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 Friday at 11:27 PM 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?  

[tobetrained]

14 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

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?  

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.

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, tobetrained said:

It's my understanding much of that is for Starlink

Thanks for mentioning that;  I hadn't put it into the mix - there always seem to be apparently extraneous events taking place, that affect other events.  

[Rillion]

It's a tough issue, but one thing I think the Supreme Court got wrong is that corporations have free speech rights equal to individuals when it comes to campaign donations and campaign related spending.

 

Corporations are creations of the government and provided special legal protection for their shareholders. Being creatures created and protected by the government it is reasonable that they also be subject to regulation by the government and while the individuals that work at the corporation and it's shareholders should be allowed to petition the government in the individual capacity it is not appropriate for the corporation itself to be able to give funds to politicians or spending money to try to influence elections. 

[tobetrained]

11 minutes ago, Rillion said:

Corporations are creations of the government and provided special legal protection for their shareholders

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%.

[tallslenderguy]

7 hours ago, tobetrained said:

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] [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.

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?   

i would not argue campaign finance reform from one side or the other... to me, it seems to support centrism because it could put an equal amount of money in everyones hands to spend. Does that make it perfect? No, of course not, but i do think it makes it better that Musk cannot influence Trump or Soros Harris.  i'm not presenting the video as a panacea, i am saying that i think the way it is now needs reform, a major concern being individuals or special interests making large contributions.  To me, it seems more centrist to look for ways to spread the influence out amongst all the voters. 

Re Tucker Carlson? idk, i would have to listen to what he said specifically and respond accordingly vs responding to the idea of Tucker Carlson.  

What i am may be missing and wishing from in your responses is the centrist position you would take instead?   To me, identifying as "centrist" doesn't tell me a persons individual, detailed stance on any particular issue.  i think it's fine to express an opinion against  what one perceives as left or right, good or bad, rational or irrational.... i'm just wanting additional info of what you would do instead.  What, in your opinion, would be the centrist approach? 

[tobetrained]

14 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

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?  

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.

14 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

i should have qualified my question: "as regards campaigns and campaign financing."

 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.