Well, yes, but….

To watch American politics today is to watch money speaking. The 2016 US elections will almost certainly be the most expensive in recent history, with total campaign expenditure exceeding the estimated $7bn (£4.6bn) splurged on the 2012 presidential and congressional contests. Donald Trump is at once the personification of this and the exception that proves the rule because – as he keeps trumpeting – at least it’s his own money. Everyone else depends on other people’s, most of it now channelled through outside groups such as “Super PACs” – political action committees – which are allowed to raise unlimited amounts from individuals and corporations.

There may well be a lot of money floating about. But it’s not as if the voters aren’t getting a good look at a whole bunch of people, is it? OK, so the Dems is Hillary v Bernies with O’Malley nowhere. But the Reps are killing off the weaker candidates one by one, what the system is supposed to achieve. It doesn’t look like the money is denying democracy, does it?

11 thoughts on “Well, yes, but….”

  1. I’m pretty sure studies (as in Genuine Study; not conducted ad hoc in CiF) are beginning g to show finance following electability rather than the other way around.

    If the Guardianistas wish to dispute this perhaps they would like to explain the rise and the campaign finances of Barack Obama. To this day they regard hin as an outsider and yet nobody has ever had the campaign finance he had. It didn’t bother them then.

  2. The Guardian readers could counter this with another successful letter writing campaign urging people to vote for Hilary.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Obama won with less money than Romney. John Kerry lost despite being one of the richest candidates ever to stand.

    The fact is there is so much money in politics because the politicians control so much. When they spend trillions and regulate ten times that, it is important to buy protection. The solution is to remove the power of politicians to ruin our lives on a whim and hence the need to buy them off.

    Small government is the only long term form of honest government.

  4. If money is speaking thro’ that pack of twats it is talking drooling gibberish. You would get more sense if the entire shower attended a séance and let the spirits speak thro them.

    Most of them have plenty of experience with spirits already.

  5. “The fact is there is so much money in politics because the politicians control so much. When they spend trillions and regulate ten times that, it is important to buy protection. The solution is to remove the power of politicians to ruin our lives on a whim and hence the need to buy them off.”

    That is Gospel.

  6. ‘It doesn’t look like the money is denying democracy, does it?’

    Except ‘the weaker’ candidates are the ones least likely to attract the big bank roll campaign contributors because they are least likely to deliver the quid pro quo to the benefit of the money bags… aka cronies… although they may be more likely to express popular will.

    So based on this you may be able to answer your own question.

  7. >I’m pretty sure studies (as in Genuine Study; not conducted ad hoc in CiF) are beginning g to show finance following electability rather than the other way around.

    Well yes. if you’re a rent seeker you want to pick the winner, and the policies proposed to the rest of us are irrelevant.

  8. Buying a few senators is probably the most cost effective investment a large company can make in the US.

  9. cash + lawyers now and cash + soldiers then – still the barons get ‘elected’.
    It seems we just gotta have a king of some sort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *