Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money, but until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter. Plus there being more small donors is good news since it helps campaigns be less reliant on big money
You either play by the rules of the game to change the rules of the game or just lose by default.
Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money
Needs?
Biden spent over a billion and Kamala will dwarf that.
And even with that much money. We're still just punting a bunch of states.
If over a billion dollars isn't enough to run a full court press, how much is?
Like. At what point would you say they have enough money and the priority should shift to getting votes and not money?
I legitimately can't figure out how that much is "spent" except as a feedback loop to get more donations. A never ending hamster wheel where regular Americans are priced out of influence because a billionaire can give 960k to the "victory fund"
How many small donors are able to even come close to the actual 2.something thousand?
We can't do shit about getting money out of the general yet, but the reason is u til we get it out of Dem primaries, the majority who make it to the general won't want to ban it.
The only way to fix everything is to fix the dem party first.
In the event of emergency please put on your own oxygen mask before helping others.
* the biggest reason being that the Supreme Court overturned a prior law to stop super pacs from having unlimited spending in Citizen United. Sure, maybe Congress could pass the same law again only for the court to overturn it 6-3
You have to fix the Supreme Court for that. It'd be difficult to regulate spending in primaries either because money is "free speech" according to them
What happens to all of this money after she stops campaigning?
It's great she's getting support, but how much money does someone really need to run for office, and what is all of it spent on?
Unspent campaign money is a whole thing but it usually gets transferred to a future campaign, other candidates, state/local/national party, or used to create a “Leadership PAC,” which is like a slush fund to donate to peers. A more honest example of a Leadership PAC might be someone with unusual star power (like AOC) raising a shitload of money in a safe seat and so using funds to donate to progressive candidates in tougher races. A shadier example might be the Speaker of the House using their fundraising ability to let people know that if they expect a donation, he or she expects their vote on a bill. And I’m sure you can imagine a thousand undeniably corrupt ways to use a Leadership PAC.
They could also refund donors or donate to a real charity if they’re done with politics or trying to stay in donors’ good graces for the next try. But that’s not what ambitious politicians (basically all of them) typically do.
But unless a candidate drops out or is in a safe seat, they really do try to spend every dollar that comes in almost as it comes in. There’s a very good likelihood a candidate ends up in the red at the end of the campaign and has to solicit donations even after the race is over to pay vendors, staff, etc.
I'm not clicking on a random link that looks like that, sorry.
Needs?
Yes, needs.
Biden spent over a billion and Kamala will dwarf that.
Unfortunately, that's needed.
If over a billion dollars isn’t enough to run a full court press, how much is?
The problem is it's an arms race. After Citizens United opened the doors, Republicans got flooded with money from secret corporate donations.
Dems need to match that, else they can't afford to campaign on an even playing ground with the GOP.
I mean this comment from the OP was insightful,
until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter.
Moving on..
The only way to fix everything is to fix the dem party first.
Everything is kinda ambitious. How about just reversing Citizens United and getting campaigns back down to a reasonable amount of spend first?
I wonder if one shared and split pot of money for campaigning would help but guess you'd need some way to let individuals support their personal choice
There already sort of is one in the US for candidates who exceed a certain threshold of the vote. It comes with spending limits that could be exceeded by a lot by raising money outside it, so parties stopped taking it. Plus tax payers have to opt into doing it, and the rates of people doing so have dropped over time
If you've ever filed US income taxes and seen the question
"Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund"
Before someone else mentions it:
Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money, but until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter. Plus there being more small donors is good news since it helps campaigns be less reliant on big money
You either play by the rules of the game to change the rules of the game or just lose by default.
Needs?
Biden spent over a billion and Kamala will dwarf that.
And even with that much money. We're still just punting a bunch of states.
If over a billion dollars isn't enough to run a full court press, how much is?
Like. At what point would you say they have enough money and the priority should shift to getting votes and not money?
I legitimately can't figure out how that much is "spent" except as a feedback loop to get more donations. A never ending hamster wheel where regular Americans are priced out of influence because a billionaire can give 960k to the "victory fund"
How many small donors are able to even come close to the actual 2.something thousand?
We can't do shit about getting money out of the general yet, but the reason is u til we get it out of Dem primaries, the majority who make it to the general won't want to ban it.
The only way to fix everything is to fix the dem party first.
* the biggest reason being that the Supreme Court overturned a prior law to stop super pacs from having unlimited spending in Citizen United. Sure, maybe Congress could pass the same law again only for the court to overturn it 6-3
You have to fix the Supreme Court for that. It'd be difficult to regulate spending in primaries either because money is "free speech" according to them
What happens to all of this money after she stops campaigning?
It's great she's getting support, but how much money does someone really need to run for office, and what is all of it spent on?
Unspent campaign money is a whole thing but it usually gets transferred to a future campaign, other candidates, state/local/national party, or used to create a “Leadership PAC,” which is like a slush fund to donate to peers. A more honest example of a Leadership PAC might be someone with unusual star power (like AOC) raising a shitload of money in a safe seat and so using funds to donate to progressive candidates in tougher races. A shadier example might be the Speaker of the House using their fundraising ability to let people know that if they expect a donation, he or she expects their vote on a bill. And I’m sure you can imagine a thousand undeniably corrupt ways to use a Leadership PAC.
They could also refund donors or donate to a real charity if they’re done with politics or trying to stay in donors’ good graces for the next try. But that’s not what ambitious politicians (basically all of them) typically do.
But unless a candidate drops out or is in a safe seat, they really do try to spend every dollar that comes in almost as it comes in. There’s a very good likelihood a candidate ends up in the red at the end of the campaign and has to solicit donations even after the race is over to pay vendors, staff, etc.
Interesting. Thank you.
https://gprivate.com/6d8n4
I'm not clicking on a random link that looks like that, sorry.
Yes, needs.
Unfortunately, that's needed.
The problem is it's an arms race. After Citizens United opened the doors, Republicans got flooded with money from secret corporate donations.
Dems need to match that, else they can't afford to campaign on an even playing ground with the GOP.
I mean this comment from the OP was insightful,
Moving on..
Everything is kinda ambitious. How about just reversing Citizens United and getting campaigns back down to a reasonable amount of spend first?
I wonder if one shared and split pot of money for campaigning would help but guess you'd need some way to let individuals support their personal choice
There already sort of is one in the US for candidates who exceed a certain threshold of the vote. It comes with spending limits that could be exceeded by a lot by raising money outside it, so parties stopped taking it. Plus tax payers have to opt into doing it, and the rates of people doing so have dropped over time
If you've ever filed US income taxes and seen the question
"Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund"
That's what it's referring to