• stickly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    This is bad because it means if you want to run for office, your campaign is mostly floated by this tiny group of people. $5.5 billion sounds small until you realize that breaks out into millions of dollars for any individual campaign. Unless you’re rich enough to ante up (and repeat that every election cycle), you’ll never play the game.

    More isn’t spent because it doesn’t need to be, not because it isn’t effective. The policy goals of the 0.01% are basically in lock step, why would they bid against each other? Regardless of the raw number, the average politician has to equally weigh their representation between the needs of the 0.01% and the 99.99%.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      The policy goals of the 0.01% are basically in lock step, why would they bid against each other?

      But in fact both The Democrats and the Republicans raise money.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        It’s not uncommon for a donor to support both candidates because whoever wins will have a debt. Like you said this is peanuts to them.

        The other factor is non-monetary support. A $1 billion check to a candidate’s campaign fund has a lot of red tape. It isn’t as effecient as a $100 million donation and $900 million spent blasting propaganda across your personal media empire.