4 ms·

Poland? Poland pales in comparison with Brazil, where there's a R$5.7 billion (about 1 billion US$) 'Electoral Fund' used for political campaings by the thirty

Poland? Poland pales in comparison with Brazil, where there's a R$5.7 billion (about 1 billion US$) 'Electoral Fund' used for political campaings by the thirty something registered political parties. All paid for by the taxpayers. And let's not forget that there's also a 'Political Party Fund'. And I just love the reason for the creation of the 'Electoral Fund', but that's another story.

Hokusai 5y ago
Are not that funds created so taxpayers are there ones in control of party finances instead of corporations? The USA seems a good example of what happens when politicians are fully dependent on corporations if they want to be elected, and it's servitude to the interest of the few.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I guess this depends on what the requirements are to access said fund. If accessing said fund requires being on good terms with the establishment then it's the worst of both worlds.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    In Bulgaria It's similar to Brazil, parties get a fixed funding from the taxpayer and have a limited amount of funding they can collect from donations, with strict reporting requirements. Just having a party present itself with the minimum required amount of signatures (500 IIRC) for an election is enough to get the official funds, and of course spending is tracked. It certainly seems a much better way of doing things than the US.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Throwing public money on elections didn't solve the problem it aimed to solve, corps financing candidates for favors. Even before the prohibition most of it was transferred over the counter or in deals where corp X pay for something for Y in the name Z. This is illegal and people got arrested (mainly the intermediaries) but it's a widespread practice. What this achieved is making running a campaign as a grassroots politician more expensive and prohibitive while empowering parties leaders. The 'caciques' have enormous financial power in their hands and act as gatekeepers of who will get elected. The share of the pie to parties is proportional to the number of votes their congressmen received in the last election. And the voting system is bizarre. Multiparty system in Brazil is a joke, mostly parties doesn't have ideology or political coherence. It's simply power for power. If you vote for candidate A from party X that is a good guy with nice ideas you will probably help instead to elect candidate B from the same party which is a piece of shit. On last election a popular Youtuber and outsider of the political system received a large number of votes but due to how the system work a bunch of trash from his party got elected along. End of day, when he tried to make the right thing he didn't have the support of his own party.

Hokusai 5y ago

Are not that funds created so taxpayers are there ones in control of party finances instead of corporations? The USA seems a good example of what happens when politicians are fully dependent on corporations if they want to be elected, and it's servitude to the interest of the few.

Nextgrid 5y ago
I guess this depends on what the requirements are to access said fund. If accessing said fund requires being on good terms with the establishment then it's the worst of both worlds.
- sofixa 5y ago
  In Bulgaria It's similar to Brazil, parties get a fixed funding from the taxpayer and have a limited amount of funding they can collect from donations, with strict reporting requirements. Just having a party present itself with the minimum required amount of signatures (500 IIRC) for an election is enough to get the official funds, and of course spending is tracked. It certainly seems a much better way of doing things than the US.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Throwing public money on elections didn't solve the problem it aimed to solve, corps financing candidates for favors. Even before the prohibition most of it was transferred over the counter or in deals where corp X pay for something for Y in the name Z. This is illegal and people got arrested (mainly the intermediaries) but it's a widespread practice. What this achieved is making running a campaign as a grassroots politician more expensive and prohibitive while empowering parties leaders. The 'caciques' have enormous financial power in their hands and act as gatekeepers of who will get elected. The share of the pie to parties is proportional to the number of votes their congressmen received in the last election. And the voting system is bizarre. Multiparty system in Brazil is a joke, mostly parties doesn't have ideology or political coherence. It's simply power for power. If you vote for candidate A from party X that is a good guy with nice ideas you will probably help instead to elect candidate B from the same party which is a piece of shit. On last election a popular Youtuber and outsider of the political system received a large number of votes but due to how the system work a bunch of trash from his party got elected along. End of day, when he tried to make the right thing he didn't have the support of his own party.