3 ms·

The two problems are one and the same. Massive disparities of wealth create massive disparities of political power. Concentrated wealth then funds political e

The two problems are one and the same. Massive disparities of wealth create massive disparities of political power. Concentrated wealth then funds political efforts to keep their bought-and-paid-for politicians in office.

scarface74 8y ago
Consolidating of political power through gerrymandering has way more to do with ideology. Republicans can cater to business interests and throw a few bones at the populists and “the moral majority”. Democrats - especially Black politicians - also like gerrymandering because while it dilutes the power of minorities in the overall federal government by putting all of thier votes in one district, it keeps the politicians that are elected by the big cities in power. (Before anyone replies about me being racist - I’m Black.)
- rectang 8y ago
  Regardless of ideology, our representatives are reliant on campaign contributions. (Obama was famously friendly to Big Finance.) Especially after Citizens United, concentrated wealth disproportionately impacts governance.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    No matter how much financial backing Obama got, he was never going to convince people in the rural south to vote for “an America hating, secret Muslim, that was trying to bring Sharia Law to the United States” (please note sarcasm). As the last Presidential Election proved, not only was Trunp outspent by Clinton, he was also outspent by his Republican primary opponents. But he won anyway. The country is so idealogically divided, once the general election happens, really the only thing that matters is turnout and which side is angrier.
    - rectang 8y ago
      PAC money can be spent on ground game, which feeds turnout. I agree that there is a deep cultural canyon dividing the country right now. However, the need for funding to keep up with the competition limits what representatives can achieve. It is in this context that the lobbying of the finance industry (for example, but many others) finds receptive congress critters from both parties. For instance, there were a handful of Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a bill to weaken Dodd-Frank back in March. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-warren-democrats-crapo-bank-deregulation-bill https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-wa... I suspect that Obama would have preferred to do more to rein in Big Finance, but felt he could not.

scarface74 8y ago

Consolidating of political power through gerrymandering has way more to do with ideology. Republicans can cater to business interests and throw a few bones at the populists and “the moral majority”. Democrats - especially Black politicians - also like gerrymandering because while it dilutes the power of minorities in the overall federal government by putting all of thier votes in one district, it keeps the politicians that are elected by the big cities in power. (Before anyone replies about me being racist - I’m Black.)

rectang 8y ago
Regardless of ideology, our representatives are reliant on campaign contributions. (Obama was famously friendly to Big Finance.) Especially after Citizens United, concentrated wealth disproportionately impacts governance.
- scarface74 8y ago
  No matter how much financial backing Obama got, he was never going to convince people in the rural south to vote for “an America hating, secret Muslim, that was trying to bring Sharia Law to the United States” (please note sarcasm). As the last Presidential Election proved, not only was Trunp outspent by Clinton, he was also outspent by his Republican primary opponents. But he won anyway. The country is so idealogically divided, once the general election happens, really the only thing that matters is turnout and which side is angrier.
  - rectang 8y ago
    PAC money can be spent on ground game, which feeds turnout. I agree that there is a deep cultural canyon dividing the country right now. However, the need for funding to keep up with the competition limits what representatives can achieve. It is in this context that the lobbying of the finance industry (for example, but many others) finds receptive congress critters from both parties. For instance, there were a handful of Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a bill to weaken Dodd-Frank back in March. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-warren-democrats-crapo-bank-deregulation-bill https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-wa... I suspect that Obama would have preferred to do more to rein in Big Finance, but felt he could not.