The Megadonors Who Have Poured $1.2B into the Midterms

Low info voters are very, very bad at dealing with causation. Either for events in the past or events in the future. They tend to follow an algorithm more like "has my life improved recently? Then incumbent, else challenger". Much of the rest is differential turnout. Especially when all the constituencies have been gerrymandered six ways from Sunday.

I guess we'll see in a couple of days. The voter verdict on Trump #2 does not look positive, and this is going to reflect on every candidate with an R by their name.

For better or for worse, the narrative in the US is slowly shifting to class differences rather than the usual culture war dog whistle issues. No matter how much the ultra wealthy wring their hands and try to explain their plight, the people are less and less inclined to be sympathetic when they are seeing the full effects of the K shaped recovery we've been in since the GFC.

At least, that's my understanding.

(Judge unconstitutionally refuses to accept appointment of other judges, situation escalates into a proper physical "lock the doors vs storm the building" conflict.)

I assume the /s was implied?

Total UK spend in 2024 was about £70m or about £1 per citizen. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

> It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.

Even in the US free speech does not allow you to simply sell fraudulent goods and services. There has to be some sort of defense in the system against lying, or the entire process just turns into competing to write the worst fantasy about your opponent.

> If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda

Buddy, advertising works, there is a reason why coca-cola does it.

Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you think Trump would have won?

Firstly, consider how freaking adaptable humans are. Even though you would hate moving somewhere with really poor living conditions, you would get used to some degree of it within several months or years. People have health problems they… just kinda get used to and ignore (which causes them problems down the road).

My point: it’s part of being human to adapt to your environment.

So here’s the problem: if you have enough money, you can influence other people’s environments. Specifically, their information environments. If your information environment is extremely negative and stressful, you’ll tend to feel more negative and stressed too.

And not to mention, have you heard about how the human brain is so susceptible to addiction when technology manipulates dopamine response? So social media companies are also manipulating your attention by spending money.

This isn’t some personal failing in you or me or anyone else. This is billionaires and tech giants manipulating very normal aspects of humanity to make more money and control politics.

Like, you’re seriously telling me there’s nothing wrong with billionaires buying up and merging nearly all of the media companies and newspapers in America? It’s just our feeble brains that are the problem?

Give me a break. The problem is that because of technology, anyone with enough money can very easily manipulate and influence the information we consume and the media we’re attentive to.

That gives a small number of people frankly too much power in a society. And your argument is that whoever “figures out” this hack of… having a lot of money… should have the right to control elections, because humans can’t be trusted.

I personally find that argument incoherent.

The real question is: why exactly should a society put up with a power dynamic that gives 99% of people less power and worse lives?

All of that money should go to lower funded candidates so spending above the limit becomes self defeating. Republican mega donors might end up supporting a small communist party more than their own.

Federal regulation would make a mess of the idea due to preemption, eliminating the state regulatory option and leaving us with just the federal options of a Constitutional amendment or impeaching/replacing the Supreme Court and repudiating their openly corrupt precedent (decree).