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.

[tallslenderguy]

 

11 hours ago, tobetrained said:

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.

i just finished a 13 hour rotation at the hospital where i work, so do not have the time or energy to respond at length to what you wrote right now, but one quick response to the above. 

Yes, of course, "campaign finance is just one piece of the broader "money and politics" puzzle."  This is why i phrased the question:

"So then, how would your apply science and rationalism to campaigns and campaign financing?  I.e "campaigns" referring to the "broader"..."puzzle," and "campaign financing" referring to one of the pieces. 

 

[tobetrained]

11 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

"So then, how would your apply science and rationalism to campaigns and campaign financing?  I.e "campaigns" referring to the "broader"..."puzzle," and "campaign financing" referring to one of the pieces. 

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.

[tobetrained]

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.

[tallslenderguy]

23 hours ago, tobetrained said:

So, as luck would have it, Politico just posted this:

[think before following links] [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.

It would be helpful (at least to me) when you post a link to address a point, if you would give an excerpt from the link that you're using to make your point?  You mention earlier that you did not watch the entire video that started this discussion. i admit, i don't always read your entire links either, but when you use them to make a specific point, it would help if you would include an excerpt as part of your response?  i try to do that when i link something, and am thinking i can do better at that as well. 

A couple of points i am positing for campaign and campaign finance reform, is not to "neuter campaign financing," but to work towards making the playing field more level and working towards less corruption once someone is elected. 

You identify as a Centrist, so i would grant that you are making an individual "centrist argument,"  not "the Centrist argument."   On a line with say: 'progressive' at one end and, 'conservative' at the other, there are infinite points in the center. To me, stating this as a linear consideration is woefully simplistic on my part, because i think there's a whole lot more dimension to the topic. 

20 hours ago, tobetrained said:

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] [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.

No doubt, fear mongering is a technique used by both sides.     You link the UF article, then "double  down" with the BBC.  Both valid from a particular point of view. Demonstrating that big money does not automatically or absolutely  affect outcomes, does not eliminate the influence and effect of individual or SIG's.   i'm not convinced by what you offer that our system would not benefit from both campaign and finance reform... while admitting, it's a complex topic and i think it's important to note correlation vs cause. You posit your point of view, appreciated. But the point you make with both articles speaks to electability.  To me, a big concern is if and after the person is elected, who are they now beholden too.  There is also another factor that money, or the lack thereof, can eliminate those without it who might make valuable reps.   I will link a newer study that demonstrates that money is a cause for many not running in the first place.  i believe the average American voter would appreciate having representatives who spend their time in office actually representing those who voted for them vs those who contribute money to them.  i'm not a political scientist, but the notion of one pot of money divided equally between all those running would have both a leveling effect and as well as taking out corrupting factors. 

Here's some more point of view  from those who agree that we could benefit from reform.

The UF article you linked was from 2018 and based on info from 2016.  This is from a Harvard Political Review article from October 29, 2024:

"The 2016 presidential and congressional races combined for a cost of over $8 billion. In 2020, that number nearly doubled to over $16 billion. While these figures can be attributed to multiple sources, the contributions of a handful of elite groups and individuals to these massive fundraising hauls cannot be ignored.

 

The process of raising these staggering amounts of money requires time and energy. It’s a key contributor to why our election cycles feel so long and draining. During a typical election season, it’s estimated that a member of Congress will spend half of their time in office fundraising to run for reelection. With members of the House up for election every two years, much of their time is occupied with campaigning rather than governing.

Our system itself contributes to a drawn-out process. Although primaries delegate power to the general public to pick their candidates, they also force the campaign timeline forward. This results in campaigns that are launched months and sometimes even years ahead of the general election — all so that enough money can be raised to compete with other candidates.

To see who our elections benefit, all you have to do is follow the money. Our finance-driven elections facilitate big corporations’ agendas. They keep power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. And they give people the illusion of choice while establishing a series of quid pro quos between the interests of the powerful and our elected officials."

Beyond articles, here is a more recent study on money and election outcomes. It's long, tediously so lol, but has a lot of info in it that i think presents evidence that can be used by both sides, with more of a focus on expenditure and (i think) some very interesting analysis of incumbents vs contenders. Excerpts are from the "concluding remarks:" 

'In this paper, we have examined how money, in the form of campaign contribution, made by SIGs, and its spending, affects electoral outcomes. We collected data on the House of Representatives elections from all 50 states and Washington D.C. in the US over the period of 2000 to 2018. Based on the logit estimations (and also the linear probability estimations), we show that campaign expenditure and electoral success are positively correlated.'

"Generally, all candidates, including incumbents and contenders, ask for contributions from different interest groups to finance their electoral advertisements (Ashworth, 2006). In exchange for the contributions, candidates promise to do favors for the contributors if they get elected. As with the previous literature, contributors believe that it is more attractive to invest in incumbents than in contenders due to two different reasons (Ashworth, 2006; Benoit & Marsh, 2008; Johnson, 2013). Firstly, incumbents already have established name recognition and benefited substantially from prior office holding strategies and stronger networks. Therefore, they usually have a better chance of winning. The present study has empirically shown that higher campaign spending does not help incumbents much to secure a seat. Hence, incumbents do not have as much a demand for SIGs’ contributions as contenders do. Secondly, interest groups find contenders less advantageous to start with as their winning chance is uncertain. This is also shown by our results. Moreover, because the accessibility of contenders to uninformed voters is more expensive, the outcome of contributing the same amount of money to contenders is more uncertain than incumbents (Bombardini & Trebbi, 2011). Therefore, SIGs tend to supply more contributions to incumbents than contenders. This can create an overflow of funds for incumbents. This overflow may lead to incumbents’ expropriation of public resources for their personal purposes rather than election (see, for instance, Le & Yalcin, 2018, 2023a, 2023b). Moreover, it can facilitate the entrenchment of incumbents in their positions by distorting policy to suit donor preferences. In that respect, incumbents’ alternative ways of using the spare funds that they receive from SIGs are clearly not in the public interest and should be regulated. Examining these issues, either theoretically or with data, will enrich our forthcoming research agenda."

[think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659

 

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

It would be helpful (at least to me) when you post a link to address a point, if you would give an excerpt from the link that you're using to make your point?

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.

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

In exchange for the contributions, candidates promise to do favors for the contributors if they get elected.

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?

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

As with the previous literature, contributors believe that it is more attractive to invest in incumbents than in contenders due to two different reasons (Ashworth, 2006; Benoit & Marsh, 2008; Johnson, 2013). Firstly, incumbents already have established name recognition and benefited substantially from prior office holding strategies and stronger networks. Therefore, they usually have a better chance of winning. The present study has empirically shown that higher campaign spending does not help incumbents much to secure a seat. Hence, incumbents do not have as much a demand for SIGs’ contributions as contenders do. Secondly, interest groups find contenders less advantageous to start with as their winning chance is uncertain. This is also shown by our results. Moreover, because the accessibility of contenders to uninformed voters is more expensive, the outcome of contributing the same amount of money to contenders is more uncertain than incumbents (Bombardini & Trebbi, 2011). Therefore, SIGs tend to supply more contributions to incumbents than contenders.

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?

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

This can create an overflow of funds for incumbents. This overflow may lead to incumbents’ expropriation of public resources for their personal purposes rather than election (see, for instance, Le & Yalcin, 2018, 2023a, 2023b). Moreover, it can facilitate the entrenchment of incumbents in their positions by distorting policy to suit donor preferences.

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?"

[tallslenderguy]

5 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

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].

You're safe with having to "defend" Musk... because, you are wrong on both counts.  i am not asserting that "small dollar donations are better," that is presumption on your part.

 Here's what i envision (and i'm sure one can find rocks to throw at this and it would take more thought for a finished approach, but try to bear with me to see where i am actually coming from): i made reference to "one big pot of money equally divided."   my idea is to divide the democratic process into many more individual pieces of influence, as in: "we the people."  Musk and Soros are still free to follow their profound code of 'altruism' and donate vast sums.  Since it can be argued they gain no substantial boon any more that Joe Shmoe,  who paid 'nothing' but his taxes and his vote.  Although, you may stumble at this because, if i recall, you believe altruism should not be part of the political process? (tongue in cheek).   My point, for more clarity, is to work towards a system where no one person or group has more influence than another in the selection, voting, process... as much as can possibly be managed. So yeah, have at it billionaires and SGI's, feel free to donate, not to your cause, but to the democratic selection process, that way everyone can be equally pissed when they don't get what they want.  To me, that would address issue two as well. Can i prove beyond a shadow of doubt that many large donators are buying influence?  Maybe, if i spent lots of time and did lots of digging, but it's not a stretch (at all) for me to believe in the likelihood, almost naive not to consider it.  But, as i see it, removing the donation from the individual to the many (i.e., anyone who votes), the democratic process instead, i suspect would soon demonstrate whether or not those massive donations would still roll in, individual or SIG. And again, the money part of this is just one factor in my mind, that needs reform.