Good news for the humans.
Why does Biden’s average donation of 44 dollars make him not a small donor only candidate and Bernie’s average donation of 18 dollars makes him a small donor only candidate?
What is the difference if Biden gets the maximum aggregate (total of all donations by a donor) all at once or if Bernie supporters give many small donations that total up to the same aggregate amount?
The size of the donations do not determine the size of the donor. That determination must be made from the total contributions.
Any candidate that takes more than 200 dollars in total from any donor is not a small donor only candidate.
The lesson to be learned from the information in the article is not to support candidates pretending to be small donor only candidates, but that we can fund real small donor only candidates and can demand that candidates be real small donor only candidates.
Frontrunner Joe™ sez:
“We’ve got to save capitalism from (Chump).”
Yes, by all means, let’s save cancer from a single malignant cell.
We need to go much, much further in restricting big money in politics. However, nothing can happen until we amend the U. S. Constitution to say that money is NOT speech, and corporations are NOT people. If we can do that, then we can take the next step into taking control of our politics for average people. We need to ban all but actual, live human citizens of age from participating in politics and elections, at very limited financial levels that average citizens could hope to have the money to contribute.
Since the average American citizen NEVER makes a political contribution (and I believe it’s like over 90% never do), I am advocating for a system where only individuals may participate in raising and donating money to campaigns, in highly limited ways and amounts. No more PACs, or SuperPACs, or bundles of cash. A citizen of age should only be allowed to donate $100 per candidate or issue, per cycle, to a candidate or issue that will appear on their personal ballot only. Period. Think that will make campaigns cost a lot less, and free up a lot of air time during campaign seasons? That would put politics into the hands of average people (not back into them, because we’ve never controlled them).
NPR had a sound bite this morning of Biden responding to Trump’s latest statements. Biden’s own words in Biden’s own voice were “I’m not going anywhere.”
I guess he’s right!
I agree that big money is a problem, but the solution is not easy.
Case 1: My Congresscritter is unopposed, so there’s nothing for me to do here - but I sure would like to support the members of the Squad, and they will need plenty of help. Your proposal would prohibit contributions from me to them.
Case 2: When many Americans can’t afford an unexpected medical bill of $400, people who can give $100 to a politician are relatively rich, even if they are not super-rich. Why should the relatively-rich have more influence than the not-rich? Money is still speech, even at smaller amounts.
Case 3: If I collect one five-dollar check for Bernie from each of my ten neighbors and mail those checks to him, I will have broken the campaign finance law. That doesn’t seem right.
Case 4: Corporations, KochBros, and think-tanks can do what they do now, which is to run “issue” ads. The ads can easily dovetail with the campaign of a right-winger without any direct coordination. How severely are you willing to restrict free speech?
I think that the best place to start on this problem is with Brandeis’s remark. That means that we reduce concentrations of great wealth.
I know that this comment will draw the fury of the regulars here, even though my previous posts clearly establish that I favor Bernie and the Green Party - so I’m going to hide under my bed for a few days.
This is one rational for making a hard LEFT turn.
Just as a point of example here. Here in Canada there strict limits on what a Corporation or even an individual can contribute as a political donation to our respective Political parties. There also tight rules on what is deemed advocacy groups , that being groups that form that pretend to be independent but are running ads on the behalf of a given policy platform.
Those that read these boards will remember the article on Green Peace and other environmentalist groups operating here in Canada where elections Canada suggested if the advocate for the environment during the election process it could be deemed as a violation of the laws.
Last night, a guest on messnbc stated that foreign contributions to american candidates are illegal. Thinking back, how does this effect people who are assigned to USA as plant mangers, for example. They are visited by local politicians for donations. Are they permitted to contribute?
How about folks who hold dual citizenships?
Immigrants, refugees, visa students, status H4 and H1B1, employer sponsored immigrants. Heck, every corner store and gas station around is franchised or owned by immigrants here.
Hope that some clarity arrives today on who may donate legally.
Saw an ad last night against freshman House member Elissa Slotkin, a Dem moderate.
The RNC-sponsored ad tied her to The Squad and the impeachment inquiry – in boldly negative terms.
Going totally negative 13 months out. It gets uglier every year.
Yes–and what’s even worse is that the years seem to be getting longer. Here in the US, one campaign season bleeds into another with no respite, while in the UK, for just one example, elections run about 8 weeks from start to finish, aside from which real people have real lives and all.
So does that mean that the Brits have less “democracy” than we do, just because they have less “speech?” Or is it a case of our having too much? And, if so, who benefits? The two capitalist parties–and their well-paid armies of consultants and pollsters–who have all the time in the world to tweak their messages, select their candidates and prepare the minds of the elecorate, on the one hand; and, on the other, the corporate media, whose lifeblood is all that ad money–er, “speech”–flowing like a mighty river through the never-ending process.
I don’t think it has anything to do with democracy, Guild. I think it is all about job-saving anxiety based on, of course, having a “career” and power in government when government “SERVICE” seems to have gone by the wayside. Constitutional change adding term limits LONG overdue!
I live in Michigan. An analysis of this electoral battlefield could fill volumes. In fact, an analysis of just Macomb County, home of the famed “Reagan Democrats,” could fill volumes.
That said, I made this observation in 2016. Hillary filled the airwaves with ads months before election day. With all that time between airing the ads and actually voting, pointing out negative things about Trump lost its resonance. People just kept getting used to the fact that he’s an asshole. Famously, he used that to his advantage. Hillary didn’t make a single public appearance here as November approached.
In contrast, Trump started airing “crooked Hillary” ads about two weeks before election day. A real bombardment. He or Pence visited at least five times in the month before election day.
Hillary outspent Trump overall. But timing matters at least as much the spend. Thus, while the RNC can attack Slotkin this far out, she has plenty of time to provide the counter narrative – I’m CIA, I worked in both the Bush and Obama Admins – while letting the Trump impeachment inquiry play out with Trump making himself less and less appealing to swing voters with every tweet from his throne. Yep, that throne.
Slotkin beat a long term Repub incumbent in 2018. Our House delegation switched back to majority blue. There are definitely Trump voters here who are now Trump doubters. I question the RNC’s wisdom on putting money into that dark, dark ad this far out.
And yes, I’d vastly prefer the British model. Our election campaigns never really end.
How are things looking right now in Macomb county?
No answer to the problem of money in politics is perfect. I sympathize with wanting to help good candidates wherever they are, but I believe that the greater problem is the extremely wealthy and corporations using their money to win elections and influence politicians and issues over many districts and states. Clipping their financial wings has to be the primary goal, and preventing them from spreading around vast sums of money to places where they have no legitimate business doing so would be one way of reducing their influence. Bear in mind that limiting donations means that small dollar donations at the local level would have a much greater impact than they do now. The other part of my solution is to prohibit the rich from spending more than average citizens towards issue campaigns as well. Same limits. You could give $100 to a state or local issue on your personal ballot, but nothing to one you are not going to vote on. I reiterate, corporations should NEVER be allowed to participate in politics or elections, only actual live persons should. It will however take a constitutional amendment to make that change.
We already have Citizens United. Stopping corporate donations will require an act of the SCOTUS.
I just saw a CNN story from Macomb County last night.
Lots of GM employees on strike. Feeling kinda militant.
A subset who view impeachment as persecution of Trump. No surprise.
A subset regretting their vote for Trump. How many, who knows?
Starting to feel the first hints of an economic downturn. They start here in the rust belt.
I grew up there. Lots of racists. Yet they voted for Obama twice. He won MI big twice.
I’d call it winnable for Democrats. Then I look at the Democratic field.
Thanks. Then of course there will be the issue of turnout next November. Hope the ground game is better than last time with HRC’s incompetent efforts. And of course a better candidate.
“[Biden’s] not going anywhere.” is ALMOST correct . . .
. . . which dovetails perfectly with the following:
IMHO, the Powers That Be and their henchpersons in the DNC already see the handwriting on the wall, and are shifting their support to Warren – or at least away from Biden. Michael Moore was on MSNBC a couple of nights ago comparing Joe to Hilliary 2.0 and pointing out that there is no way Joe’s going to excite enough people to get out and vote next year for the Dims to have ANY chance at taking over the Senate. There is NO WAY that Moore would be allowed on MSM to say such a thing if the PTB were still backing Biden.