to view it dispassionately as a matter of rational, efficient public policy—that’s where the difference is.
It reminds me of that “Dukakis” moment in the '88 debates: the old chestnut where you ask an anti-death penalty person how they would feel if their (insert sympathetic female family member) were raped and murdered. Well, duh. It would be horrific and devastating. We’d probably be inconsolable and furious with grief and anger and a desire for vengeance.
But getting from those understandable feelings to general support for the death penalty is problematic. First and foremost, I don’t think our laws and justice system should be grounded in amygdalas flooded with neurochemicals and incapable of judgement and discernment. In fact, it’s because of that response that I am against the death penalty (not the only reason).
Sure. Degrees of separation.
Yes.
Entity to force change of course
Of course. Do they owe you something? Don’t you demand the exact same thing?
Where does the money come from?
Thanks. Can you highlight the word “debate” please?
Where does the money come from? More mandates?
“The fed” doesn’t have its own money.
How?
…
Good post.
Swell.
How much money does big oil, big tech, big pharma et al donate to campaigns, and how is that all working out for us right now? You good with the cozy reationship between these corps and our lawmakers?
Were I in congress I would take it from the miltary budget. You can run dozens of national campaigns for the price of a few cruise missiles.
From taxpayers then, including corporations.
Silly question. Why wouldn’t that relationship be of more benefit to shareholders who are only interested in earnings on their “investments?” More profits equals higher dividends. They’ve been gaming the system for years and milking workers for every penny they can get. You’re going to take their advice now when they’re literally the reason the system is broken in the first place?
And they would get a drop in the bucket that could never compete with media corp money.
