4 ms·
>Like it or not, the chances of winning an election highly correlate with advertising budgets, This is just BS/lies at the local level. Moneyed PACs aren't fi
by dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Like it or not, the chances of winning an election highly correlate with advertising budgets,
This is just BS/lies at the local level.
Moneyed PACs aren't fighting it out over councilor, selectman and planner positions for random suburbs.
Pretty much all the money these candidate dispense is either self raised or comes from an official political party who don't really doll out meaningful amounts to these elections
- mikestew 4y agoAs one who has run for local office in a Seattle-area suburb, yeah, there's no oil industry money sloshing around. At best one might get a few local businesses (at best), and some individuals for small amounts. If you're the big swinging genitalia incumbent, you might even be able to afford yard signs without dipping into personal funds! One would seem to win local elections by being the incumbent, and knocking on a lot of doors.
- mikem170 4y agoSlightly different angle than the parent post: What about the state and federal subsidies for road infrastructure? A locality that wants to go a different (less car dependent) direction would be leaving that infrastructure money unspent, which isn't fair to the local voters who contributed tax money to the state/feds. They rigged it so that the locals paid for the roads via their tax money, their only choice is to take the money and build more roads, or kiss the money they sent to the state/feds goodbye. Wouldn't the above kind of hamstring local politicians? Would it be safe to assume that the pro-car lobbyists at those higher level of government want to keep it this way?