***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[rolaholic]

 

[IATT]

 

[gry60]

A supportive board of directors?

Business man doesn't understand the meaning of "Checks and Balances."

That's exactly why you take money out of politics.

 

[rexanglorum]

All this just means she’s an elite racist. And racists who use diacritical marks and who know how to pronounce every river on a globe, are a breed of racists that are admittedly somewhat rare in the US but in Europe, they are more prevalent and are well represented in far-right, alt-right, anti immigrant populist parties.

 

[nonnative]

The media is so vile in how complicit they are in all of this. A simple Google search on "government shutdown" gives so many articles titled "GOP reaches deal to avoid shutdown" or some nonsense like that. Conveniently avoiding the fact that theyre talking about the GOP agreeing amongst themselves and then getting shot down because they backed out on the deal they already had with the Dems. And with headlines like that, we all know who the casual reader is going to blame for all this.

And of course the Dems messaging is horrible.

 

[rexanglorum]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/s/OUTawiZANp

 

[dacomeup]

Money has an influence, it's just more subtle and complex than the narrative populists tend to present. It makes people assume that inaction =/= corruption.

populist make it seem like there are all these good things that COULD be happening but they are simply aren't happening because of corrupt influence.
For major political and policy questions I think this basically isn't true. Lobbying influence is strongest in the policy details, or in realms the public doesn't care about like foreign policy.

the main thing holding up major policy question from being resolved is the filibuster and the geographic bias of the senate.

Ah, so this is about populists messaging and not the fact that money does have a huge effect on American politics?

Lobbying affects so many facets of American life, from healthcare to pharma to big tech to agriculture/food. It’s not overstated at all. We can look comparatively to comparatively to the EU and see a massive difference in what chemicals are banned in their foods, what data protections they have for their citizens, etc.

 

[IATT]

 

[jpzx]

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Ah, so this is about populists messaging and not the fact that money does have a huge effect on American politics?

Lobbying affects so many facets of American life, from healthcare to pharma to big tech to agriculture/food. It’s not overstated at all.

my original post was talking about being tired of overwrought populist narratives about money in politics.

It has an effect on American politics, but way less than the the populist would have you believe. Never said it had no effect, the effects is vastly overstated and over simplified.

We can look comparatively to comparatively to the EU and see a massive difference in what chemicals are banned in their foods, what data protections they have for their citizens, etc.

This difference here is structural, parliamentary systems make it so that your vote as a citizen is much more connected to legislative outcomes.

If someone runs on doing removing xyz from food it's harder to not fulfill the promises as a politicians, because its within your power to make it happen.

In the USA there are so many veto points you can't address stuff the public wants addressed. so it leads to this perception that corruption is what's stopping it.

you could repeal citizens united tomorrow, you'd have most of the same problems.

 

[IATT]

 

[dacomeup]

If someone runs on doing removing xyz from food it's harder to not fulfill the promises as a politicians, because its within your power to make it happen.

Yea, but the issue here is that the lobbies are so strong that it’s dead before you even get to the veto points that you’re talking about.

 

[yobyellav]

Elon Musk sparks backlash in Germany after calling the chancellor an 'incompetent fool' and backing the far-right AfD party

Musk called for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to "resign immediately" in response to an attack on a Christmas market in Magdeburg.

www.yahoo.com

Elon has 2 months to use Twitter and his money to sway the elections in Germany. Nearly limitless financial resources and influence with elected leaders, he’s really turning into a super villain.

 

[gry60]

Elon Musk sparks backlash in Germany after calling the chancellor an 'incompetent fool' and backing the far-right AfD party

Musk called for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to "resign immediately" in response to an attack on a Christmas market in Magdeburg.

www.yahoo.com

Elon has 2 months to use Twitter and his money to sway the elections in Germany. Nearly limitless financial resources and influence with elected leaders, he’s really turning into a super villain.

 

[gry60]

my original post was talking about being tired of overwrought populist narratives about money in politics.

It has an effect on American politics, but way less than the the populist would have you believe. Never said it had no effect, the effects is vastly overstated and over simplified.

How?

Is that why Elon Musk contributed $200 million to the Trump campaign (a pittance for someone with his net worth) to be able to call the shots?

I don't see how you can make this particular argument in light of what has been happening in the last decade.

This difference here is structural, parliamentary systems make it so that your vote as a citizen is much more connected to legislative outcomes.

If someone runs on doing removing xyz from food it's harder to not fulfill the promises as a politicians, because its within your power to make it happen.

Politicians in parliamentary systems don't have the ability to single-handedly make decisions with this level of discretion, especially when those decisions have such a wide socioeconomic impact. Such changes remain the purview of the executive branch through ministries and government agencies.

In the USA there are so many veto points you can't address stuff the public wants addressed. so it leads to this perception that corruption is what's stopping it.

you could repeal citizens united tomorrow, you'd have most of the same problems.

The subcommittees and committees are not as much of an issue as are the motivations of the politicians who populate those congressional study groups. Those politicians are becoming increasingly tethered to wealthy, private donors. That is if they're not funding their own elections themselves (and as such basically buying a seat at the political table).

The problem with money in politics has nothing to do with the flavor of democracy; the issue is about the impact that money has on elections.

OPINION: Why can’t we limit money in politics like the French?

Despite sharing the same values, France and the United States take vastly different approaches to money in politics, with the U.S. essentially governed by a plutocracy.

thefulcrum.us

By law, major presidential candidates in France may not spend more than 22.5 million Euros (about $25 million) on their campaigns. We in the United States have no such limits.

Not only does French law limit the total amount a presidential candidate may raise and spend, the government reimburses nearly half (47.5 percent) of campaign expenditures. That means only half of election funding comes from private donors. The cap on the amount an individual can donate is larger in France (4,600 Euros), but in the United States wealthy individual donors can easily circumvent our $2,900 cap by making unlimited contributions to political action committees and parties that support their candidate.

In the United States, it is perfectly legal for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to support a candidate. In France, corporate and trade union contributions are illegal. The U.S., like France, has disclosure requirements so the public can see who is funding campaigns, but there is a gaping loophole in U.S law due to our tolerance of corporate donations. Ultra-wealthy donors quickly learned to hide contributions behind the veil of political purpose nonprofit corporations known as 501(c)(4)s, which do not have to disclose their donors – so-called dark money. We simply do not know who is funding many campaigns and political causes in the United States.

Over the past 40 years, while France and other democracies in Western Europe have adopted stricter campaign spending limits, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken America in the opposite direction by severely limiting lawmakers’ ability to set such limits. The court’s rationale is that money is speech and limits on money in our democracy, for any reason other than to prevent the crime of bribery, violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

French law handles the conflict between speech and money by striking a balance between the democratic values of la liberte and l'equalite. One value is not more important than the other. The French believe strongly that candidates and citizens have a right to speak to voters – $25 million is not nothing – but they believe just as strongly in creating as level a playing field as possible for candidates and ideas. Money creates an advantage, so it must be limited. The U.S. Supreme Court, by contrast, believes that liberty under the free speech clause trumps an equal opportunity for candidates or ideas in our political system. Roberts explicitly rejected the concept of a level playing field in a 2014 case that opened the floodgates to unlimited contributions from individuals to political parties and PACs, writing: “No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to ‘level the playing field,’ or to ‘level electoral opportunities’ or ‘equaliz[e] the financial resources of candidates.’”

Most of the money in our elections comes from less than half of 1 percent of the population, a majority of whom reside in a dozen wealthy ZIP codes. A plutocracy is not government by We the People.

And we've seen that without any guardrails, candidates don't limit themselves to propagating their message; they are also free to direct support for and fund anti-democratic campaigns, from publishing lies about election dates to running lotteries with cash prizes for a lucky [insert candidate's name] voter.

And when it comes to actual legislation, there have been many reports, spanning the last decade, about lobbyists having more than a direct input on bills brought to the floor; they've actually written quite a few:

You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead.

This story was published in partnership with USA TODAY and The Arizona Republic. This story also appeared in USA TODAY Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks. Disguised as the work of...

publicintegrity.org

USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.

The investigation examined nearly 1 million bills in all 50 states and Congress using a computer algorithm developed to detect similarities in language. That search – powered by the equivalent of 150 computers that ran nonstop for months – compared known model legislation with bills introduced by lawmakers.

The phenomenon of copycat legislation is far larger. In a separate analysis, the Center for Public Integrity identified tens of thousands of bills with identical phrases, then traced the origins of that language in dozens of those bills across the country.

https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/its-common-for-lobbyists-to-write-bills-for-congress-heres-why/

Warner: Now, Lee, what we've pointed out is that the company that helped write this language is also a donor to the Congressman in question. Is that unusual?

Drutman: No, I don't think that's unusual either. Look, to run for office now requires millions of dollars and so, a lot of interested parties become donors. I mean, that's like buying a ticket to the party, right? You know, buy a ticket to the main event. If you want to be taken seriously by a congressional office, you want to make sure that you've contributed as one lobbyist has put it, to show respect for the process, right? If you don't, if you haven't made a donation, other people will get in the door first.

If the cost of running for office was limited to a max amount of money, like the French do (French channels are required to not charge for political ads during campaign season, and outside of campaign season, you won't see such ads on TV), candidates wouldn't be incentivized to seek money for access.

 

[rexanglorum]

 

[rexanglorum]

 

[gry60]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/18/federal-officials-nervous-about-sending-data-to-trump-transition-private-emails-00195217

 

[Lizakers]

 

[05fordgt]

I actually like that movie. Samuel L as Hondo worked.

 

[kdawg]

I actually like that movie. Samuel L as Hondo worked.

It’s a guilty pleasure of mine. Just a fun movie.

 

[elpablo21]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/18/federal-officials-nervous-about-sending-data-to-trump-transition-private-emails-00195217

 

[rexanglorum]

Hard to find a more emblematic story for American politics and society in 2024.

 

[rexanglorum]

To quote Charles Barkley “if you in some crappy third world country,” I can see the attraction to crypto.

But taking US dollars and buying meme coins, that’s just plain hubris.

Hailey Welch did nothing wrong.