3 ms·
I don't know why comparing political donations to food puts these numbers in perspective. A better comparison is other nations fundraising. Canadians spend les
by dr_doom 14y ago
I don't know why comparing political donations to food puts these numbers in perspective. A better comparison is other nations fundraising.
Canadians spend less on campaigns than the "biggest spenders" on that chart combined, with 37 million citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_...
During the 2010 presidential election Brazilians spent $2 billion on campaigns and have ~200 million citizens.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/world/world_global-campaign-finance_1_party-spending-public-funding-political-parties/3?_s=PM:WORLD http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/world/world_global-campai...
- m_myers 14y agoFrom this tiny sample, it appears that the US is fairly average. Has anyone compiled a fuller list of per capita campaign costs by country? I could find none.
- makmanalp 14y agoBecause pets are a luxury, but political participation is a necessity for the country to work properly.
- andreasvc 14y agoPolitical donations are not a necessity for the country to work properly. Pets may be a luxury, but once you have them feeding them is arguably a necessity. What's missing is whether they are buying more luxurious food than necessary. Anyway, in the end it's a completely arbitrary comparison.
- makmanalp 14y agoPoint taken about having to feed them once you have them. And I agree that political donations are not a necessity, but only if donations are banned, which is not the case. If your opponents are getting donations, then you are at a net loss if you don't. In that sense, being idealistic does not get you supporters, and donations really are necessary.
- onetwothreefour 14y agoFeeding pets isn't a luxury. Without food, they die.