tobetrained

This article nails a lot of the issues today, particular with my former party, Democrats. But the implications are not limited to it. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/06/democrats-questionnaire-interest-group-00767764 "...Some will surely bridle. This effort is meant to provoke [article's topic]. After all, one person’s “pet cause” is somebody else’s righteous mission."

@Rillion Shoot -- the first part of my response (to the quote above) was eliminated what I switch pages while responding. So, this should be first, then above post. The quote above we do not agree. Corporations, whether an individual up to conglomerate, has no need of government. If the government disappeared, the corporation remains -- whether one person as a barber or a multi-national of 1000s of employees providing banking. But they just don't have the regulations and tax from a government. Governments are funded through taxation. Corporations are funded via sales and trade of products and services. The living example is the US Postal Services. It's a corporation and not a government service. When the government shut down, effectively "went away," it continued providing service. There are many history books as well which detail how trade -- when brought to the individual not run through a government -- allowed the common person freedom and desire to replace despotic governments as they were no longer dependent on government or aristocrats for stuff.: food, clothing, shelter, etc. Where we do agree...[that gets to the above post]

@Rillion so then we agree, "Corporations -- any size -- must register with governments for regulatory and tax purposes...obtaining legal status in doing so." Which is what I wrote and you quoted. What is not clear: if AitBnB spends $100 million on advertising during a campaign talking to home owners about the financial benefits of their service, it's brand advertising and not political -- as the campaign, candidates, election are not referenced. Nothing to do with Citizens' United. However, if a candidates makes (apt rental) affordability an election issue, then that candidate has to financially compete with the messaging from AirBnB above. And on it goes through product categories.

Political science is a subjective science. The researcher determines classification. As such, and in nearly all social sciences, newer is not always better as it's subject to that classification bias. I am not qualified to do a study-off either. U of FL is among the leading election-related programs in the country - so I'll default there. Total side note: a leader of their dept is the guy who collects and publishes early voting data via Elections Lab each national general election. But to the topic you bring up via the study quote just above and before (Harvard) -- correlation is not causation. So even if that study (with subjective associations) demonstrated correlation, that is STILL NO PROOF of causation. THAT was the point of the U FL work. Their summation is both time and data source independent. To that end, in terms of campaign donations and its influence post-election in legislation/etc, you had brought up Musk and DOGE. In that context -- again, which you brought up -- I demonstrated the "correlation is not causation" point. Then you dismissed the Musk sub-thread...again, which you brought up. What I have repeated tried to get across to you, and I'll leave it here, this very statement is too confining. Campaigns do NOT site in a bubble without other voices. Limiting your consideration (selection set, whatever) to just campaigns is too restrictive. That gets back to my point yesterday afternoon (as well as earlier in this thread). And in that context, which I wrote about yesterday, yes. Reforming campaign as you suggest -- splitting 50/50 or equally across candidates -- does not work. The other voices will drown out everything the campaigns do. You make them obsolete...and the largest corporations win.

And to this point I referenced the U FL article which deflates the implication. You used Musk as an example on page 2 on this thread, first entry, and I tried to use that as demonstration. By this quote from there: "One of the reasons i am in favor of campaign finance reform is i think the current system breeds and sustains corruption with both parties. If i give $50 to a democrat or republican's campaign, i'll get a form thank you letter. Most of US voters are not "$170 billion richer since endorsing trump...." i don't think that coincidental. It makes perfect sense to me that anyone who contributes to a government representative, does so to get something in return. It seems evident to me that the higher the... 'contribution' the higher the return. Musk, as just one example, does not strike me as altruistic." I don't really know what your point is.

@tallslenderguy I feel like you keep moving the goalposts. Can you be clearer on these points you make: On page two of this thread you typed this: "" i should have qualified my question: "as regards campaigns and campaign financing." So then, how would your apply science and rationalism to campaigns and campaign financing? "" with a BZ site time of Sun 2:09am (I don't know how to quote from a different page). Campaign and campaign financing are literally for elections. There is no campaign without an election. So what does the quote above mean? In response to what you quoted from me: "You're focus is on the election. I've tried to express the limitations of the "selection set," if you will." Selection set = what you're talking about which, by your quote was "" i should have qualified my question: "as regards campaigns and campaign financing." So then, how would your apply science and rationalism to campaigns and campaign financing? "" so I reasonably assumed it was about campaigns and campaign financing. What do you mean if not that? By "selection set" you took this is a negative way, it seems. I don't know how you got there, exactly. It's just what you are considering by this quote again: "" i should have qualified my question: "as regards campaigns and campaign financing.""

And I missed this article earlier today but, holy crap on topic: [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2y38v4prvo PepsiCo talking about affordability and health: "The firm is also pivoting towards health-focused products, with the launch of Doritos Protein later this year." re: affordability and prices "The products in line for price cuts will not see their packaging size, ingredients or taste changed, PepsiCo promised." -- note they say nothing about product volume in the packaging. Pepsi had $2.2 billion on US ad spending in 2024. [think before following links] https://adage.com/pepsico/ Candidates will need to compete with that.

OK. You're focus is on the election. I've tried to express the limitations of the "selection set," if you will. Can we try this? 2026 will be: a referendum on Trump a referendum about affordability and cost of living other things too I think we'll likely have a broad agreement there? Here's the issue with your "selection set" in regard to affordability: One of the key impactors of affordability, specific to apartment rentals, are companies like AirBnB. This has taken millions of rental units off the market. Cities are desperately trying to pass ADU-build incentives to get home owners to add more rental units to their marketplace. If candidates take this on, AirBnB and other similar services will have millions in brand advertising to compete against the candidate messaging. And, by definition of "brand advertising," this excludes any reference to the election or candidate so isn't money to a PAC, super PAC. It's just standard advertising. That Super PAC stuff is above and beyond this consideration. AirBnB has every right to advertise their brand and their version of its benefits. That is covered under free speech -- as long as it's not false marketing. This is what I mean about neutering campaigns. Candidates have to compete against more than just each other for "share of voice." (marketing term there) If you simplify the world to a point where the ONLY messaging is that of the candidates to the topic(s) at hand -- I agree with you. But that's a false assumption. There is NO election where that's true. environmentally-driven candidates: vs. oil/gas, or vs. "clean" coal, etc data privacy: vs. social, or vs search/AI, etc deregulation: vs. unions, or small business, etc and on it goes, processed foods, ride share, tech monopolies, screen time for kids, etc, etc, etc.

From the linked U FL article, section 2: "Does money buy influence? Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms in the media and from reform groups. Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials. The Center for Responsive Politics notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is. [snip dated examples] By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. [snipped dated examples] Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. [snipped dated example] But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. First, Daily Kos found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. Second, this way of improving responsiveness [better electoral outcomes by more spending] is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office. Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. More small donors means more widespread support, at least in theory, but that theory has limitations. Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining. NOTE: both in volume and share of total, small dollar has increased since the article was written. See OpenSecrets.org for 2020 vs. 2016, See: section 2:The Funding Behind Record-Breaking Spending: [think before following links] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/ Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics." But this last part is important. You made two very key statements which are pure assumptions, seemingly motivated by the original video and like conversations. That is, small dollar donations are better -- that is an assumption which is challenged directly above. But two, that someone rich is merely buying influence. And to support that, you made comment about Musk [and I'm MAD at you for making me "defend" him at any level! haha]. To make that example work: What did DOGE do with Musk that it would have not done anyway. Financial deregulation has literally been on the Republican platform for decades. What did they do that they hide from view or didn't run on? Project 2025 and the like was well discussed during the 2024 Presidential run-in. To the idea the Harvard article about influence, well there are $10s to $100s of millions poured into Democratic and other anti-gun candidates who are not getting their moneys worth at the moment! See: Minneapolis: both sides now support concealed carry. That's new. Do you notice how they don't cite this opinion statement? The assumption of corruption is down the conspiracy theory road. This article suggests candidates only stay true to their position due to "outside" money. How many times do candidates get dinged for "flip-flopping" due to money. That was Sanders criticism of Clinton. Which is it? I get lost with this snippet from the Harvard article. They state the contributors want incumbents, but their money doesn't help them. So why are they beholden to those contributors? They continue here. "can" and "may" -- suggestive language and opinion. It is not fact. If it "can" or if it "may" it could also be "doesn't" or "may not." And again, if incumbents are elected on a certain set of values, why wouldn't they stay true? Don't voters hate "flip-floppers?"

And, to double-down on the Univ of FL article, here was a state election in TX over the weekend. It was won by the Dem, flipping the seat from November by ~30 points. According to this article, Reps poured $2.5mil while the Dem had <$400k. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk85kjk8lzo I cannot confirm the actual spending by all possible groups, and the BBC may be wrong in their aggregations noted above. But money doesn't mean votes. It's a fear-mongering tactic by those in the media when they feel their side is losing...as those on the left had been feeling with Trump's win, supported by Musk. Another very common fear-mongering tactic around elections by partisan media is voter fraud / voter suppression. Reps claim endless fraud with no substantial proof. Dems do the same on suppression...Stacey Abrams had her day in court and proved absolutely nothing, but is an election denier in her GA Gov 2018 race still.

So, as luck would have it, Politico just posted this: [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/02/meta-drops-65-million-into-super-pacs-to-boost-tech-friendly-state-candidates-00759567 If you neuter campaign financing, how can candidates and their campaigns compete with this? I'll repeat, in the context of this article on Meta, what I said above: I'd be more than happy if a billionaire would want to bankroll candidates to fight Meta on data privacy, screen time for kids, etc, etc. And here's the Centrist argument: if I'm glad of it when I like the effort (see the statement just above), I cannot be hypocritical when I don't.

That is exactly what the U FL link does, specific to outcomes from either rich candidates self-funding or by donations. The expected result -- more money means better results -- isn't universally true. As long as both sides have it, it effectively balances out from a donations perspective, and lose more times than not from a (rich) candidate/self-funding perspective. But for this bit re-quoted, your question is like selection bias in medical / research studies. You're asking one part of a greater whole -- one part which, in current times, re: uber-rich Musk, leads to more outrage from the political left. As I stated above, campaign finance is just one piece of the broader "money and politics" puzzle -- or, one tentacle of the large beast. And I gave you an example of how curtailing campaign finance, even from a billionaire, would NOT be in the public interest, re: candidate having to take on low/no-nutrition food/drink brands. That would be a centrist view: to look at the whole and stop listening to those looking to gain from making you outraged -- like the woman in your video clip, I forget her name. It's to her benefit -- financial benefit -- to make you outraged and keep you coming back to her videos. An approach of rationalism to the Forbes article you reference above. Here would be my questions to that: The wealth increase noted is mostly "on paper" based on investors' view of his companies. How is any of that politically-driven nefarious actions? How much is driven by Starlink and expanded growth due to Europe's (AT LAST) investment in self-defense? You (Forbes journalist) connect xAI to this, AI has been in bubble-status on the market for a long time. Why is this connected? What is the "on paper" wealth growth when you remove to tech- and AI-driven growth level across the whole economy? So, what would his wealth be IF NOT for the European investment boom in self-defense and the technological development of AI? If you strip out those things, it's not the same story. And those have nothing to do with some nefarious politically-driven actions. But asking those questions --or, the journalist answering those questions -- dilutes the implied story which won't drive clicks and revenue for ad revenue/subscribers to Forbes.

Can you explain this? Corporations and other similar entities are not creations of the government, in a general sense, they are the private sector -- the exact opposite. Government is the public sector. At their smallest, corporations are individuals. Corporations -- any size -- must register with governments for regulatory and tax purposes...obtaining legal status in doing so. If you have a 401k or any retirement account, you're a shareholder in many public companies via the included funds. So, that's like half the population...dunno? AI says 56%.

well, in the response you quoted was one. I've posted and linked here many books, articles, and sites. Centrism,a s a start: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism Science and rationalism over ideology and belief. I believe no one, rich or poor, deserves anything simply by being alive, whether that's status, fealty, healthcare, education, etc. I don't believe a poor person is innately correct or worthy nor is a rich person innately corrupt or selfish. Can I ask you, if someone kept posting Tucker Carlson videos, would you challenge those ideas? You would see me doing so.

In principle, agree. Republicans use the likes of Musk and many more, and Democrats have Soros, Clooney, and many more as well. Plus Dems are turning to populist rhetoric and policy like debt forgiveness on college loans, healthcare, or in NYC groceries, child care, housing, etc -- how many millions gave for these purposes as they'll get something back? Broadly, we agree. But to my original response... campaigns sit in a broader messaging ecosystem, and they have to compete there. Say a candidate has a pro-nutrition message. Brands from soda, snacks, candy, etc. are constantly messaging brand improvements -- falsely implying, for instance, real sugar is somehow healthy while using that to try and make the candidate's argument irrelevant... "we're health now" crap. Brands are not political in nature, and don't mention the candidate nor election, so they have no limits on spending. But the candidate has to compete on messaging with those brands. I'm fine with that being bankrolled by a billionaire. money and politics. Where I take issue with the video, equally like those on the conservative side, they're always selective in who outrages them and why.