cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/21661331

A new analysis from The Washington Post reveals that just 50 megadonors are responsible for $1.5 billion in campaign cash for the 2024 presidential cycle.

      • ShepherdPie
        2·
        3 months ago

        I’m probably butchering this one, but: “The law is equal as it is illegal for both a poor man and a rich man to sleep under a bridge.”

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      20·
      3 months ago

      Their “free speech” is more powerful because it is neither free nor speech but receives those very protections because of a fucking corrupt right wing SCOTUS decision

  • macniel@feddit.org
    29·
    3 months ago

    Imaging putting all that money into something useful like against the climate crisis.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    203·
    3 months ago

    The “victory funds” that Hillary started, Biden continued, and then handed of to Kamala means the legal limit went from 2.5k a person to close to a million.

    Because of the loopholes that’s used to accomplish that, it also means state parties are drastically underfunded.

    And republicans aren’t going to just sit there and not do it too, it’s likely why trump put his daughter in law in charge of the RNC purse strings.

    Neither party wants to change it. Because they both like money and it’s easier to get a million from a billionaire than 2.5k from 400 regular Americans, and that’s not getting into how “regular Americans” can’t afford 2.5k in the first place

    If you still didnt understand why both parties cater to the rich, this is why it’s gotten even worse since 2016 when Hillary devised this bullshit.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        131·
        3 months ago

        You can definitely say that’s where it started.

        But instead of fixing it, both parties are trying to find more way for the wealthiest to give as much money as possible.

        Neither want it fixed, they just want the money

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            95·
            3 months ago

            And if Hillary hadn’t taken over the DNC in the 2016 primary by doing even more shady shit than Citizen’s, Bernie would have likely won. Fixed Citizen’s and be at the end of his second term.

            Unfortunately that didn’t happen.

            Neoliberals are not on the same side as progressives, we just dont have any other options when primaries have become purely theatrical, if were even lucky enough to get that.

            Loads of states only get to vote in a primary weeks or months after the candidate has been “decided” having no say in who the candidate is hurts general turnout and helps Republicans. That’s not even getting I to how NH got their primary stolen this year because they kept voting for progressives.

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              53·
              3 months ago

              We certainly got a theatrical primary this year.

              I’m honestly a little shocked more people aren’t upset that party operatives essentially chose the candidate for us twice in a row.

              They ignored us when we said Biden was too old and then waited until we couldn’t run another primary and leaned on the sham primary “where everyone voted Biden” and then when it became clear he WAS too fucking old and they could no longer hide it, they had party apparatchiks choose the candidate for us.

              I am pleased at the momentum behind her because the alternative is outright fascism, but it’s clear Harris is a party choice, not a people choice.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      41·
      3 months ago

      Yes and no. Before Howard Dean, people thought their $25 was important for them but otherwise didn’t do much. He showed that enough $25 is the same as huge donations. We really hadn’t seen crowdfunding in politics before that.

  • Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works
    5·
    3 months ago

    Can donating to campaigns be considered gambling?

    I know it’s a stretch, but if that could be argued, then there may be a possible lawsuit to be brought to court about funding campaigns across state lines.