5 ms·

I think rich people have too much influence, I probably agree with Garry Tan on a lot but we need to get money out of politics. Let’s face it we’re all meant to

I think rich people have too much influence, I probably agree with Garry Tan on a lot but we need to get money out of politics. Let’s face it we’re all meant to get one vote but rich people spend money on this stuff so that they manipulate what and who can be voted for. I do think that if this current system is the result of democracy + the internet we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s currently failing everyone but the ultra wealthy.

UncleMeat 8mo ago
Garry doesn’t even really believe in democracy. He’s gone full CEO-king.
abtinf 8mo ago
> we need to get money out of politics. We need to get the power out of politics.
- CodingJeebus 8mo ago
  What is money if not a proxy of power? If money didn't buy power, no one would be interested in attaining billions in wealth.
  - terminalshort 8mo ago
    They are obviously related, but it is a very loose correlation. If a billionaire (who does not pay me) gives me an order I will laugh in his face. If a traffic cop gives me an order, I will comply.
    - TFYS 8mo ago
      > (who does not pay me) You're answering a comment saying money is power by saying that it isn't if it's not used? Even if the billionaire doesn't pay you, they can pay someone else to force you to do what they want.
      - terminalshort 8mo ago
        Who is he going to pay an how is that person going to force me to comply?
        mystraline 8mo ago
        Pinkertons. And the US national guard. Its happened before, over labor disputes and unionization. A LOT of people died, both in anti-union and union sides. And thats why we have, well, had, the National Labor Relations Board. It was to make a peaceful way to negotiate worker rights. Maybe if it did go away completely, and the violence comes back, that people in power would be reminded WHY we had union structure and law in the federal government to begin with. It wasn't for the warm fuzzies.
        ryandrake 8mo ago
        Not to mention Lawyers. The civil court system is basically a way for wealthy people and corporations to use money to silence and/or coerce behavior out of less wealthy people. If Elon Musk or Larry Ellison woke up one day and decided to sue me, and defending myself would cost 100X my net worth, I'm probably just going to give up and do whatever they want me to do.
        mothballed 8mo ago
        There still is something to it. You could bring your billion to Dubai and it might buy you some pardons from personal indiscretions and a cadre of quasi-slaves but the monarchs would never grant you real systemic political power.
        aylmao 8mo ago
        If you bring a billion anywhere you won't get systemic political power unless you seek it. Political power isn't about having money, but money gives you the operational range you need to seek political power. There's a lot of money in Dubai, so if your operation is to just hope to impress and be offered power without much effort on your end, 1 billion won't be enough. Perhaps 100 or 1,000 billion could work? Hard to tell. If you only have 1 billion though, you need to play your cards in a smarter way. Who can you become friends with? What clubs and parties do you need to attend to make it happen? Which politicians and royals can you get dirt on? Who can you bribe for information? What gifts can you give to gain someones trust? 1 billion is enough operational range for this.
    - aylmao 8mo ago
      This doesn't mean money has no power over you. Perhaps the billionaire can't buy your willingness to do something, but they can very much affect the material world around you, and therefore, you. If you rent they can probably find a way to kick you out of your apartment. If someone around you _is_ willing to take an order, influencing what people around you do very much influences you. If they want something from you, and you're not willing to sell it, there will be people willing to steal it, etc. Money very much is proxy of power. Perhaps not everything can be bought, sure. But money gives you operational range to attempt to impose your will when it doesn't.
  - limagnolia 8mo ago
    What is politics if not a means of exercising power? If there were no power in politics, no one would be interested in politics.
    - RobotToaster 8mo ago
      That power is supposed to be exercised to enact the will of the people, for the good of the people.
      - limagnolia 8mo ago
        Is it? In the US, our constitution is setup to prevent absolute democracy from occurring. The idea of an absolute democracy where the government always acts on the will of the majority as an ideal is hardly a universal value.
    - CodingJeebus 8mo ago
      How does a government without power work? How do you take power out of the process of governing?
      - limagnolia 8mo ago
        Yes, that is my point. You can't take power out of politics, and you can't take money (which is one form of power) out of politics. Best you can do is manage it.
  - cess11 8mo ago
    "no one would be interested in attaining billions in wealth" Sounds good to me.
  - Barrin92 8mo ago
    >What is money if not a proxy of power? for a lot of people in the newly rich class, a kind of virtual currency best compared to a high score in a videogame. Symbolic and representing status. It's why when they attempt to translate it into power this particular class thankfully fares fairly badly, from the article: "TogetherSF, a similar nonprofit backed by venture capitalist Michael Moritz, crashed and burned after the 2024 elections when its $9.5 million ballot measure to reform the city charter lost to a progressive counter-measure backed by about $117,000."
- bigyabai 8mo ago
  Once you figure that out, get to work on the flying pig.
- snihalani 8mo ago
  I wish we had direct voting on important decisions
  - Analemma_ 8mo ago
    Hell no, California has this and it’s a catastrophe. Prop 13 is one of the worst policies enacted by a democratic polity in the 20th century, and has been wrecking the state for decades.
    - terminalshort 8mo ago
      So do you believe in democracy or not? And I do not mean this as a loaded question because the value of democracy is a legitimately arguable point. If the majority of Californians want caps on property tax, then I do not see a good argument that they should not get it that is also compatible with democracy.
      - biophysboy 8mo ago
        Democracy can mean a lot of things: direct, representative, etc. Voting for yourself is different from voting for your constituents. Ideally, the latter will also consider community effects.
      - thomassmith65 8mo ago
        If you put a question to the electorate like 'should we tax only people whose last name begins with an X, Y or Z?', it's liable to pass. Nobody really advocates for Direct Democracy. It isn't viable: 'tyranny of the majority' etc. Most Western governments are Liberal Democracies - where some issues aren't subject to a vote - partly so that the mob can't persecute outnumbered subgroups.
        jemmyw 8mo ago
        That is highly unlikely. People may seem stupid when acting as a larger group, but I think part of that is that our current democracy doesn't require much engagement. If we moved to direct democracy then imo we'd get some bad policies that would quickly be reverted once the effects become apparent, and then voters are going to be a bit more careful. For example, "only taxing people whose last name begins with X, Y, Z", I don't think voters would currently be that dumb, but if they were then how many weeks of zero tax money would it take to get that undone?
- Daishiman 8mo ago
  Power exists whether you like it or not and when power gets away from decisionmaking you just generate a power vacuum. Power needs to be placed in the hands of better decision-makers. That starts from getting money out of politics.
- cjs_ac 8mo ago
  Politics is about deciding who gets to exercise power and what they get to do with it. Politics detached from power is just pointless squabbling.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    It's not, since voluntary transactions can happen as a result of said squabbling without resorting to the violence of 'power.' Maybe we need more of that and less of ramming decisions down the throats of the powerless.
    - Tarq0n 8mo ago
      Not really a solution for large-scale collective action problems.
    - andy_ppp 8mo ago
      Yeah I sometimes think you could have a government you select, e.g. each state could have its own rules and laws and the federal government should not have the power to overrule them. Then you could choose if you wanted immigration or lower taxes or whatever, seems like a good system who can suggest it?
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        Yes the 10th amendment was supposed to ensure a lot of that that but it was largely waived away during the progressive era and in acts related to the civil war. But cuz slavery for some reason it also has to apply to all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with slaves or even civil rights (in the sense of negative rights) and you are racist or love slaves or something for pointing this out.
  - nkmnz 8mo ago
    So how about exercising less power?
    - 8note 8mo ago
- xixixao 8mo ago
  All reactions are taking this comment seriously, but I think it can be also read as "money equals power" (which I strongly believe - there's some power without money and sometimes money without power, but mostly those two are fungible) - and then pointing to the futility of getting money out of politics, since politics is about power. But really what people mean is "prevent paid political advertisement of all kinds", which seems about as hard as "get rid of all kinds of advertisement" - at some point, you're back to power, communication, attention. Hard problems. Probably there's a reason all ancient democracies did not survive.
xyst 8mo ago
System is broken af. Politicians don’t want to reign in on campaign financing because it will hurt their own re-election and campaign fundraising. Republicans have bought/installed the SCOTUS which allowed for favorable decision in Citizens United v FEC. This corporation dominated landscape is quite awful. Corporations have more rights than woman right now.
- terminalshort 8mo ago
  Citizens United was the correct decision. I don't understand how you can legitimately restrict political activity. The constitution contains the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Why should certain groups of people not have this right? The constitution also contains the right to freedom of the press. Why should the government get to decide who gets to exercise this right?
  - catlover76 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - andy_ppp 8mo ago
    Every other country on earth has spending limits, the constitution isn’t perfect and it’s being dismantled by the current regime. Maybe it could be updated to say covering up for pedo billionaires should carry extremely harsh sentences, for example…
    - nullocator 8mo ago
      Not sure that would be enough given the regime and specifically the current supreme court. Such amendments to the constitution would be met with interpretations like "ackshually this country has a long and honored tradition of protecting pedos and the major questions doctrine (a thing we kinda just made up) says that we gotta ignore the text of the constitution and instead just vibes decide that pedos are a-okay in our book" [applies to literally any subject]
  - anthem2025 8mo ago
femiagbabiaka 8mo ago
This is an underrated point because the U.S. failure to rein in the excesses of the ultra-wealthy is not just impacting our domestic politics but actually the politics of every country on earth. Imagine if Jack Ma had eventually personally intervened in U.S. congressional elections? That's pretty much exactly what U.S. oligarchs do to other countries regularly.
- terminalshort 8mo ago
  You are using a lot of obfuscated and loaded language. What, specifically, are the "excesses of the ultra-wealthy" that need to be reigned in? What do you mean by "personally intervened in U.S. congressional relations"?
  - femiagbabiaka 8mo ago
    I'm commenting on one such excess. Here is another: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-election-donations-00758992 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-elec.... The Nazification of X and federal subsidies for Elon's companies are another. There are many more examples. s/relations/elections/ -- because Elon et. al don't just intervene in the elections of the country they live in, but actually any country he's interested in -- and uses the U.S. as a bludgeon in that effort, see U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-South Africa relations
    - terminalshort 8mo ago
      How is Elon's editorial control of X something the government needs to (or even should have the power to) "reign in?" How is that not freedom of the press just like the owner of the New York Times having editorial control over his newspaper? Same goes for his donation to the PAC. What is the nefarious activity they are engaged in? Why are they not allowed to exercise their freedom of the press in the same way as any other company?
      - amarcheschi 8mo ago
        He allowed child porn to proliferate for days on the platform
terminalshort 8mo ago
How do you define "manipulate" here?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- andy_ppp 8mo ago
  There are great tools available that I’m sure you could use to give you a synopsis of how money is used to manipulate political outcomes and entrench wealth and power.
- array_key_first 8mo ago
  Any action which may be done to influence political outcomes, such as elections, regulation, and enforcement, for personal or business enrichment. For example, lobbying. Or, posting on social media. Or, creating a social media. Or, controlling a social media algorithm. Or, in the Trump administration, signalling loyalty via donations with the intention of less-strict enforcement (see: every tech company right now). You'll notice most new regulations like tariffs have specific exemptions carved out for tech companies. The reason that exists is because tech companies have quid-pro gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars and, in exchange, they have written the laws to get themselves out of jail. This is sort of just what happens when you allow money to buy decisions. This sucks morally, obviously, but it also sucks economically. Our economy is on the verge of imploding. The only reason it hasn't is because it's being artificially propped up by the regulatory landscape, i.e. the oligarchy is writing the laws such that they will survive, and their competition will not. This also goes hand-in-hand with protectionist policy which, surprise surprise, is the name of the game for this administration.
bpodgursky 8mo ago
If rich techies had too much influence in California, the state government would not look like what it does. I mean I just don't see how you get to this opinion after any real review of the evidence.
- andy_ppp 8mo ago
  You cherry picked California which is very much an outlier compared to the rest of the country? Are you denying the effect of money affecting political outcomes, the rich wouldn’t spend their money on media and PACs if it didn’t work would they?
  - bpodgursky 8mo ago
    > Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan launches group to influence CA politics I'm talking about the actual issue being discussed! Garry Tan isn't launching a group to influence Wyoming politics.
    - refulgentis 8mo ago
      What about my comment? :)
    - andy_ppp 8mo ago
      I think this is completely missing the point… are you really saying California would be improved by more rich people being able to game the system? I think CA would benefit from more visionary politicians (i.e. not paid for) and more people at the bottom end being able to have homes in the big cities and less wealth accumulation, maybe reducing the gap between power and poverty means we could have better societies. I’m not talking about crazy change btw, reducing billionaires wealth to that of the nineties would allow us to rebuild a lot of great things and employ a lot of people. Putting money into stocks, real estate and crypto does not create wealth.
- refulgentis 8mo ago
  > I mean I just don't see how you get to this opinion after any real review of the evidence. Graybeard here: took me a while to get it, but, usually these are chances to elucidate what is obvious to you :)* ex. I don't really know what you mean. What does the California state government look like if rich techies had even more influence? I can construct a facile version (lower taxes**) but assuredly you mean more than that to be taken so aback. * Good Atlas Shrugged quote on this: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check [ED: or share, if you've moseyed yourself into a discussion] your premises." ** It's not 100% clear politicians steered by California techies would lower taxes ad infinitum.
oulipo2 8mo ago
Exactly. We should tax billionaires away.
- terminalshort 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - roughly 8mo ago
    Wait, are you suggesting we _shouldn't_ treat billionaires as a collective action problem to be dealt with via policy? So you're suggesting what, individual violence?
  - anthem2025 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - JKCalhoun 8mo ago
    > Taxes exist to fund the government which exists to solve collective action problems. Wealth inequality, billionaires trying to skew politics… kind of a problem that needs collective action.
  - shimman 8mo ago
    Nah billionaires need to be punished, they have raped the Earth for profit and caused mass misery/death upon her people. In fact a good way for the US to rebuild credibility is to probably send a few billionaires to the Hague and have them tried for crimes against humanity in the ICJ.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Lots of billionaires should probably be at the hague. But we should be glad if people can become billionaires because they are generating that much value of both parties being better off, without imposing externalities on others. Yvonne Chouinard came close to this ideal, I think. If someone can genuinely generate billions in value, not just by imposing externalities on others that they then reallocate to themselves, I will be damn glad that they exist and be damn glad that the hope of getting richer keeps them at it.
supjeff 8mo ago
I agree with you, in spirit, but I think the true issue lies elsewhere. Rich people can spend money to influence elections, yes, but how can they do it? through political donations, super-pacs and bribes. Bribes are already illegal. political donations and super-pacs can give politicians the juice they need to get their messaging out, but getting the message across isn't enough to win an election. The people need to vote. Billionaires can spend as much money as they want to support candidates, but a billionaire still only has one vote to cast. My point is, billionaires can pay for all the political campaigns in the world, but the electorate gets the final say. It's up to us to A) run for office and B) vote for the best candidate (but tell that to the 64% turnout in the 2024 presidential election)
- bayindirh 8mo ago
  Consider watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOmUWd-OII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOmUWd-OII
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- aylmao 8mo ago
  Elections are important, but they're just one part of the political system. A lot of machinations and politics occurs outside the scope of elections or even of the public eye. Money doesn't just buy ads. It influences the decision of who is a candidate in the first place. It buys operational range. It pays salaries for the right friend of X, the right family member of Y, etc. It buys other bribes, etc.
yndoendo 8mo ago
Eat the rich. I do so by taking Jeff Bezos' money and giving him a penny. Also by not supporting restaurants that have a Wall-street ticker nor any alcohol producers that have a Wall-street ticker.
- etrautmann 8mo ago
  What does this mean? are you employed by Amazon and phoning it in, or how are you extracting money from Bezos?
  - yndoendo 8mo ago
    I work in automation. We sell solutions to businesses such as Amazon and a number of others like them. They demanded millions in free engineering labor because they are too big not to do business with. Companies are so big in the USA that you become slave labor. I rarely support business that have Wall-street tickers. I have not personally financially supported Amazon, Walmart, Home Depot, ... for years. I also do not buy any beverages from a Wall-street provider. No Coca-Cola, Pepsi, ... Ultra wealth are just terrible humans that do not deserve respect for how they treat everyone below them in the economic ladder. I no longer want to help fund the CEO of McDonald's with his golden parachute while they support non-living wages.
assimpleaspossi 8mo ago
You are spot on about rich people buying influence this way but it has nothing to do with how great democracy is.
NedF 8mo ago
[dead]
fainpul 8mo ago
Every "democracy" I know, has become a plutocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
root_axis 8mo ago
> we need to get money out of politics Not really possible. There's at least 40 more years of citizens united before any practical ability to restrict money in politics becomes constitutional again. > we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s currently failing everyone but the ultra wealthy Not true. The plurality that voted in the current administration are generally pleased with the state of things. Democracy is working as expected. It was close, but this is what more people wanted.
- johnnyanmac 8mo ago
  > but this is what more people wanted. You haven't even tried checking 2026 approval ratings, have you?
  - root_axis 8mo ago
    His approval has been hovering around 40%, which is pretty typical for him and is still higher than his lowest levels in term one. He has a lot of opposition, but most of those are people who voted against him. Those that did vote for him are generally pleased.
    - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
      On the surface, pretty much any polling you can point to will have trump close to his global minima, despite only being 25% through his term. While he started his polling in the high 40's/low/50's (as usual). Losing 10 points in a year is pretty radical change. About the same change as term 1, but it did rise after that. I'm not so certain it's rising this time between the dozen Watergate level scandals in the wild. ---- Now, under the surface, the makeup of the approval is more polarized than ever. D's started abysmally and sunk to single digit levels. R's started 90 percent and fell some 4-5 points in comparison, but is still extremely high. The real dips really come from the fallout of Independents cratering like a rock. Maybe I need to review more polling numbers, but that sort of split was truly eye opening. The Independent numbers definitely suggest that there's some voter regret at work in such a short time
scoofy 8mo ago
Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections. If it really did, Hillary Clinton would have been president twice. It's just that candidates with a ton of support tend to raise a ton of money. Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electorate where most people can't even name their US House rep, much less their representatives in state and local politics.
- johnea 8mo ago
  This is total bullshit. Or maybe a statement of just how much the US population is uninformed/misinformed. If the later is true, the US 'electorate' really is dumb as dirt...
  - scoofy 8mo ago
    From 1994: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764 From 2024: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659 Consistent results indicate that, yes, money tends to matter, but it's the source of that money that tends to be doing the heavy lifting.
    - ohbleek 8mo ago
      “Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections“ Your earlier statement, in which you claim that “money doesn’t effect result” followed by a useless distinction of high or low info elections. You’re really trying to dance a fine line of nonsense here. “ We find a positive and statistically significant relationship between campaign expenditure, campaign contributions and winning probability.” From the same article you posted and the first academic journal result if you Google “studies on how money influences elections”.
      - scoofy 8mo ago
        >Our finding is in line with existing results in the literature regarding the US House elections that incumbent candidates gain less from spending, compared to their contender counterparts. This is due to diminishing returns that occur at a certain point, after which incumbent candidates can increase the winning probability only marginally (Green & Krasno, 1988). However, this finding is in contrast with other studies considering electoral systems in Brazil, Japan, or India, where spending effectiveness is equally applicable for both incumbents and contenders (Johnson, 2013; Lee, 2020; Samuels, 2001). So yea, sorry for providing two scholarly journal articles from two different political eras that support my thesis. I didn’t realize that this was a bad faith discussion. Now I know.
ralph84 8mo ago
Politics in the US is a $11 trillion per year business. Money is inherent.
timmytokyo 8mo ago
How coincidental that I was just reading something related [0] before seeing this post. "Silicon Valley is bad at politics. If nothing else during Trump 2.0, I think we’ve learned that Silicon Valley doesn’t exactly have its finger on the pulse of the American public. It’s insular, it’s very, very, very, very rich. [...] I expect it to play its hand in a way that any rich 'degen' on a poker winning streak would: overconfidently and badly." And... “People don’t take guillotines seriously. But historically, when a tiny group gains a huge amount of power and makes life-altering decisions for a vast number of people, the minority gets actually, for real, killed.” [0] https://substack.com/home/post/p-187592016 https://substack.com/home/post/p-187592016 Nate Silver often annoys the hell out of me, but I think he's right about some of the possible political impacts of AI.
donblanco 8mo ago
"we need to get money out of politics" Then Congress will need to pass legislation to that extent that would also survive a challenge based on the precedent established by the Citizens United case. Or a Constitutional Amendment that would weaken the 1st Amendment. IOW, it is unlikely to happen in your lifetime. Focus your efforts elsewhere...
- andy_ppp 8mo ago
  One person using their “free speech” to stop many others from having free speech nets out to negative free speech. If this doesn’t change the United States will fail or become an oligarchy, or both, so I’d consider it.
RickJWagner 8mo ago
Don’t forget celebrity. Celebrities can take minutes of time stolen from an audience to make a one-sided argument for their pet political issues. It’s intolerable. One person, one vote. Equal platform.

UncleMeat 8mo ago

Garry doesn’t even really believe in democracy. He’s gone full CEO-king.

abtinf 8mo ago

> we need to get money out of politics. We need to get the power out of politics.

CodingJeebus 8mo ago
What is money if not a proxy of power? If money didn't buy power, no one would be interested in attaining billions in wealth.
- terminalshort 8mo ago
  They are obviously related, but it is a very loose correlation. If a billionaire (who does not pay me) gives me an order I will laugh in his face. If a traffic cop gives me an order, I will comply.
  - TFYS 8mo ago
    > (who does not pay me) You're answering a comment saying money is power by saying that it isn't if it's not used? Even if the billionaire doesn't pay you, they can pay someone else to force you to do what they want.
    - terminalshort 8mo ago
      Who is he going to pay an how is that person going to force me to comply?
      - mystraline 8mo ago
        Pinkertons. And the US national guard. Its happened before, over labor disputes and unionization. A LOT of people died, both in anti-union and union sides. And thats why we have, well, had, the National Labor Relations Board. It was to make a peaceful way to negotiate worker rights. Maybe if it did go away completely, and the violence comes back, that people in power would be reminded WHY we had union structure and law in the federal government to begin with. It wasn't for the warm fuzzies.
        ryandrake 8mo ago
        Not to mention Lawyers. The civil court system is basically a way for wealthy people and corporations to use money to silence and/or coerce behavior out of less wealthy people. If Elon Musk or Larry Ellison woke up one day and decided to sue me, and defending myself would cost 100X my net worth, I'm probably just going to give up and do whatever they want me to do.
        mothballed 8mo ago
        There still is something to it. You could bring your billion to Dubai and it might buy you some pardons from personal indiscretions and a cadre of quasi-slaves but the monarchs would never grant you real systemic political power.
        aylmao 8mo ago
        If you bring a billion anywhere you won't get systemic political power unless you seek it. Political power isn't about having money, but money gives you the operational range you need to seek political power. There's a lot of money in Dubai, so if your operation is to just hope to impress and be offered power without much effort on your end, 1 billion won't be enough. Perhaps 100 or 1,000 billion could work? Hard to tell. If you only have 1 billion though, you need to play your cards in a smarter way. Who can you become friends with? What clubs and parties do you need to attend to make it happen? Which politicians and royals can you get dirt on? Who can you bribe for information? What gifts can you give to gain someones trust? 1 billion is enough operational range for this.
  - aylmao 8mo ago
    This doesn't mean money has no power over you. Perhaps the billionaire can't buy your willingness to do something, but they can very much affect the material world around you, and therefore, you. If you rent they can probably find a way to kick you out of your apartment. If someone around you _is_ willing to take an order, influencing what people around you do very much influences you. If they want something from you, and you're not willing to sell it, there will be people willing to steal it, etc. Money very much is proxy of power. Perhaps not everything can be bought, sure. But money gives you operational range to attempt to impose your will when it doesn't.
- limagnolia 8mo ago
  What is politics if not a means of exercising power? If there were no power in politics, no one would be interested in politics.
  - RobotToaster 8mo ago
    That power is supposed to be exercised to enact the will of the people, for the good of the people.
    - limagnolia 8mo ago
      Is it? In the US, our constitution is setup to prevent absolute democracy from occurring. The idea of an absolute democracy where the government always acts on the will of the majority as an ideal is hardly a universal value.
  - CodingJeebus 8mo ago
    How does a government without power work? How do you take power out of the process of governing?
    - limagnolia 8mo ago
      Yes, that is my point. You can't take power out of politics, and you can't take money (which is one form of power) out of politics. Best you can do is manage it.
- cess11 8mo ago
  "no one would be interested in attaining billions in wealth" Sounds good to me.
- Barrin92 8mo ago
  >What is money if not a proxy of power? for a lot of people in the newly rich class, a kind of virtual currency best compared to a high score in a videogame. Symbolic and representing status. It's why when they attempt to translate it into power this particular class thankfully fares fairly badly, from the article: "TogetherSF, a similar nonprofit backed by venture capitalist Michael Moritz, crashed and burned after the 2024 elections when its $9.5 million ballot measure to reform the city charter lost to a progressive counter-measure backed by about $117,000."
bigyabai 8mo ago
Once you figure that out, get to work on the flying pig.
snihalani 8mo ago
I wish we had direct voting on important decisions
- Analemma_ 8mo ago
  Hell no, California has this and it’s a catastrophe. Prop 13 is one of the worst policies enacted by a democratic polity in the 20th century, and has been wrecking the state for decades.
  - terminalshort 8mo ago
    So do you believe in democracy or not? And I do not mean this as a loaded question because the value of democracy is a legitimately arguable point. If the majority of Californians want caps on property tax, then I do not see a good argument that they should not get it that is also compatible with democracy.
    - biophysboy 8mo ago
      Democracy can mean a lot of things: direct, representative, etc. Voting for yourself is different from voting for your constituents. Ideally, the latter will also consider community effects.
    - thomassmith65 8mo ago
      If you put a question to the electorate like 'should we tax only people whose last name begins with an X, Y or Z?', it's liable to pass. Nobody really advocates for Direct Democracy. It isn't viable: 'tyranny of the majority' etc. Most Western governments are Liberal Democracies - where some issues aren't subject to a vote - partly so that the mob can't persecute outnumbered subgroups.
      - jemmyw 8mo ago
        That is highly unlikely. People may seem stupid when acting as a larger group, but I think part of that is that our current democracy doesn't require much engagement. If we moved to direct democracy then imo we'd get some bad policies that would quickly be reverted once the effects become apparent, and then voters are going to be a bit more careful. For example, "only taxing people whose last name begins with X, Y, Z", I don't think voters would currently be that dumb, but if they were then how many weeks of zero tax money would it take to get that undone?
Daishiman 8mo ago
Power exists whether you like it or not and when power gets away from decisionmaking you just generate a power vacuum. Power needs to be placed in the hands of better decision-makers. That starts from getting money out of politics.
cjs_ac 8mo ago
Politics is about deciding who gets to exercise power and what they get to do with it. Politics detached from power is just pointless squabbling.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  It's not, since voluntary transactions can happen as a result of said squabbling without resorting to the violence of 'power.' Maybe we need more of that and less of ramming decisions down the throats of the powerless.
  - Tarq0n 8mo ago
    Not really a solution for large-scale collective action problems.
  - andy_ppp 8mo ago
    Yeah I sometimes think you could have a government you select, e.g. each state could have its own rules and laws and the federal government should not have the power to overrule them. Then you could choose if you wanted immigration or lower taxes or whatever, seems like a good system who can suggest it?
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Yes the 10th amendment was supposed to ensure a lot of that that but it was largely waived away during the progressive era and in acts related to the civil war. But cuz slavery for some reason it also has to apply to all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with slaves or even civil rights (in the sense of negative rights) and you are racist or love slaves or something for pointing this out.
- nkmnz 8mo ago
  So how about exercising less power?
  - 8note 8mo ago
xixixao 8mo ago
All reactions are taking this comment seriously, but I think it can be also read as "money equals power" (which I strongly believe - there's some power without money and sometimes money without power, but mostly those two are fungible) - and then pointing to the futility of getting money out of politics, since politics is about power. But really what people mean is "prevent paid political advertisement of all kinds", which seems about as hard as "get rid of all kinds of advertisement" - at some point, you're back to power, communication, attention. Hard problems. Probably there's a reason all ancient democracies did not survive.

xyst 8mo ago

System is broken af. Politicians don’t want to reign in on campaign financing because it will hurt their own re-election and campaign fundraising. Republicans have bought/installed the SCOTUS which allowed for favorable decision in Citizens United v FEC. This corporation dominated landscape is quite awful. Corporations have more rights than woman right now.

terminalshort 8mo ago
Citizens United was the correct decision. I don't understand how you can legitimately restrict political activity. The constitution contains the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Why should certain groups of people not have this right? The constitution also contains the right to freedom of the press. Why should the government get to decide who gets to exercise this right?
- catlover76 8mo ago
  [dead]
- andy_ppp 8mo ago
  Every other country on earth has spending limits, the constitution isn’t perfect and it’s being dismantled by the current regime. Maybe it could be updated to say covering up for pedo billionaires should carry extremely harsh sentences, for example…
  - nullocator 8mo ago
    Not sure that would be enough given the regime and specifically the current supreme court. Such amendments to the constitution would be met with interpretations like "ackshually this country has a long and honored tradition of protecting pedos and the major questions doctrine (a thing we kinda just made up) says that we gotta ignore the text of the constitution and instead just vibes decide that pedos are a-okay in our book" [applies to literally any subject]
- anthem2025 8mo ago

femiagbabiaka 8mo ago

This is an underrated point because the U.S. failure to rein in the excesses of the ultra-wealthy is not just impacting our domestic politics but actually the politics of every country on earth. Imagine if Jack Ma had eventually personally intervened in U.S. congressional elections? That's pretty much exactly what U.S. oligarchs do to other countries regularly.

terminalshort 8mo ago
You are using a lot of obfuscated and loaded language. What, specifically, are the "excesses of the ultra-wealthy" that need to be reigned in? What do you mean by "personally intervened in U.S. congressional relations"?
- femiagbabiaka 8mo ago
  I'm commenting on one such excess. Here is another: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-election-donations-00758992 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-elec.... The Nazification of X and federal subsidies for Elon's companies are another. There are many more examples. s/relations/elections/ -- because Elon et. al don't just intervene in the elections of the country they live in, but actually any country he's interested in -- and uses the U.S. as a bludgeon in that effort, see U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-South Africa relations
  - terminalshort 8mo ago
    How is Elon's editorial control of X something the government needs to (or even should have the power to) "reign in?" How is that not freedom of the press just like the owner of the New York Times having editorial control over his newspaper? Same goes for his donation to the PAC. What is the nefarious activity they are engaged in? Why are they not allowed to exercise their freedom of the press in the same way as any other company?
    - amarcheschi 8mo ago
      He allowed child porn to proliferate for days on the platform

terminalshort 8mo ago

How do you define "manipulate" here?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
andy_ppp 8mo ago
There are great tools available that I’m sure you could use to give you a synopsis of how money is used to manipulate political outcomes and entrench wealth and power.
array_key_first 8mo ago
Any action which may be done to influence political outcomes, such as elections, regulation, and enforcement, for personal or business enrichment. For example, lobbying. Or, posting on social media. Or, creating a social media. Or, controlling a social media algorithm. Or, in the Trump administration, signalling loyalty via donations with the intention of less-strict enforcement (see: every tech company right now). You'll notice most new regulations like tariffs have specific exemptions carved out for tech companies. The reason that exists is because tech companies have quid-pro gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars and, in exchange, they have written the laws to get themselves out of jail. This is sort of just what happens when you allow money to buy decisions. This sucks morally, obviously, but it also sucks economically. Our economy is on the verge of imploding. The only reason it hasn't is because it's being artificially propped up by the regulatory landscape, i.e. the oligarchy is writing the laws such that they will survive, and their competition will not. This also goes hand-in-hand with protectionist policy which, surprise surprise, is the name of the game for this administration.

bpodgursky 8mo ago

If rich techies had too much influence in California, the state government would not look like what it does. I mean I just don't see how you get to this opinion after any real review of the evidence.

andy_ppp 8mo ago
You cherry picked California which is very much an outlier compared to the rest of the country? Are you denying the effect of money affecting political outcomes, the rich wouldn’t spend their money on media and PACs if it didn’t work would they?
- bpodgursky 8mo ago
  > Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan launches group to influence CA politics I'm talking about the actual issue being discussed! Garry Tan isn't launching a group to influence Wyoming politics.
  - refulgentis 8mo ago
    What about my comment? :)
  - andy_ppp 8mo ago
    I think this is completely missing the point… are you really saying California would be improved by more rich people being able to game the system? I think CA would benefit from more visionary politicians (i.e. not paid for) and more people at the bottom end being able to have homes in the big cities and less wealth accumulation, maybe reducing the gap between power and poverty means we could have better societies. I’m not talking about crazy change btw, reducing billionaires wealth to that of the nineties would allow us to rebuild a lot of great things and employ a lot of people. Putting money into stocks, real estate and crypto does not create wealth.
refulgentis 8mo ago
> I mean I just don't see how you get to this opinion after any real review of the evidence. Graybeard here: took me a while to get it, but, usually these are chances to elucidate what is obvious to you :)* ex. I don't really know what you mean. What does the California state government look like if rich techies had even more influence? I can construct a facile version (lower taxes**) but assuredly you mean more than that to be taken so aback. * Good Atlas Shrugged quote on this: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check [ED: or share, if you've moseyed yourself into a discussion] your premises." ** It's not 100% clear politicians steered by California techies would lower taxes ad infinitum.

oulipo2 8mo ago

Exactly. We should tax billionaires away.

terminalshort 8mo ago
[flagged]
- roughly 8mo ago
  Wait, are you suggesting we _shouldn't_ treat billionaires as a collective action problem to be dealt with via policy? So you're suggesting what, individual violence?
- anthem2025 8mo ago
  [dead]
- JKCalhoun 8mo ago
  > Taxes exist to fund the government which exists to solve collective action problems. Wealth inequality, billionaires trying to skew politics… kind of a problem that needs collective action.
- shimman 8mo ago
  Nah billionaires need to be punished, they have raped the Earth for profit and caused mass misery/death upon her people. In fact a good way for the US to rebuild credibility is to probably send a few billionaires to the Hague and have them tried for crimes against humanity in the ICJ.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Lots of billionaires should probably be at the hague. But we should be glad if people can become billionaires because they are generating that much value of both parties being better off, without imposing externalities on others. Yvonne Chouinard came close to this ideal, I think. If someone can genuinely generate billions in value, not just by imposing externalities on others that they then reallocate to themselves, I will be damn glad that they exist and be damn glad that the hope of getting richer keeps them at it.

supjeff 8mo ago

I agree with you, in spirit, but I think the true issue lies elsewhere. Rich people can spend money to influence elections, yes, but how can they do it? through political donations, super-pacs and bribes. Bribes are already illegal. political donations and super-pacs can give politicians the juice they need to get their messaging out, but getting the message across isn't enough to win an election. The people need to vote. Billionaires can spend as much money as they want to support candidates, but a billionaire still only has one vote to cast. My point is, billionaires can pay for all the political campaigns in the world, but the electorate gets the final say. It's up to us to A) run for office and B) vote for the best candidate (but tell that to the 64% turnout in the 2024 presidential election)

bayindirh 8mo ago
Consider watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOmUWd-OII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOmUWd-OII
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
aylmao 8mo ago
Elections are important, but they're just one part of the political system. A lot of machinations and politics occurs outside the scope of elections or even of the public eye. Money doesn't just buy ads. It influences the decision of who is a candidate in the first place. It buys operational range. It pays salaries for the right friend of X, the right family member of Y, etc. It buys other bribes, etc.

yndoendo 8mo ago

Eat the rich. I do so by taking Jeff Bezos' money and giving him a penny. Also by not supporting restaurants that have a Wall-street ticker nor any alcohol producers that have a Wall-street ticker.

etrautmann 8mo ago
What does this mean? are you employed by Amazon and phoning it in, or how are you extracting money from Bezos?
- yndoendo 8mo ago
  I work in automation. We sell solutions to businesses such as Amazon and a number of others like them. They demanded millions in free engineering labor because they are too big not to do business with. Companies are so big in the USA that you become slave labor. I rarely support business that have Wall-street tickers. I have not personally financially supported Amazon, Walmart, Home Depot, ... for years. I also do not buy any beverages from a Wall-street provider. No Coca-Cola, Pepsi, ... Ultra wealth are just terrible humans that do not deserve respect for how they treat everyone below them in the economic ladder. I no longer want to help fund the CEO of McDonald's with his golden parachute while they support non-living wages.

assimpleaspossi 8mo ago

You are spot on about rich people buying influence this way but it has nothing to do with how great democracy is.

NedF 8mo ago

[dead]

fainpul 8mo ago

Every "democracy" I know, has become a plutocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

root_axis 8mo ago

> we need to get money out of politics Not really possible. There's at least 40 more years of citizens united before any practical ability to restrict money in politics becomes constitutional again. > we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s currently failing everyone but the ultra wealthy Not true. The plurality that voted in the current administration are generally pleased with the state of things. Democracy is working as expected. It was close, but this is what more people wanted.

johnnyanmac 8mo ago
> but this is what more people wanted. You haven't even tried checking 2026 approval ratings, have you?
- root_axis 8mo ago
  His approval has been hovering around 40%, which is pretty typical for him and is still higher than his lowest levels in term one. He has a lot of opposition, but most of those are people who voted against him. Those that did vote for him are generally pleased.
  - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
    On the surface, pretty much any polling you can point to will have trump close to his global minima, despite only being 25% through his term. While he started his polling in the high 40's/low/50's (as usual). Losing 10 points in a year is pretty radical change. About the same change as term 1, but it did rise after that. I'm not so certain it's rising this time between the dozen Watergate level scandals in the wild. ---- Now, under the surface, the makeup of the approval is more polarized than ever. D's started abysmally and sunk to single digit levels. R's started 90 percent and fell some 4-5 points in comparison, but is still extremely high. The real dips really come from the fallout of Independents cratering like a rock. Maybe I need to review more polling numbers, but that sort of split was truly eye opening. The Independent numbers definitely suggest that there's some voter regret at work in such a short time

scoofy 8mo ago

Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections. If it really did, Hillary Clinton would have been president twice. It's just that candidates with a ton of support tend to raise a ton of money. Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electorate where most people can't even name their US House rep, much less their representatives in state and local politics.

johnea 8mo ago
This is total bullshit. Or maybe a statement of just how much the US population is uninformed/misinformed. If the later is true, the US 'electorate' really is dumb as dirt...
- scoofy 8mo ago
  From 1994: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764 From 2024: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659 Consistent results indicate that, yes, money tends to matter, but it's the source of that money that tends to be doing the heavy lifting.
  - ohbleek 8mo ago
    “Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections“ Your earlier statement, in which you claim that “money doesn’t effect result” followed by a useless distinction of high or low info elections. You’re really trying to dance a fine line of nonsense here. “ We find a positive and statistically significant relationship between campaign expenditure, campaign contributions and winning probability.” From the same article you posted and the first academic journal result if you Google “studies on how money influences elections”.
    - scoofy 8mo ago
      >Our finding is in line with existing results in the literature regarding the US House elections that incumbent candidates gain less from spending, compared to their contender counterparts. This is due to diminishing returns that occur at a certain point, after which incumbent candidates can increase the winning probability only marginally (Green & Krasno, 1988). However, this finding is in contrast with other studies considering electoral systems in Brazil, Japan, or India, where spending effectiveness is equally applicable for both incumbents and contenders (Johnson, 2013; Lee, 2020; Samuels, 2001). So yea, sorry for providing two scholarly journal articles from two different political eras that support my thesis. I didn’t realize that this was a bad faith discussion. Now I know.

ralph84 8mo ago

Politics in the US is a $11 trillion per year business. Money is inherent.

timmytokyo 8mo ago

How coincidental that I was just reading something related [0] before seeing this post. "Silicon Valley is bad at politics. If nothing else during Trump 2.0, I think we’ve learned that Silicon Valley doesn’t exactly have its finger on the pulse of the American public. It’s insular, it’s very, very, very, very rich. [...] I expect it to play its hand in a way that any rich 'degen' on a poker winning streak would: overconfidently and badly." And... “People don’t take guillotines seriously. But historically, when a tiny group gains a huge amount of power and makes life-altering decisions for a vast number of people, the minority gets actually, for real, killed.” [0] https://substack.com/home/post/p-187592016 https://substack.com/home/post/p-187592016 Nate Silver often annoys the hell out of me, but I think he's right about some of the possible political impacts of AI.

donblanco 8mo ago

"we need to get money out of politics" Then Congress will need to pass legislation to that extent that would also survive a challenge based on the precedent established by the Citizens United case. Or a Constitutional Amendment that would weaken the 1st Amendment. IOW, it is unlikely to happen in your lifetime. Focus your efforts elsewhere...

andy_ppp 8mo ago
One person using their “free speech” to stop many others from having free speech nets out to negative free speech. If this doesn’t change the United States will fail or become an oligarchy, or both, so I’d consider it.

RickJWagner 8mo ago

Don’t forget celebrity. Celebrities can take minutes of time stolen from an audience to make a one-sided argument for their pet political issues. It’s intolerable. One person, one vote. Equal platform.