Campaign Finance Reform

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

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.

OK.

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

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."

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:

1. a referendum on Trump
2. a referendum about affordability and cost of living
3. 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.

[tobetrained]

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.

[tallslenderguy]

18 hours ago, tobetrained said:

You're focus is on the election. I've tried to express the limitations of the "selection set," if you will.

No.  This is a vast topic.  i really do not know what you are thinking when you infer, then imply, my "selection set?"  Whether intended or not, to assert what my "focus is"  can give the impression that's all i'm aware of and that i'm in need of counsel lol.  That happened earlier in the discussion when you asserted that i think/contend that "small dollar donations are better."  Rather that asserting what i think or say (e.g., what my "focus is,"), maybe quote specifically what leads you to that impression of me and state it as your read of me vs telling me and others what my position is. That way i can more exactly say "yes, you read me correctly"  or "no, that is not what i think or am trying to convey" and then i can further try to explain or clarify. 

i do not presume to have this in "focus."  I think  the focal point is too vast for focus, so naturally,  It is easy to identify and express limitations when the focus is narrowed on a broad topic, eh?  It seems to me that "express[ing] the limitations" is often "your focus."  And i think  that's fine, and part of the larger discussion, but only part.  While i am biting off pieces for sake of discussion,  i think it's obvious that there is other stuff on the plate.  i do think there is merit to chipping away at this, i.e., that we can approach attempting to 'fix' this in steps. Given the divergent view points, i'd question the chances of any attempt at holistic approach towards consensus. 

 i reiterate that i believe "campaign financing" is not only about how contributed money affects the ultimate list ("selection set?" ) of those who get to ultimately run for office,  but also how that money affects the elected's decisions and representation after the campaign and election process.   But clearly, there's "other stuff on the plate."  The study i cited above (tis a ponderous tome) goes into other factors about that influences the resultant "selection set:"  "...this paper also provides further evidence on the impact of demographic factors, such as candidate’s age, gender, party membership, and incumbency status, on electoral outcomes."  

20 hours ago, tobetrained said:

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.

Agreed.

What do you propose as realistic, alternative? 

[tallslenderguy]

19 hours ago, tobetrained said:

And I missed this article earlier today but, holy crap on topic:

[think before following links] [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] [think before following links] https://adage.com/pepsico/

Candidates will need to compete with that.

lol... you are conversing with a guy who is certified in preventing and reversing disease process through diet, so i cannot put "PepsiCo" and "health"  on the same planet, they are at opposite ends of the universe. 

 

[tobetrained]

@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?

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

No.  This is a vast topic.  i really do not know what you are thinking when you infer, then imply, my "selection set?"  Whether intended or not, to assert what my "focus is"  can give the impression that's all i'm aware of and that i'm in need of counsel lol.

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."" 

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

i reiterate that i believe "campaign financing" is not only about how contributed money affects the ultimate list ("selection set?" ) of those who get to ultimately run for office,  but also how that money affects the elected's decisions and representation after the campaign and election process.  

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]

Arrrggghhh. i typed out a long reply, and trying to quote from another page, lost all of it. Damn.  i need to go to the gym and i don't want to go through all of that again. 

Not trying to be a moving target, sorry i made you feel that way. i'm not trying to be a target or goal at all ;-). 

We agree (i think) that campaigns and elections are about way more than money. i think where we differ is i think money is a factor worth scrutiny and reform, while you seem to disagree?   i like basing decisions on science as well. You cite a 2018 article from UF based on a 2016 study.  i cited one from 2024 (i think, it was newer, i think the data went through 2020?).  i looked some more and found a study published March 2025.  i'm not a political scientist, but in medicine, "newer" is a factor when considering a study. As are qualities like size, replication, double blind, funding (i.e., conflict of interest). This study seems to have collected data from a longer period too. 

"The identification of the effect of campaign contributions on the behavior of elected representatives in Congress has proven to be a daunting task. This work does not prove the quid pro quo between donors and MCs. Existing studies credibly hypothesize that most of the favors to donors are buried in obscure microlegislation that remain outside the scrutiny of the public –and often, of the researcher (McKay, 2020). Though, this study shows for the first time a robust negative correlation between important legislative outcomes and the concentration of donations, for a period spanning decades of data. It also provides a general argument based on the concentration of contributions to each MC that sheds light on the association between donations and legislative activities. By reciprocating favors to donors, by seeking to secure their continued financial support, or simply by enjoying more leisure time as a result of feeling secure in their financial backing, MCs are less active in legislative activities related to the Congressional agenda and public policy. While further research is required to gain a deeper understanding of the specifics of this mechanism of influence, I believe these results show that the system of political donations distorts the incentives of MCs regarding their legislative effort."

[think before following links] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272725000179

[Pozzible]

On 1/30/2026 at 10:47 AM, tobetrained said:

OK. And he did that role unpaid and did so supporting a party which uncut one of his own businesses -- by eliminating the electric car subsidy. It's fair to call it idiotic but I don't understand the implied vitriol.

Well, I started with this query to GLM 4.6: “Specifically how has Elon Musk and his companies directly benefited from Musk’s work on DOGE (Dept of Government Efficiency”?

GLM 4.6 has this to say.  Lots of potential vitriol.

“Based on the search results, Elon Musk and his companies have directly benefited from his work on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in several ways:

Musk's involvement with DOGE has significantly boosted the value of Dogecoin, the cryptocurrency he has long promoted. Whenever Musk mentioned DOGE, it "unsurprisingly pump[ed] the price of Dogecoin," with the cryptocurrency "trebling in value since the election."4,9 This directly benefits Musk as a major proponent and holder of Dogecoin.

The creation of DOGE has provided Musk with unprecedented access to federal government data and systems. DOGE employees gained access to sensitive agency data, including at Social Security where they "siphoned agency data in a way that 'circumvents oversight'."

1

 This access potentially benefits Musk's companies by providing insider information about government operations and contracting.

Musk used his position at DOGE to target agencies that had been investigating his companies. Trump dismissed 17 inspectors general less than a week into his presidency, and "some of these inspectors were leading investigations, pending legal action against Elon Musk's companies."3This effectively halted oversight of Musk's business practices.

DOGE's mandate to "slash excess regulations" and cut federal spending directly benefits Musk's companies like SpaceX and Tesla, which hold "billions of dollars in government contracts" and are subject to federal regulations.

2

 By reducing regulatory oversight and potentially cutting programs that compete with Musk's interests, DOGE creates a more favorable business environment for his enterprises.

The department's lack of transparency and incomplete record-keeping makes it difficult to track all the benefits flowing to Musk's companies, with economists warning that "DOGE's lack of transparency and incomplete receipts make it hard to fact-check specific achievements."

2

This opacity potentially shields Musk and his companies from scrutiny regarding conflicts of interest and preferential treatment.”

Quote

 

So I tried digging just a bit deeper on one claim I’ve read about:

Did DOGE give Musk companies increased control over aviation with contracts to FAA flight control systems?

 

GLM 4.6

7:48 PM

5.46s

Based on the search results, Elon Musk's companies have gained increased control over aviation systems through contracts with the FAA, facilitated by his work with DOGE. Here's how:

The FAA is reportedly considering canceling its existing $2.4 billion contract with Verizon for communications infrastructure upgrades in favor of Musk's Starlink, a division of SpaceX^1,2,5,8^. This shift would give Musk's company significant control over the FAA's telecommunications network that oversees 29 million square miles of U.S. airspace and manages 45,000 flights daily^9.

DOGE personnel have been embedded within the FAA and are reportedly "calling the shots" on Project Lift, a multi-million dollar communications project that could embed Starlink within FAA operations1. FAA employees involved in this project were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements to keep details secret1.

Musk has used his position with DOGE to personally influence FAA decisions regarding Starlink. The Campaign Legal Center filed a formal complaint alleging that Musk "appears to have personally and substantially participated" in dealings between the FAA and Starlink, which would violate federal conflict-of-interest laws^2,3.

The FAA has already begun using Starlink for parts of its air traffic control system, with one system installed at an FAA facility in Atlantic City and an approval for a shipment of 4,000 Starlink terminals to the agency

3

•

5. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy confirmed that Starlink would "play some part" in upgrades to the agency's systems

2,9.

SpaceX personnel have been given special access to FAA facilities, including the command center, where they suggested improvements to the aviation system and presented a new FAA-SpaceX partnership called TDM-X

9

•

10. This access came despite the FAA having previously investigated and fined SpaceX for alleged safety violations

10.

These developments represent a significant shift that could give Musk's companies unprecedented control over critical aviation infrastructure, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest and self-dealing^3,5,8.

10 Citations

2%

Enough for a dose of vitriol?

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

 i'm not a political scientist, but in medicine, "newer" is a factor when considering a study. As are qualities like size, replication, double blind, funding (i.e., conflict of interest). This study seems to have collected data from a longer period too.

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.

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

i think where we differ is i think money is a factor worth scrutiny and reform, while you seem to disagree?

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.

[tallslenderguy]

23 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

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.

Okay. 🙂

[Rillion]

On 1/31/2026 at 3:01 PM, tobetrained said:

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%.

Name me one Corporation that is created these days that isn't created by filing their articles of incorporation with a state? Yes or no, if a corporation isn't filed within the bounds of and in accordance with the laws of a state, does it legally exist?  If a person is born, so they actually exist even if not registered with a state? See the big difference? A person is a person. A corporation is an entity created according to the laws of the state. It's very existence depends on the rules and regulations of state and federal governments. 

They are not people, they should not be accorded the same rights as people. If you read are founding documents they speak of the rights of the people and individuals, they don't speak of the rights or corporations. If I as a sole proprietor cause harm by my businesses actions, not only are my businesses assets at risk for the harm I have created or the debts it has incurred but so are my personal assets. Wrap the business in a corporate structure and all of the sudden my personal assets aren't at risk for the harm my business creates or the debts. 

I am not saying that corporations or limited liability shouldn't exist. What I am saying is that by getting this legal protection that is denied individuals, should come with the acknowledgment that corporations are given special protection economically and those protections should come at the expense of not being treated as if they are  individuals in the political sphere. 

[tobetrained]

@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.

[tobetrained]

10 hours ago, Rillion said:

Name me one Corporation that is created these days that isn't created by filing their articles of incorporation with a state? Yes or no, if a corporation isn't filed within the bounds of and in accordance with the laws of a state, does it legally exist?  If a person is born, so they actually exist even if not registered with a state? See the big difference? A person is a person. A corporation is an entity created according to the laws of the state. It's very existence depends on the rules and regulations of state and federal governments. 

@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]

Edited 3 hours ago by tobetrained
orig forgot to add the Postal Service bit