3 ms·

It's not increasingly clear at all. Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? EDIT: By the lack of responses and the lit

It's not increasingly clear at all. Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? EDIT: By the lack of responses and the litany of downvotes, I'm guessing no one can actually articulate a response, but it's just bad because feel feels.

salawat 7y ago
No one is really arguing that it is. What people object to is the proposition that it is a tenable state of affairs to allow finances to act as a proxy for outreach via disparity in the accessibility of cash. Get your message out by all means, however, our government is too important to be left to the whims of the free market in terms of deciding who amongst us is going to be running it. There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare". If everyone were working out of the same pool, and using the same avenues for outreach, you'd have a much easier time of it regulating the current wild west of mass media outreach for political purposes, and purportedly a much more effective one-stop shop where people could actually go to become informed on what can auditable be sourced to a campaign. Least that's the drift I'm picking up.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare" I mean there are all kinds of disparities in terms of likeability and attractiveness. Certainly, those who are rich have an easy way to advertise -- by spending money -- and thus to be seen. However, some people are naturally louder than others. Some, more outgoing. Some are extroverts. Some not, etc. Our government is formed from people who are able to convince others to vote for them. This is not about ideas, or the 'best ideology'. It is ultimately about likeability, which differs already from person to person. I don't understand why money makes a difference. Anyway, as we've seen money doesn't make a difference. In the last election, it bought Clinton only a narrow margin in the popular vote despite spending twice as much. And of course it cost her the election. I don't see much indication that -- at the highest levels of office -- money makes much difference. Perhaps it can at a local level, and of course buying votes outright should be outlawed, as it is. But I do not understand the moral outrage here.
  - ip26 7y ago
    Not presidential, but congressional: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/did-money-win https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/did-money-win
reaperducer 7y ago
It's not increasingly clear at all. Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? Actually talk to actual voters? Like American politicians did for 200 years before the internet?
- lghh 7y ago
  Isn't that what this is though?
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Actually talk to actual voters? Like American politicians did for 200 years before the internet? I dunno. Lincoln's campaigns look quite commercial and media savvy: https://clickamericana.com/topics/politics/abraham-lincolns-campaign-materials-1860 https://clickamericana.com/topics/politics/abraham-lincolns-...
- leppr 7y ago
  Talking with 200 million people spread over an area the size of a continent will cost a lot of money, whichever way you go at it. Electing the ruler to an effective empire is a very different process to electing a local mayor.
Barrin92 7y ago
>Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? because it undermines the democratic principle of one person having one vote. Money is speech in the US and Bloomberg has more of it than a lot of people combined. He's not even participating in civic discourse or debates, politics is not any more about debating ideas or running on a positive vision, it's two New York oligarchs having a personal feud on twitter with one calling the other short and the other one making gingerbread man memes. If I'm not mistaken the ideal of American democracy was that ordinary people can take control of their own lives and govern themselves, not that increasingly bizarre celebrities and public figures control media and government because they have more money to spend on influencers on instagram and television ads. This isn't politics any more where people get together to deliberate how they want to organise their social life, it's a giant circus in which tech companies, the media and a whole array of grifters use for to make money or amuse themselves.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  One person does not have one vote, mate. There's a complex system of primaries, the electoral college, etc.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    What nonsense. You have exactly the vote written on the ballot. People elect representatives who vote on their behalf on matters of national importance. That is true for Senators, congresspeople, and electors of the electoral college which are the three elected federal executive offices. Primaries are to decide amongst like minded voters who they want to stand but no one is barred from standing due to a primary.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Well that's just window dressing around "it's not one person one vote".
    - franga2000 7y ago
      The whole idea of voting for someone to vote for someone on your behalf is stupid and unnecessary. The electoral college system and the district voting system are designed to allow gerrymandering and other unfair practices that all together result in the very obvious fact that 1 vote != 1 vote.

salawat 7y ago

No one is really arguing that it is. What people object to is the proposition that it is a tenable state of affairs to allow finances to act as a proxy for outreach via disparity in the accessibility of cash. Get your message out by all means, however, our government is too important to be left to the whims of the free market in terms of deciding who amongst us is going to be running it. There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare". If everyone were working out of the same pool, and using the same avenues for outreach, you'd have a much easier time of it regulating the current wild west of mass media outreach for political purposes, and purportedly a much more effective one-stop shop where people could actually go to become informed on what can auditable be sourced to a campaign. Least that's the drift I'm picking up.

tathougies 7y ago
> There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare" I mean there are all kinds of disparities in terms of likeability and attractiveness. Certainly, those who are rich have an easy way to advertise -- by spending money -- and thus to be seen. However, some people are naturally louder than others. Some, more outgoing. Some are extroverts. Some not, etc. Our government is formed from people who are able to convince others to vote for them. This is not about ideas, or the 'best ideology'. It is ultimately about likeability, which differs already from person to person. I don't understand why money makes a difference. Anyway, as we've seen money doesn't make a difference. In the last election, it bought Clinton only a narrow margin in the popular vote despite spending twice as much. And of course it cost her the election. I don't see much indication that -- at the highest levels of office -- money makes much difference. Perhaps it can at a local level, and of course buying votes outright should be outlawed, as it is. But I do not understand the moral outrage here.
- ip26 7y ago
  Not presidential, but congressional: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/did-money-win https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/did-money-win

reaperducer 7y ago

It's not increasingly clear at all. Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? Actually talk to actual voters? Like American politicians did for 200 years before the internet?

lghh 7y ago
Isn't that what this is though?
tathougies 7y ago
> Actually talk to actual voters? Like American politicians did for 200 years before the internet? I dunno. Lincoln's campaigns look quite commercial and media savvy: https://clickamericana.com/topics/politics/abraham-lincolns-campaign-materials-1860 https://clickamericana.com/topics/politics/abraham-lincolns-...
leppr 7y ago
Talking with 200 million people spread over an area the size of a continent will cost a lot of money, whichever way you go at it. Electing the ruler to an effective empire is a very different process to electing a local mayor.

Barrin92 7y ago

>Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? because it undermines the democratic principle of one person having one vote. Money is speech in the US and Bloomberg has more of it than a lot of people combined. He's not even participating in civic discourse or debates, politics is not any more about debating ideas or running on a positive vision, it's two New York oligarchs having a personal feud on twitter with one calling the other short and the other one making gingerbread man memes. If I'm not mistaken the ideal of American democracy was that ordinary people can take control of their own lives and govern themselves, not that increasingly bizarre celebrities and public figures control media and government because they have more money to spend on influencers on instagram and television ads. This isn't politics any more where people get together to deliberate how they want to organise their social life, it's a giant circus in which tech companies, the media and a whole array of grifters use for to make money or amuse themselves.

scarejunba 7y ago
One person does not have one vote, mate. There's a complex system of primaries, the electoral college, etc.
- tathougies 7y ago
  What nonsense. You have exactly the vote written on the ballot. People elect representatives who vote on their behalf on matters of national importance. That is true for Senators, congresspeople, and electors of the electoral college which are the three elected federal executive offices. Primaries are to decide amongst like minded voters who they want to stand but no one is barred from standing due to a primary.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Well that's just window dressing around "it's not one person one vote".
  - franga2000 7y ago
    The whole idea of voting for someone to vote for someone on your behalf is stupid and unnecessary. The electoral college system and the district voting system are designed to allow gerrymandering and other unfair practices that all together result in the very obvious fact that 1 vote != 1 vote.