6 ms·

Citizens United ruined the great american experiment. if you have seen the chart of campaign financing since CU, you would understand. Politicians have zero ne

Citizens United ruined the great american experiment. if you have seen the chart of campaign financing since CU, you would understand. Politicians have zero need to represent citizens because they know unlimited funds are available for marketing to keep/earn your seat. America simply is no longer a democracy or representative democracy.

qeternity 28d ago
It is still people, not money, who votes for them over and over again…
- oth001 28d ago
  Well when the choice is between two corrupt and/or bribed politicians...
  - JKCalhoun 27d ago
    Agree, vote for the most wildly corrupt.
- Timon3 28d ago
  And the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections, combined with the media apparatus built up by the right. I don't think any democracy could survive Fox News. Unfortunately the global right is colluding to export this concept across the globe...
  - otterley 27d ago
    If money won elections, then the outcome of every election could be predicted with accuracy based solely on the relative spending by or on behalf of each candidate. In reality, that's not how it works. There are countless examples of candidates who outspent their opponents and lost. Money gets you reach. It doesn't get you guaranteed results. Besides, the voters don't get any of that money, nor do they even know most of the time who got more financial support. They'd be insulted by even the slightest suggestion that money is driving their vote.
    - Timon3 27d ago
      I didn't say that money wins elections, but nice try. Though I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives could affect more voters with the same amount of money, since spreading bullshit is much cheaper than proving it wrong. The right can flood the zone with a firehose of lies, and even if they literally admit these lies, their voters go along.
      - otterley 27d ago
        I...didn’t say you did say that? No need to be defensive. But a reasonable interpretation of “the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections” is that such a direct causal link exists. If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification.
        Timon3 26d ago
        Then I must admit I'm unsure how to interpret your objections, since I understand you to be arguing against the position "The group spending the most money must always win elections". If you're not assuming that I'm taking this position, why bring it up? > If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification. As a thought experiment, assume we're playing gods and decide to simulate a bunch of universes almost exactly like ours, so we can reliably study how civilizations develop (free from the influence of random chance). Then we evaluate how many of these civilizations had periods of strong corruption, loss in quality of life, and all the other negatives we're experiencing this decade. My argument is: you'd find a correlation between these periods, and the relative amounts of wealth invested into politics. Note this doesn't imply that bigger sums of money must lead to victory - especially if the thesis mentioned in my first reply is correct, which I very much assume it is.
        otterley 26d ago
        I'm not sure. On the other hand, there're plenty of corruption and loss of quality of life where there's not much money in electioneering, or not even a democracy. Take Russia, for example, or any of a number of African or Central American countries.
- JKCalhoun 27d ago
  I sympathize with your point, we should still blame the voters, but the 1% wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars into politics if they were seeing zero return on their money.
rhelz 27d ago
// America simply is no longer a democracy or representative democracy. // Well, that's the kicker. We actually did vote him in. TWICE. It would be great if we could blame some cabal or coup or something. It would get us off the hook. But the sad fact is that Trump--after sending cop-killing goons to the capital to try to steel the last election--we voted him in by a margin of 53%. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
snowwrestler 27d ago
Citizen's United was decided in 2010. Hillary Clinton out-spent Trump by about $500 million in 2016 and lost. The reality is that spending can keep a candidate from losing an election for dumb reasons (e.g. lack of name recognition), but it can't win an election by itself. There are plenty of examples of the bigger spender losing, both before and after Citizen's United.
WrexyBalls 27d ago
[dead]

qeternity 28d ago

It is still people, not money, who votes for them over and over again…

oth001 28d ago
Well when the choice is between two corrupt and/or bribed politicians...
- JKCalhoun 27d ago
  Agree, vote for the most wildly corrupt.
Timon3 28d ago
And the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections, combined with the media apparatus built up by the right. I don't think any democracy could survive Fox News. Unfortunately the global right is colluding to export this concept across the globe...
- otterley 27d ago
  If money won elections, then the outcome of every election could be predicted with accuracy based solely on the relative spending by or on behalf of each candidate. In reality, that's not how it works. There are countless examples of candidates who outspent their opponents and lost. Money gets you reach. It doesn't get you guaranteed results. Besides, the voters don't get any of that money, nor do they even know most of the time who got more financial support. They'd be insulted by even the slightest suggestion that money is driving their vote.
  - Timon3 27d ago
    I didn't say that money wins elections, but nice try. Though I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives could affect more voters with the same amount of money, since spreading bullshit is much cheaper than proving it wrong. The right can flood the zone with a firehose of lies, and even if they literally admit these lies, their voters go along.
    - otterley 27d ago
      I...didn’t say you did say that? No need to be defensive. But a reasonable interpretation of “the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections” is that such a direct causal link exists. If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification.
      - Timon3 26d ago
        Then I must admit I'm unsure how to interpret your objections, since I understand you to be arguing against the position "The group spending the most money must always win elections". If you're not assuming that I'm taking this position, why bring it up? > If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification. As a thought experiment, assume we're playing gods and decide to simulate a bunch of universes almost exactly like ours, so we can reliably study how civilizations develop (free from the influence of random chance). Then we evaluate how many of these civilizations had periods of strong corruption, loss in quality of life, and all the other negatives we're experiencing this decade. My argument is: you'd find a correlation between these periods, and the relative amounts of wealth invested into politics. Note this doesn't imply that bigger sums of money must lead to victory - especially if the thesis mentioned in my first reply is correct, which I very much assume it is.
        otterley 26d ago
        I'm not sure. On the other hand, there're plenty of corruption and loss of quality of life where there's not much money in electioneering, or not even a democracy. Take Russia, for example, or any of a number of African or Central American countries.
JKCalhoun 27d ago
I sympathize with your point, we should still blame the voters, but the 1% wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars into politics if they were seeing zero return on their money.

rhelz 27d ago

// America simply is no longer a democracy or representative democracy. // Well, that's the kicker. We actually did vote him in. TWICE. It would be great if we could blame some cabal or coup or something. It would get us off the hook. But the sad fact is that Trump--after sending cop-killing goons to the capital to try to steel the last election--we voted him in by a margin of 53%. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

snowwrestler 27d ago

Citizen's United was decided in 2010. Hillary Clinton out-spent Trump by about $500 million in 2016 and lost. The reality is that spending can keep a candidate from losing an election for dumb reasons (e.g. lack of name recognition), but it can't win an election by itself. There are plenty of examples of the bigger spender losing, both before and after Citizen's United.

WrexyBalls 27d ago

[dead]