3 ms·

-- A “democracy” in which 400 families give 50 percent of the money in campaigns is not American democracy. That's a really compelling statistic if true. I wis

-- A “democracy” in which 400 families give 50 percent of the money in campaigns is not American democracy. That's a really compelling statistic if true. I wish there was a source for it. Anybody know more?

funcSoulBrother 11y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-of-donors-is-dominating-the-2016-election/2015/08/04/153879ee-3ad3-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono...
nkurz 11y ago
Perhaps try Google for that phrase? https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+families+give+50+percent+of+the+money+in+campaigns+is+not+American+democracy https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+f... The first hit for me is the Larry Lessig piece, but the second two have lots of background information on the source of the statistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-400-families-represent-50-money-raised-2016-presidential-candidat http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... (Yes, I intend this to be slightly snarky in a behavior changing manner. It's wonderful to wonder about sources for statistics, but seems lazy to ask the question seemingly without doing any basic research. Contrast the utility to the group of the bare question versus a post that included some links with the answers from the start.)
- alexandercrohde 11y ago
  kinda ad-hominem. I disagree with the approach that somehow advancing the discussion a half-step by calling attention to an important piece of the article (rather than taking the full step of going on to research it) is unproductive or should be called out.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    I agree, calling attention to the statistic is probably better than no mention at all. But I think the site is better with citations, and it does strike me as lazy to ask others rather than providing for others. I don't mean to be too mean about it, but I am confused by the approach. As in, would the site be better or worse if everyone took the same approach?

funcSoulBrother 11y ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-of-donors-is-dominating-the-2016-election/2015/08/04/153879ee-3ad3-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono...

nkurz 11y ago

Perhaps try Google for that phrase? https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+families+give+50+percent+of+the+money+in+campaigns+is+not+American+democracy https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+f... The first hit for me is the Larry Lessig piece, but the second two have lots of background information on the source of the statistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-400-families-represent-50-money-raised-2016-presidential-candidat http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... (Yes, I intend this to be slightly snarky in a behavior changing manner. It's wonderful to wonder about sources for statistics, but seems lazy to ask the question seemingly without doing any basic research. Contrast the utility to the group of the bare question versus a post that included some links with the answers from the start.)

alexandercrohde 11y ago
kinda ad-hominem. I disagree with the approach that somehow advancing the discussion a half-step by calling attention to an important piece of the article (rather than taking the full step of going on to research it) is unproductive or should be called out.
- nkurz 11y ago
  I agree, calling attention to the statistic is probably better than no mention at all. But I think the site is better with citations, and it does strike me as lazy to ask others rather than providing for others. I don't mean to be too mean about it, but I am confused by the approach. As in, would the site be better or worse if everyone took the same approach?