5 ms·

When Trump started gaining momentum I realized how poetic his success was. Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money and Republicans who thought it was

When Trump started gaining momentum I realized how poetic his success was. Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money and Republicans who thought it was ok to have unlimited campaign spending couldn't complain either. Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United.

tomp 11y ago
> Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United. Wouldn't he be able to self-fund his campaign even without Citizen United?
- golemotron 11y ago
  Yes but I think we'll see more plutocrats running now. There's no possible limit on them using their own money.
  - ende 11y ago
    This doesn't make any sense. Citizebs United had nothing to do with self-funding a campaign. If anything a reversal on Citizens United would incentivize more self-funded campaigns, as political speech by third parties is what would be limited. The concern with big money in politics isn't about the spending of the money itself anyway, it's the alleged connontation of what that money is buying for the other party. A self-funded candidate would be more insulated from such influence, as such a candidate cannot exactly buy their own influence.
artursapek 11y ago
> Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money People run for president for the money?
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Yes. Just not necessarily their own.
jmaygarden 11y ago
I guess Ross Perot was just 18 years ahead of his time?
sremani 11y ago
That is simplistic explanation, how would you explain Bernie's raise on the Left. People have a feeling of being used and cheated, same talk about women's rights or Pro life, same debates over and over, but the rhetoric has never translated to action on the Left or Right. So, people are flat out hungry for the "unconventional", whether it is Cruz, Trump or Sanders, that is the state of affairs. Citizens united is one in the many in this tapestry. If Citizens United was really the thing, Ted Cruz has no chance in winning in TX, but he won, because of his timely and very strategic attack on Republican establishment, especially when he was outspent by a lot.
- golemotron 11y ago
  It's not an explanation of his success. His success is emblematic of campaigns with unrestricted money.

tomp 11y ago

> Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United. Wouldn't he be able to self-fund his campaign even without Citizen United?

golemotron 11y ago
Yes but I think we'll see more plutocrats running now. There's no possible limit on them using their own money.
- ende 11y ago
  This doesn't make any sense. Citizebs United had nothing to do with self-funding a campaign. If anything a reversal on Citizens United would incentivize more self-funded campaigns, as political speech by third parties is what would be limited. The concern with big money in politics isn't about the spending of the money itself anyway, it's the alleged connontation of what that money is buying for the other party. A self-funded candidate would be more insulated from such influence, as such a candidate cannot exactly buy their own influence.

artursapek 11y ago

> Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money People run for president for the money?

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Yes. Just not necessarily their own.

jmaygarden 11y ago

I guess Ross Perot was just 18 years ahead of his time?

sremani 11y ago

That is simplistic explanation, how would you explain Bernie's raise on the Left. People have a feeling of being used and cheated, same talk about women's rights or Pro life, same debates over and over, but the rhetoric has never translated to action on the Left or Right. So, people are flat out hungry for the "unconventional", whether it is Cruz, Trump or Sanders, that is the state of affairs. Citizens united is one in the many in this tapestry. If Citizens United was really the thing, Ted Cruz has no chance in winning in TX, but he won, because of his timely and very strategic attack on Republican establishment, especially when he was outspent by a lot.

golemotron 11y ago
It's not an explanation of his success. His success is emblematic of campaigns with unrestricted money.