4 ms·

Funny. But as we all know, the US Government is fully up for sale and has been for sale since the Citizens United Ruling. In fact, you can even get a Tax Dedu

by jmclnx 2y ago

Funny. But as we all know, the US Government is fully up for sale and has been for sale since the Citizens United Ruling. In fact, you can even get a Tax Deduction for buying a US Politician.

fortran77 2y ago
Political donations have never been tax deductible. What are you talking about?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Just donate to one of the many politically active churches. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/30/johnson-amendment-elections-irs/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/30/johnson-amendment-el...
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    that's a great counterpoint.
jfengel 2y ago
Not to take the blame off politicians, but there is an intermediate step. Citizens United allows unlimited spending on advertising. You still can't buy politicians directly. You still have to get voters to vote for them. This is on us. We have the responsibility to look at the advertising and make a choice. We are so, so much worse at it than I would ever have believed.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  This is one of the fundamental divides in politics that causes endless friction. Are people responsible for their actions or is the government responsible for people's actions?
  - jfengel 2y ago
    It came down do an instant where people were given a choice of two levers. The government does not control them at that point. They make their choice freely. The American people said what we want, and deserve to get it, good and hard.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    The government assumes it is in charge of everything, and accountable to and for nothing. People are always responsible for their own actions. If anyone else was responsible then people would become objects to be acted upon and no longer people. The current practice I call "accountability laundering". This is where you create situations where somehow no one is accountable. Where no one knows who to point a finger at. This causes like 90% of the worlds problems. People create systems this way on purpose. Public companies, private equity, governments, huge orgs where no one is actually at the helm. All so no one can point a finger when something goes wrong.
- tomrod 2y ago
  >This is on us. We have the responsibility to look at the advertising and make a choice. It's not on "us" -- many people have long argued against the current state of legal bribery and corruption in the US, both advocating against and voting against this outcome. It's very much on the owners and workers of media channels, traditional (television, newspaper) and modern (adtech).
  - krapp 2y ago
    >many people have long argued against the current state of legal bribery and corruption in the US, both advocating against and voting against this outcome. Do they, or do they mostly argue that one party is the corrupt one and vote for the other party?
    - tomrod 2y ago
      I'm am sure some would, why not. Do you normally question whether people deviate from behaving as stereotypes and are generally incapable of individual behavior, or just when corruption and bribery in the US is discussed?
      - krapp 2y ago
        People do tend to normally behave as stereotypes where American politics is concerned, and the essentially two party dynamic of the American political system encourages that. I don't know what you're trying to accuse me of, but the near absolute fixation on partisanship and identity politics in the US is well known.
        tomrod 2y ago
        > I don't know what you're trying to accuse me of Apologies, I could have been clearer in my last comment. I found that your reductive approach to assumed polarization is a thought terminating cliche, which signals an end to any interest in conversation by the invoker of the cliche. > the near absolute fixation on partisanship and identity politics in the US is well known. It really isn't, unless, I would argue, we believe cable news or propaganda sources are a good source of daily information and infotainment. I think they do a poor job communicating complex nuance and people not being solely engaged in wedge issues, forcing a narrative of existential danger in exchange for more clicks and views. > People do tend to normally behave as stereotypes where American politics is concerned Again, I think this is reductive.
- bsenftner 2y ago
  Every US election is Christmas for months for the advertising industry. All those political dollars raised? 95% given to media channels to air political ads. The US elections are nothing about the people, and everything about pouring as much money as they can shake from the citizens into the media machine. And we don't even want the ads, don't need them, it's all a giant farce.
  - hypeatei 2y ago
    Publicly funded elections are good solution to this and get dark money out of politics. Bernie Sanders, for example, has talked about this before and has a page dedicated to how we can have more free and fair elections[0], notably: > Abolish super PACs and replace corporate funding with publicly funded elections that amplify small-doner donations. 0: https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-and-fair-elections https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-and-fair-elections
    - maxerickson 2y ago
      A lot of media exists for political reasons. Making adjustments to campaign funding isn't going to do anything about that. It's likely more effective than campaign spending...
rsanek 2y ago
It is interesting how Kamala out-raised Trump by nearly double in this most recent election. I guess it's not as simple as 'buying' a politician after all.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The richest man on the planet put like $250M in a personal PAC, didn’t he? Direct fundraising by candidates is a small part of the picture.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by jmclnx 2y ago

Funny. But as we all know, the US Government is fully up for sale and has been for sale since the Citizens United Ruling. In fact, you can even get a Tax Deduction for buying a US Politician.

fortran77 2y ago

Political donations have never been tax deductible. What are you talking about?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 2y ago
Just donate to one of the many politically active churches. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/30/johnson-amendment-elections-irs/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/30/johnson-amendment-el...
- EasyMark 2y ago
  that's a great counterpoint.

jfengel 2y ago

Not to take the blame off politicians, but there is an intermediate step. Citizens United allows unlimited spending on advertising. You still can't buy politicians directly. You still have to get voters to vote for them. This is on us. We have the responsibility to look at the advertising and make a choice. We are so, so much worse at it than I would ever have believed.

Workaccount2 2y ago
This is one of the fundamental divides in politics that causes endless friction. Are people responsible for their actions or is the government responsible for people's actions?
- jfengel 2y ago
  It came down do an instant where people were given a choice of two levers. The government does not control them at that point. They make their choice freely. The American people said what we want, and deserve to get it, good and hard.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  The government assumes it is in charge of everything, and accountable to and for nothing. People are always responsible for their own actions. If anyone else was responsible then people would become objects to be acted upon and no longer people. The current practice I call "accountability laundering". This is where you create situations where somehow no one is accountable. Where no one knows who to point a finger at. This causes like 90% of the worlds problems. People create systems this way on purpose. Public companies, private equity, governments, huge orgs where no one is actually at the helm. All so no one can point a finger when something goes wrong.
tomrod 2y ago
>This is on us. We have the responsibility to look at the advertising and make a choice. It's not on "us" -- many people have long argued against the current state of legal bribery and corruption in the US, both advocating against and voting against this outcome. It's very much on the owners and workers of media channels, traditional (television, newspaper) and modern (adtech).
- krapp 2y ago
  >many people have long argued against the current state of legal bribery and corruption in the US, both advocating against and voting against this outcome. Do they, or do they mostly argue that one party is the corrupt one and vote for the other party?
  - tomrod 2y ago
    I'm am sure some would, why not. Do you normally question whether people deviate from behaving as stereotypes and are generally incapable of individual behavior, or just when corruption and bribery in the US is discussed?
    - krapp 2y ago
      People do tend to normally behave as stereotypes where American politics is concerned, and the essentially two party dynamic of the American political system encourages that. I don't know what you're trying to accuse me of, but the near absolute fixation on partisanship and identity politics in the US is well known.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        > I don't know what you're trying to accuse me of Apologies, I could have been clearer in my last comment. I found that your reductive approach to assumed polarization is a thought terminating cliche, which signals an end to any interest in conversation by the invoker of the cliche. > the near absolute fixation on partisanship and identity politics in the US is well known. It really isn't, unless, I would argue, we believe cable news or propaganda sources are a good source of daily information and infotainment. I think they do a poor job communicating complex nuance and people not being solely engaged in wedge issues, forcing a narrative of existential danger in exchange for more clicks and views. > People do tend to normally behave as stereotypes where American politics is concerned Again, I think this is reductive.
bsenftner 2y ago
Every US election is Christmas for months for the advertising industry. All those political dollars raised? 95% given to media channels to air political ads. The US elections are nothing about the people, and everything about pouring as much money as they can shake from the citizens into the media machine. And we don't even want the ads, don't need them, it's all a giant farce.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  Publicly funded elections are good solution to this and get dark money out of politics. Bernie Sanders, for example, has talked about this before and has a page dedicated to how we can have more free and fair elections[0], notably: > Abolish super PACs and replace corporate funding with publicly funded elections that amplify small-doner donations. 0: https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-and-fair-elections https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-and-fair-elections
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    A lot of media exists for political reasons. Making adjustments to campaign funding isn't going to do anything about that. It's likely more effective than campaign spending...

rsanek 2y ago

It is interesting how Kamala out-raised Trump by nearly double in this most recent election. I guess it's not as simple as 'buying' a politician after all.

ceejayoz 2y ago
The richest man on the planet put like $250M in a personal PAC, didn’t he? Direct fundraising by candidates is a small part of the picture.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]