3 ms·

Buying Campaign Contributions as a Hack

37 points by popcalc 3y ago

a2tech 3y ago
$600,000 to get in on the national debate is definitely the cheapest way to go barring a widespread groundswell of support. For a rich guy thats almost nothing and it guarantees you'll have a national stage to have your say.
gi3bdo3b233 3y ago
Can we stop referring to fraud as a "clever hack"? There is nothing clever about buying votes. It wasn't clever when Yang tried it and it isn't clever now. These "loopholes" are so obvious a child could come up with them. There is nothing clever about holding your finger an inch from my face and chanting "I'm not touching you!" Dude belongs in jail. His behavior is most likely already illegal.
- grecy 3y ago
  > His behaviour is most likely already illegal I think that's the whole point. Buying campaign contributions, aka bribery, is completely legal, and very, very common. It's good that someone is shedding light on the situation and showing how ridiculously easy it is to buy votes with money.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  They're not votes - they're campaign contributions that are needed to make it to the debate stage in one party's primary season. No fraud, no illegality, just a silly way to meet the 'rules' by some rich dude that has no chance in the election.
snowwrestler 3y ago
This is going to seem outrageous at first, but it is just another way to structure the cost of marketing. He is essentially spending money to acquire email addresses, which is something campaigns normally do. And he is buying his way into national exposure, which again is something campaigns normally do. The rules for participation in privately sponsored debate are completely made up and have no actual legal implications related to election law. They are essentially indexing on the size of an email list in this case. Who cares whether a campaign bought gift cards or Facebook ads to get the emails.
obblekk 3y ago
The purpose of the original "need 50k donors to get to the debate stage" rule is that it's a high hurdle for a normal person to achieve. A type of proof of work that tries to get debates between candidates that are actually being considered by viewers. It's clearly been hacked now so what's the next best iteration? The debate host could ask people to donate $1 to them in exchange for submitting a vote on the candidates that should be included in the debate. This removes the candidate's ability to compensate for a vote, but leaves the hard part of convincing people to vote for you. The big downside is only the most passionate people will donate a $1 to vote for a debate candidate, possibly resulting in more extreme candidates that deeply appeal to a narrow audience. Maybe debate forum could even have a ranked choice voting for $1 donors to create more spread in who gets to debate.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > It's clearly been hacked now so what's the next best iteration? Increasing the national polling threshold (1% in a set number of approved polls, currently) and/or adding higher minimum state polling thresholds in a set number of states. Or do nothing; the donor thresholds (200 in each of 20 states and 40k total) are a filter whether people are meeting them normally are burning their early warchest buying them, and the polling threshold still is there even if its not raised. Or adopt a rule that the value of any merchandise provided to campaign contributors is deducted from the value of the contribution for this purpose only, and only net contributors of at least $1 count for debate qualification.
- noduerme 3y ago
  Why not just take money out of the equation completely, and make the requirement be to collect 50k signatures, with the stipulation that it's a crime to pay for them?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cafard 3y ago
Unless heat refugees from Arizona and Florida suddenly make Bismarck the new Austin--no, the new Houston--Mr. Burgrum will be lacking something that most successful presidential candidates have: electoral votes back home.

37 points by popcalc 3y ago

$600,000 to get in on the national debate is definitely the cheapest way to go barring a widespread groundswell of support. For a rich guy thats almost nothing and it guarantees you'll have a national stage to have your say.

gi3bdo3b233 3y ago

Can we stop referring to fraud as a "clever hack"? There is nothing clever about buying votes. It wasn't clever when Yang tried it and it isn't clever now. These "loopholes" are so obvious a child could come up with them. There is nothing clever about holding your finger an inch from my face and chanting "I'm not touching you!" Dude belongs in jail. His behavior is most likely already illegal.

grecy 3y ago
> His behaviour is most likely already illegal I think that's the whole point. Buying campaign contributions, aka bribery, is completely legal, and very, very common. It's good that someone is shedding light on the situation and showing how ridiculously easy it is to buy votes with money.
mikeyouse 3y ago
They're not votes - they're campaign contributions that are needed to make it to the debate stage in one party's primary season. No fraud, no illegality, just a silly way to meet the 'rules' by some rich dude that has no chance in the election.

snowwrestler 3y ago

This is going to seem outrageous at first, but it is just another way to structure the cost of marketing. He is essentially spending money to acquire email addresses, which is something campaigns normally do. And he is buying his way into national exposure, which again is something campaigns normally do. The rules for participation in privately sponsored debate are completely made up and have no actual legal implications related to election law. They are essentially indexing on the size of an email list in this case. Who cares whether a campaign bought gift cards or Facebook ads to get the emails.

obblekk 3y ago

The purpose of the original "need 50k donors to get to the debate stage" rule is that it's a high hurdle for a normal person to achieve. A type of proof of work that tries to get debates between candidates that are actually being considered by viewers. It's clearly been hacked now so what's the next best iteration? The debate host could ask people to donate $1 to them in exchange for submitting a vote on the candidates that should be included in the debate. This removes the candidate's ability to compensate for a vote, but leaves the hard part of convincing people to vote for you. The big downside is only the most passionate people will donate a $1 to vote for a debate candidate, possibly resulting in more extreme candidates that deeply appeal to a narrow audience. Maybe debate forum could even have a ranked choice voting for $1 donors to create more spread in who gets to debate.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> It's clearly been hacked now so what's the next best iteration? Increasing the national polling threshold (1% in a set number of approved polls, currently) and/or adding higher minimum state polling thresholds in a set number of states. Or do nothing; the donor thresholds (200 in each of 20 states and 40k total) are a filter whether people are meeting them normally are burning their early warchest buying them, and the polling threshold still is there even if its not raised. Or adopt a rule that the value of any merchandise provided to campaign contributors is deducted from the value of the contribution for this purpose only, and only net contributors of at least $1 count for debate qualification.
noduerme 3y ago
Why not just take money out of the equation completely, and make the requirement be to collect 50k signatures, with the stipulation that it's a crime to pay for them?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cafard 3y ago

Unless heat refugees from Arizona and Florida suddenly make Bismarck the new Austin--no, the new Houston--Mr. Burgrum will be lacking something that most successful presidential candidates have: electoral votes back home.