3 ms·
Right. It is worth noting that the total allowable cost of the recent UK election was 54k per seat per party, meaning that a political party could only spend 34
by bobthepanda 2y ago
Right. It is worth noting that the total allowable cost of the recent UK election was 54k per seat per party, meaning that a political party could only spend 34M GBP contesting every Parliamentary seat.
It would only take the top three House fundraisers to outstrip this number: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/fundraising-totals https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/fundraising-t...
- robertlagrant 2y agoI don't disagree with the idea of limiting funding, but this is a bad comparison. You're talking about a campaign to reach about 50m voters, vs about 300m voters. You should probably at least adjust your UK figure accordingly, to make it reasonable.
- bobthepanda 2y agoThe actual cap is 54k per seat, so it can scale. You can bring that number up or down as needed to adjust for the seat representation size in the US, but it is significantly below, say, Hakeem Jeffries raising $17M and Mike Johnson $13M. The other bit is that the Parliament has more constituencies than the US House despite the House representing more people, so the number of people per House member is quite high. And that's not actually specified in the Constitution but a law that could be changed by Congress at any time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
- robertlagrant 2y ago> The other bit is that the Parliament has more constituencies than the US House I was thinking of the total, not the per-seat amount, for this reason.