3 ms·
$3 per month just shows how little money it would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary expend
by espeed 17y ago
$3 per month just shows how little money it would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary expenditures.
It's $36 per year -- people could donate more -- you can donate up to $2,000 per candidate per election. And $3 per month is to outspend all contributions and all lobbying expenditures combined -- you could spend much less to be an influential player.
- JimmyL 17y agoI don't think anyone's doubting the $3/month figure - most people could spare that. It's the "getting 100% of registered voters to participate" part that has many people thinking you're overreaching slightly. For the most part, the people that currently donate to political organizations will keep donating to those same organizations - they're happy with them, they voluntarily chose to donate to them, and they will need a lot of convincing to move their donor-dollars. So you're going to need to get people who don't currently donate money for political purposes to join your effort, and have their money used to pay for corporate lobbyists. How?
- espeed 17y agoYou don't have to get 100% of registered voters to participate. For one thing, if someone gives more than $3 then that means you need less people to contribute. But more importantly, the top corporate donor is AT&T (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php) -- if you click on AT&T's name, you will see that AT&T contributed $4.5 million total in 2008. At $3 per month, that's only 125,366 users. The $3 per month per registered voter is to outspend all contributors and all lobby expenditures combined -- including what individuals gave. You don't need to raise that much to be an influential player.