3 ms·

Isn’t corruption basically legal in the US under the name of lobbying? All the PACs and Super PACs that donate endless money, without divulging origin to candi

Isn’t corruption basically legal in the US under the name of lobbying? All the PACs and Super PACs that donate endless money, without divulging origin to candidates, so that they’ll push through their agenda? Like where’s the fiber broadband the government paid billions for to the telecoms?

iagovar 7y ago
When I read news about the US that's the impression I've got. I'm from Spain, and we (and our neighbors) are quite vocal about our corruption, but the more I read the more I realize that the stuff that is happening here would be just legal somewhere else. Here a party receiving money from companies is a big deal.
- adventured 7y ago
  It's partially (not entirely) a myth about US politics. The majority of political donations come from individuals. Obama for example raised $1.23 billion from individual contributions over his political career. Out of about $1.5 billion total. For Trump, about 60% of his campaign's funding came from individual donations (about $220m), his money included. Trump gave about $66m to his own campaign, or around 20% of all the funding. Supporting PACs spent around $100 million. Hillary Clinton got about 71% of her campaign funds from individual contributions (around $405m). Her supporting PACs spent around $210m. For the prominent Ted Cruz vs Beto O'Rourke Texas Senate battle, Cruz got 77% of his funding from individual contributions. From there you'd have to look into the share of the PAC money that comes from individuals versus companies etc. PACs commonly derive a large share of their funding from individual contributions. For some of that you can get good figures, some of it is shadowy.
  - inuhj 7y ago
    Some people donate individually and not from their business because they don't want anyone looking deeply.
domnomnom 7y ago
Lobbying is legitimate. PACs are a legitimate dilemma. But if the denizens of hackernews decided to pool their money together in order to run ads in support of something, should they be disallowed?

iagovar 7y ago

When I read news about the US that's the impression I've got. I'm from Spain, and we (and our neighbors) are quite vocal about our corruption, but the more I read the more I realize that the stuff that is happening here would be just legal somewhere else. Here a party receiving money from companies is a big deal.

adventured 7y ago
It's partially (not entirely) a myth about US politics. The majority of political donations come from individuals. Obama for example raised $1.23 billion from individual contributions over his political career. Out of about $1.5 billion total. For Trump, about 60% of his campaign's funding came from individual donations (about $220m), his money included. Trump gave about $66m to his own campaign, or around 20% of all the funding. Supporting PACs spent around $100 million. Hillary Clinton got about 71% of her campaign funds from individual contributions (around $405m). Her supporting PACs spent around $210m. For the prominent Ted Cruz vs Beto O'Rourke Texas Senate battle, Cruz got 77% of his funding from individual contributions. From there you'd have to look into the share of the PAC money that comes from individuals versus companies etc. PACs commonly derive a large share of their funding from individual contributions. For some of that you can get good figures, some of it is shadowy.
- inuhj 7y ago
  Some people donate individually and not from their business because they don't want anyone looking deeply.

domnomnom 7y ago

Lobbying is legitimate. PACs are a legitimate dilemma. But if the denizens of hackernews decided to pool their money together in order to run ads in support of something, should they be disallowed?