Google’s Sergey Brin spent $100m opposing California’s Prop 40, a one-time wealth tax that would put the funds toward healthcare and other public services.
I’m just amazed that this is legal. In my book, Sergei would right now be enjoyingnthe view out of a prison window for that stunt alone…
Using infinite money for political actions is protected as free-speech now, thanks to the Citizens United decision in 2010. That’s a huge part of where this all went really badly wrong. It was not the first nail in the coffin, it was more like a railroad spike. And the fascism express is coming through, right on time. All aboard!
Such naming pisses me off so much; and that this kind of deception works so well.
In Germany we have for example the “Association of Family Businesses” who regularly advocate for libertarian shit. The name alone makes people think of the nice little baker two streets away that is run in the fourth generation, while the actual members are billionaires like Rossmann, Vorwerk, etc.
Oh or also the “farmer’s association” which typically lets people think of that nice old dude with his 10 cows and 2 tractors, while in reality it’s the big corporations (including dairy factories and chemical companies).
Yeah, perception is unfortunately more important than truth. With a functioning government and legal system we could at least try to fight against such misleading political activities but those institutions have been so extensively undermined I’m not sure if they’re even really still standing or if they’re just floating in the air waiting for gravity to notice there’s nothing still holding them up.
You cannot really block these things unless you want to decide how someone can use his own money.
I agree that lobbying should be illegal (basically I see it as legalized corruption) but in the end Brin could simply had bought billboard on every street or commercial time on TVs and newspapers.
You absolutely can and it was actually blocked for the longest time. It wasn’t until Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 that enabled the formation of super PACs and thus allowed practically unlimited campaign spending from billionaires. Just look at this statistic from the linked Wikipedia article:
The share of billionaire campaign spending increased by over 6000% over the last two decades.
Blocking the donations to a party does not stop a billionaire to spend his money to push for a specific law proposed from politician, you simply change the way it happen.
And you also don’t stop billionaires to ask for a specific law, a billionaire could simply say that he will support the proposer of a law he is interested in, politicians will learn fast that if they propose a law some billionaire like (ask) such billionaire will use his money to push for this politician election.
In all this you don’t donate a single dollar to the party.
This is such an anti-democratic take on a problem created by anti-democratic means. Plenty of places are able to better regulate the power of money in politics.
No, it is a lucid analysis of what could happen.
In the end there is no way you can stop someone from spending their money how they want, I am sure you understand that. And this is true for everyone, not only billionaires.
You can stop donating to parties (in my country you can donate to a party only a very small amount) but what it would be really antidemocratic would be to decide how someone can or cannot use their money.
Go try to buy a human organ. It may not be impossible to stop you, but it sure is hard to accomplish and you take a pretty big risk of prison time.
Yes, you can effectively stop people from spending their money on bad things. Money isnt a god.
I get your thinking but you out of target: I am talking about something legal (buy billboards or TV times) and you about something illegal, it is not the same thing.
It is like buying cocaine and a boat: you can stop me from buying cocaine because it is illegal but you would have a hard time to stop me from buying a boat, which is legal even if you don’t like boats.
Bad things means illegal things, not things that you don’t like.
And how can be illegal to say that you support some politician and buy with your own money at your own name a billboard to write “support [candidate] because he is awesome”. ?
I’m just amazed that this is legal. In my book, Sergei would right now be enjoyingnthe view out of a prison window for that stunt alone…
Using infinite money for political actions is protected as free-speech now, thanks to the Citizens United decision in 2010. That’s a huge part of where this all went really badly wrong. It was not the first nail in the coffin, it was more like a railroad spike. And the fascism express is coming through, right on time. All aboard!
Such naming pisses me off so much; and that this kind of deception works so well.
In Germany we have for example the “Association of Family Businesses” who regularly advocate for libertarian shit. The name alone makes people think of the nice little baker two streets away that is run in the fourth generation, while the actual members are billionaires like Rossmann, Vorwerk, etc.
Oh or also the “farmer’s association” which typically lets people think of that nice old dude with his 10 cows and 2 tractors, while in reality it’s the big corporations (including dairy factories and chemical companies).
Yeah, perception is unfortunately more important than truth. With a functioning government and legal system we could at least try to fight against such misleading political activities but those institutions have been so extensively undermined I’m not sure if they’re even really still standing or if they’re just floating in the air waiting for gravity to notice there’s nothing still holding them up.
You cannot really block these things unless you want to decide how someone can use his own money.
I agree that lobbying should be illegal (basically I see it as legalized corruption) but in the end Brin could simply had bought billboard on every street or commercial time on TVs and newspapers.
You absolutely can and it was actually blocked for the longest time. It wasn’t until Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 that enabled the formation of super PACs and thus allowed practically unlimited campaign spending from billionaires. Just look at this statistic from the linked Wikipedia article:
The share of billionaire campaign spending increased by over 6000% over the last two decades.
No, you cannot.
Blocking the donations to a party does not stop a billionaire to spend his money to push for a specific law proposed from politician, you simply change the way it happen.
And you also don’t stop billionaires to ask for a specific law, a billionaire could simply say that he will support the proposer of a law he is interested in, politicians will learn fast that if they propose a law some billionaire like (ask) such billionaire will use his money to push for this politician election.
In all this you don’t donate a single dollar to the party.
This is such an anti-democratic take on a problem created by anti-democratic means. Plenty of places are able to better regulate the power of money in politics.
No, it is a lucid analysis of what could happen.
In the end there is no way you can stop someone from spending their money how they want, I am sure you understand that. And this is true for everyone, not only billionaires.
You can stop donating to parties (in my country you can donate to a party only a very small amount) but what it would be really antidemocratic would be to decide how someone can or cannot use their money.
Go try to buy a human organ. It may not be impossible to stop you, but it sure is hard to accomplish and you take a pretty big risk of prison time.
Yes, you can effectively stop people from spending their money on bad things. Money isnt a god.
I get your thinking but you out of target: I am talking about something legal (buy billboards or TV times) and you about something illegal, it is not the same thing.
It is like buying cocaine and a boat: you can stop me from buying cocaine because it is illegal but you would have a hard time to stop me from buying a boat, which is legal even if you don’t like boats.
Bad things means illegal things, not things that you don’t like.
And how can be illegal to say that you support some politician and buy with your own money at your own name a billboard to write “support [candidate] because he is awesome”. ?
why shouldn’t people be able to run ads of arbitrary content?