Campaign Finance Reform

[tallslenderguy]

51 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

It's my understanding much of that is for Starlink initiated by the Biden administration, particularly to support UKR but not limited to that.

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. 

 

"Elon Musk Is $170 Billion Richer Since Endorsing Trump

...the Trump administration has already given Musk plenty of return on his investment. On the regulatory front, his businesses face less scrutiny as some government investigations into them have been closed, stalled or thrown into disarray, thanks in part to Musk’s own efforts with DOGE to defund and gut multiple federal agencies. His companies, particularly SpaceX, are positioned to receive billions of dollars in fresh government contracts. On the global stage, Musk is striking deals and gaining approval to operate in foreign jurisdictions, often with the tacit or explicit support of the Trump administration. 

Then there are the personal benefits. Musk is far richer now than he was before endorsing Trump. His net worth stands at $419 billion—approximately $170 billion more than what it was on July 15, just two days after Trump survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, after which Musk endorsed him. Tesla’s stock price has fallen by 20% since Trump’s return to the White House in late January, but remains 35% higher than in mid-July 2024. SpaceX is now valued at $350 billion, nearly double what it was around the time of Musk’s endorsement. And his third largest company, xAI Holdings, which now includes his social media platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI, was valued at $113 billion in its recent merger, more than triple what the two firms were worth a year ago."

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhyatt/2025/05/24/elon-musk-is-170-billion-richer-since-endorsing-trump/

Edited 5 hours ago by tallslenderguy

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

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.

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.

[tallslenderguy]

3 hours ago, tobetrained said:

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.

Do you have any videos, ideas, approaches that you agree with?  Something that presents how you believe things should go vs how they should not?