6 ms·
US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. 84% of the time, the congress person that wins in that district raised the most money. Corporations and the wealthy
by HashThis 8y ago
US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. 84% of the time, the congress person that wins in that district raised the most money. Corporations and the wealthy provide that money to get congress people who represent THEM, not US citizens.
US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. So nothing changes if moneyed interests want US citizens to live under surveillance.
- drawnwren 8y agoYour logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.
- dontbenebby 8y ago>Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa. That's circular logic. "They must be the most qualified, because they raised the most money and the person who gets elected is the one who raised the most money". In a functioning democracy there should be a cliff where, no matter how much you spent, you cannot simply buy the election.
- mach5 8y agothe whole notion of 'electability' is a ruse created by democrats to push voters towards politicians that agree more with the corporate wing of the party than any issues people care about. if electability was actually a thing, trump would not have won. https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-67-the-gate-keeping-power-serving-tautology-of-electability https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-67-the-gate-keepi...
- starik36 8y agoExcept when this correlation is wrong. Such as when Trump won with less than 60% of the money spent by Hillary Clinton. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
- f-securus 8y agoTargeted ads/disinformation campaigns are very effective
- kevingadd 8y agoThey were talking about Congress not the presidency, and the presidency is not popular vote. The electoral college is specifically designed to be different
- godelski 8y agoWell the idea is that having more money means you can get your message out more. The money has to be spent to be useful. It isn't just the person who "has" the most (though you could also use Trump as an example to that). But Trump's team did a good job at getting in the media. Any news station you turned on there was more talk about Trump than Hillary.
- papermill 8y agoThis is one of the problems with money in politics. As money becomes more important in winning elections, politicians' interests align more with the "moneyed interests" rather than the voters or even the public. The house of representatives should serve as a bulwark against "moneyed interests", but even they are being targeted and bought by money. What good is democracy if a small group of people buy all the politicians?
- millstone 8y agoThere's currently a "small donor boom" on the Democratic side (possibly Republicans too, I'm unsure). Super PACs etc are fading in importance, in this cycle at least.
- papermill 8y agoYeah, they say that every election cycle. Remember Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders? Remember the "small donors" for Obama? Nobody remembered them and neither did Obama. Super PACs are growing. Not sure where you got the idea that they are fading. Super PACs are only a few years old and they have tons of room to grow.