7 ms·

Citizens United already killed democracy.

xp84 1y ago
Agreed. To me, it’s like the difference between semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. Yes, it’s easier to not have to wiggle your finger on the trigger, but semi-auto is more than enough to be very effective. It’s very easy to create deceptive imagery persuasion and to astroturf. With or without AI assistance. All you need is a modest amount of money. And with unlimited money and zero accountability thanks to the ‘responsibility laundering’ made possible through PACs… facts no longer matter. Just money, to buy virality, to influence vibes.
hayst4ck 1y ago
No, this is low agency. It wasn't other people that killed democracy. It was our own lack of response to billionaires enshrining money as legitimate political power that killed democracy. Oligarchy and monarchy are the default. Citizens willing to pay the cost of challenging those in power are what is exceptional. It is citizens asserting their own power rather than submitting to unjust power that creates democracy. It is an insistence that law applies to the most rich that creates democracy. Democracy requires maintenance and responsibility. You can't expect nice things without paying the maintenance cost, and unfortunately, if you challenge power, power answers and it will hurt. If nobody is willing to die for freedom, then everyone will die a slave. Blaming others rather than looking within fundamentally accepts authoritarianism, it presumes and accepts that others have power over you and that you can do nothing but submit. Nobody is challenging power. We only have our own selves to blame for our cowardice.
- try_the_bass 1y ago
  I disagree about what we failed to respond to, but fully agree that this is the fault of the population at large: if you refrain from putting forth your opinion, your opinion by cannot be counted in the democratic process. The problem with democracy, more generally, appears to be that the population is wildly susceptible to apathy and complacency, meaning we've reduced the voting set to only this who care enough to vote. This turns politics into a game of disagreements between the most extreme voices. In my opinion, in order for a democracy to work, voting must be compulsory.
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    And yet, in 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, we have highest percentage Voting Eligible Population turning out since WWII, and in two of the last three elections, the candidate who spent less won. So at least at presidential level, there is neither apathy, complacency, or the ability to buy elections.
    - hayst4ck 1y ago
      > the candidate who spent less won. That is entirely unsubstantiated. There is no reasonable way to measure this and any measurements taken are inherently political. I am amenable to the idea of that being true for official spending, but unless the twitter purchase, for example, were tabulated, or spending on our American "pravda" (Truth social which was clearly influenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda), I would be extremely suspicious of those numbers. > so at least at presidential level, there is neither apathy, complacency, or the ability to buy elections. Again, I completely disagree, and so does Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who argues that it is extremely hard to win a primary without fundraising, and fundraising is structurally an election where money counts as votes, and therefore nearly all candidates who make it to the primary have already been filtered through by those with money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
    - try_the_bass 1y ago
      I don't think it's quite this reductive. Turnout in 2020 is estimated at 65%, which is not quite two-thirds of the population. 2024 was slightly lower at 63%. That's still missing a significant fraction of the population. Sure, you could make the argument that 2/3s is probably pretty representative, but I'm not sure I'd agree. I think there's good reason to believe that a voter who shows up is inherently not representative of a voter who does not. When elections are decided by such small margins in many places, that unrepresented third can easily change the outcome. Maybe they truly don't care, and perhaps they should be given the option to vote as such, if they're required to vote. I also don't think presidential elections are actually very meaningful when it comes to national politics (or politics in general!), but I feel like my opinion on that is changing given the current administration's efforts to maximize presidential power and their success in doing so.
andai 1y ago
I think it's more "confirmed the patient had been dead for a little while."
andrewla 1y ago
I don't know what to tell you if you still believe that political contributions or spending are a determinative factor in politics rather than a trailing indicator (and a poor one at that). Even in terms of corruption, this is by far the smallest concern and barely worth noting in the scheme of things. Besides the obvious revolving door for lobbying and legal firms, there is so much money at play in the ex post facto bribery industry, between speaking fees and bulk book sales and low interest and forgiven loans that Citizens United might as well be dust in the wind.

xp84 1y ago

Agreed. To me, it’s like the difference between semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. Yes, it’s easier to not have to wiggle your finger on the trigger, but semi-auto is more than enough to be very effective. It’s very easy to create deceptive imagery persuasion and to astroturf. With or without AI assistance. All you need is a modest amount of money. And with unlimited money and zero accountability thanks to the ‘responsibility laundering’ made possible through PACs… facts no longer matter. Just money, to buy virality, to influence vibes.

hayst4ck 1y ago

No, this is low agency. It wasn't other people that killed democracy. It was our own lack of response to billionaires enshrining money as legitimate political power that killed democracy. Oligarchy and monarchy are the default. Citizens willing to pay the cost of challenging those in power are what is exceptional. It is citizens asserting their own power rather than submitting to unjust power that creates democracy. It is an insistence that law applies to the most rich that creates democracy. Democracy requires maintenance and responsibility. You can't expect nice things without paying the maintenance cost, and unfortunately, if you challenge power, power answers and it will hurt. If nobody is willing to die for freedom, then everyone will die a slave. Blaming others rather than looking within fundamentally accepts authoritarianism, it presumes and accepts that others have power over you and that you can do nothing but submit. Nobody is challenging power. We only have our own selves to blame for our cowardice.

try_the_bass 1y ago
I disagree about what we failed to respond to, but fully agree that this is the fault of the population at large: if you refrain from putting forth your opinion, your opinion by cannot be counted in the democratic process. The problem with democracy, more generally, appears to be that the population is wildly susceptible to apathy and complacency, meaning we've reduced the voting set to only this who care enough to vote. This turns politics into a game of disagreements between the most extreme voices. In my opinion, in order for a democracy to work, voting must be compulsory.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  And yet, in 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, we have highest percentage Voting Eligible Population turning out since WWII, and in two of the last three elections, the candidate who spent less won. So at least at presidential level, there is neither apathy, complacency, or the ability to buy elections.
  - hayst4ck 1y ago
    > the candidate who spent less won. That is entirely unsubstantiated. There is no reasonable way to measure this and any measurements taken are inherently political. I am amenable to the idea of that being true for official spending, but unless the twitter purchase, for example, were tabulated, or spending on our American "pravda" (Truth social which was clearly influenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda), I would be extremely suspicious of those numbers. > so at least at presidential level, there is neither apathy, complacency, or the ability to buy elections. Again, I completely disagree, and so does Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who argues that it is extremely hard to win a primary without fundraising, and fundraising is structurally an election where money counts as votes, and therefore nearly all candidates who make it to the primary have already been filtered through by those with money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
  - try_the_bass 1y ago
    I don't think it's quite this reductive. Turnout in 2020 is estimated at 65%, which is not quite two-thirds of the population. 2024 was slightly lower at 63%. That's still missing a significant fraction of the population. Sure, you could make the argument that 2/3s is probably pretty representative, but I'm not sure I'd agree. I think there's good reason to believe that a voter who shows up is inherently not representative of a voter who does not. When elections are decided by such small margins in many places, that unrepresented third can easily change the outcome. Maybe they truly don't care, and perhaps they should be given the option to vote as such, if they're required to vote. I also don't think presidential elections are actually very meaningful when it comes to national politics (or politics in general!), but I feel like my opinion on that is changing given the current administration's efforts to maximize presidential power and their success in doing so.

andai 1y ago

I think it's more "confirmed the patient had been dead for a little while."

andrewla 1y ago

I don't know what to tell you if you still believe that political contributions or spending are a determinative factor in politics rather than a trailing indicator (and a poor one at that). Even in terms of corruption, this is by far the smallest concern and barely worth noting in the scheme of things. Besides the obvious revolving door for lobbying and legal firms, there is so much money at play in the ex post facto bribery industry, between speaking fees and bulk book sales and low interest and forgiven loans that Citizens United might as well be dust in the wind.