3 ms·
> Case in point: Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. Trump's campaign was about $541M cheaper. You are skipping Super PACs which is pretty much exclusively ultr
by bhouston 1y ago
> Case in point: Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. Trump's campaign was about $541M cheaper.
You are skipping Super PACs which is pretty much exclusively ultra rich people political spending.
Here is the Super PAC spending and Kamala was destroyed by pro-Trump spending:
Conservative/Trump: $1,754,585,468
Liberal/Kamala: $786,990,015
https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/super_pacs https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/super_pacs
- jimt1234 1y agoIMHO, this is the problem with trying to regulate elections in the US. Elections have always been intended to be controlled by the wealthy. This is nothing new. So, in the unlikely event that Congress does add regulations that neuter Super-PACs, and the less-likely event that the Courts uphold the regulations, well, they'll just come up with a new way to fund the desired outcome. They'll call it Super-Duper-PACs or Turbo-PACs or some shit like that.
- ch4s3 1y agoThat's across all elections and issues, not just the presidential campaigns. About 30% of the top ten conservative PACs listed are for single senators or DeSantis. Lumpin them all together as Pro-Trump is just as dishonest as ignoring PACs.