5 ms·

Given that unlimited campaign contributions are a legal way to buy an election, it's clear democracy in the US faces much bigger threats than people talking to

• Shivetya 9y ago
  well you don't need social media for it, you can solicit donations under the limit for disclosure or limited disclosure via the web and rake in millions from anyone over seas. unlimited campaign contributions actually would benefit the US democracy because two parties have a stranglehold on seats. all their attempts to regulate campaign donations are nothing more than methods to prevent a third party (or more) from getting a foothold. there is little any third party can do when the established parties control the narrative if not the press but spend money to get notice. how best to keep them from that by simply selling "protection of your democratic rights by limiting campaign donations from overseas" Pretty sure they can market it well enough anyone would buy in. don't assume unlimited money in elections is bad, what is bad is that precluding it is the first step in preventing additional parties to gain a foothold. if we want to regulate campaign funds we should limit only the two largest parties and unlimited all others.
• cdoxsey 9y ago
  Money doesn't decide elections, voters do. The campaign that spends more money doesn't always win. In fact there's good reason to think that most money spent on a campaign is largely wasted: > The most exciting and visible part of politics is the political campaign. Politicians and their team of strategists, pollsters, and surrogates wage battle for the votes of the public. Slogans are trumpeted. Gaffes are made. Tactics are deployed. > And it probably does not matter all that much. > At least not as much as the political environment matters. Presidential elections can be forecast with incredible accuracy well before the campaign really begins. In fact, if all you know is the state of the economy, you know pretty well how the incumbent party will do. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF http://faculty.georgetown.edu/hcn4/Downloads/Noel_Forum.PDF
  • Ygg2 9y ago
    Money buys ads and people to dig up dirt on opposing side. So in a way, it does buy elections.
  • RickJWagner 9y ago
    Indeed. The last U.S. presidential election showcases this idea. Trump spent less in the primaries than his opponents, and he spent less than Clinton in the election. Money is a factor, but not the sole deciding factor.
• Khaine 9y ago
  Clinton outspent Trump, and she still lost. Its not all about money, although money certainly helps you spend your message.
  • Ygg2 9y ago
    Trump got billions in free air time, whenever he said something outrageous. It's kinda silly, but he makes good money, because people that hate him, watch him, so the news station are forced to cover him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tji1g0WrPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tji1g0WrPw
    • peoplewindow 9y ago
      Neither campaign can buy slots in news reports. Saying he got "billions in free air time" is nonsensical. Money can't buy the sort of coverage he got.
• thinkMOAR 9y ago
  Or except when that money is used to make people talk about something on social media, and influence that way.
• maxerickson 9y ago
  It's more complicated in the US than "unlimited campaign contributions". https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supreme-court-campaign-finance/4481675/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supr... There's no limits on the amount of money outside groups can spend supporting a candidate, but they can't just give the money to the campaign run by the candidate, there are even rules (that people do essentially giggle about) forbidding coordination.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]