4 ms·

The Andreessen and Horowitz quotes in this are particularly hilarious and pathetic. The desperate attempts at linking their greed to the fate of the country its

The Andreessen and Horowitz quotes in this are particularly hilarious and pathetic. The desperate attempts at linking their greed to the fate of the country itself is so nakedly self-serving (as are many of the quotes from these lobbyists and other VCs) that they should make them a laughing stock. The Citizens United decision will be a cancer in American politics and a boon for the ultra-wealthy for generations.

coredog64 2y ago
What specifically in Citizens United is bad? Are there any positive outcomes from CU?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- drawkward 2y ago
  For one thing, it equates money with speech, which destabilizes our democracy by giving more power to those who have money. Obviously, money does that in many ways outside of the electoral process, but one would imagine that any serious democracy would want to keep its democratic processes maximally equitable.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    I hear you , but that doesn't seem to pass the smell test. The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc. So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost. At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far. Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser. So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game . Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?
    - zelias 2y ago
      The massive influx of money has empirically had a tendency to turn a substantial portion of your "high information votes" into "high _dis_information votes"
    - drawkward 2y ago
      American democracy does not give special preference to information content of a voter, nor should it. Did you skip the entire Jim Crow era of history where the racially-presumed information content of a particular voter was used to disenfranchise those voters, even spuriously? Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..." Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
      - MacsHeadroom 2y ago
        Our constitution established a republic, not a democracy. The drafters famously despised democracy. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
        drawkward 2y ago
        Yawn-inducing attempt at sleight of hand. Despite being a republic, we nevertheless select our representatives democratically. I vote directly on state-level constitutional amendments.
    - piva00 2y ago
      > At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc. No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.
fallingknife 2y ago
Citizens United was the correct decision. The alternative is our government deciding who gets to engage in politics. Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people and established politicians who have access to the governemnt approved outlets of political speech.
- drawkward 2y ago
  The correct decision is to set a limit on campaigning, and fund it with tax dollars, no outside spending.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    So we should let the government choose who gets campaign funding? Sounds like an established politician's wet dream.
    - throw4847285 2y ago
      Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected! I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
      - snowwrestler 2y ago
        The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates. If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
        drawkward 2y ago
        >If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.

coredog64 2y ago

What specifically in Citizens United is bad? Are there any positive outcomes from CU?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
drawkward 2y ago
For one thing, it equates money with speech, which destabilizes our democracy by giving more power to those who have money. Obviously, money does that in many ways outside of the electoral process, but one would imagine that any serious democracy would want to keep its democratic processes maximally equitable.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  I hear you , but that doesn't seem to pass the smell test. The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc. So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost. At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far. Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser. So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game . Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?
  - zelias 2y ago
    The massive influx of money has empirically had a tendency to turn a substantial portion of your "high information votes" into "high _dis_information votes"
  - drawkward 2y ago
    American democracy does not give special preference to information content of a voter, nor should it. Did you skip the entire Jim Crow era of history where the racially-presumed information content of a particular voter was used to disenfranchise those voters, even spuriously? Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..." Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
    - MacsHeadroom 2y ago
      Our constitution established a republic, not a democracy. The drafters famously despised democracy. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
      - drawkward 2y ago
        Yawn-inducing attempt at sleight of hand. Despite being a republic, we nevertheless select our representatives democratically. I vote directly on state-level constitutional amendments.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc. No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.

fallingknife 2y ago

Citizens United was the correct decision. The alternative is our government deciding who gets to engage in politics. Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people and established politicians who have access to the governemnt approved outlets of political speech.

drawkward 2y ago
The correct decision is to set a limit on campaigning, and fund it with tax dollars, no outside spending.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  So we should let the government choose who gets campaign funding? Sounds like an established politician's wet dream.
  - throw4847285 2y ago
    Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected! I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
    - snowwrestler 2y ago
      The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates. If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        >If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.