An absolute goddamn waste.
The budget for NASA is $24 billion. Think about that for a second.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3088 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I was so unbelievably mad that we have to give up the worlds only x-ray telescope for the new budget, but we have unlimited money for bombs and warfare... For fucks sake...
Obama: Citizens United will do just this thing.
Alito: Not true.
Narrator: it was true.
2020 was 14.4 billion, for context.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/
The last major pre-Citizens United election was 2008, where total spending was 5.3 billion.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/2008-campaign-costliest-in-us-history-015283
Election spending appears to be outpacing inflation, at any rate.
Yup, six hyper-partisan, uber-extreme right-wing members of the Supremely Corrupted Court.
What a waste of money. I hope we can somehow get to a place where this isn't happening anymore.
The only way to do that is to undo Citizens United, which would require appointing at least 2 sympathetic Supreme Court judges - this can only happen with Democrats in the White House.
What a great time to be a useless political consultant hack.
Imagine spending $16 billion on something everyone is guaranteed to hate, and plan on doing it again in 4 years with a goal of spending more
The best politicians money can buy...
Instead of campaigning to be popular, maybe the oligarchs could reinvest some is that 16B into infrastructure or something other than killing machines/popularity contests...
This is not a good thing.
Effective campaigns spend more time getting votes than money.
I legitimately don't even know how this much money is even spent, no one watches cable so ad buys are cheap. Spam texts/emails are essentially free, Internet/social media ads are also dirt cheap...
The only way it makes sense is they're taking the money and using it to hold those huge fundraiser diners to make more money.
We're running the political parties like corporations that only care about profits instead of an organization to get Dems in office.
The fact that after the election ends the candidates keep access to these funds is a big part of the problem. Win or lose if you have millions left in your campaign account you get to just keep spending it.
Effective campaigns spend more time getting votes than money.
Well, you can use money to buy outreach. Which can bring in more votes. So they are connected.
One of the reasons Biden dropped out was because donors had decided to withhold money from his campaign.
no one watches cable so ad buys are cheap.
I imagine it's more popular in certain parts of the US (e.g. the midwest). In particular where we need to pull never trumper votes away.
Spam texts/emails are essentially free,
Texts cost money. Emails are not free either if you are doing it with a high enough volume. See https://sendpulse.com/knowledge-base/email-service/general/how-much-bulk-email-costs for a comparison. (This is because it costs the underlying ISP some money to deal with the traffic involved.)
Internet/social media ads are also dirt cheap…
The ultimate problem is, even if they are cheap, if one side has more money than the other, then that side can outspend the other on ads, meaning they get larger outreach, potentially more influence (tho money doesn't always buy influence - who wants to take the risk), and so on.
I legitimately don’t even know how this much money is even spent,
Actual campaign funds have to be reported regarding spending, you can view that info over at https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/
This stuff is generally opaque and hard to understand, but a good "rule-of-thumb" kind of guide to it is available at https://www.propublica.org/article/how-to-understand-political-contributions-campaign-finance
This is not a good thing.
Agreed.
They're giving it to friends for "consultancy" who then give them money back, also for "consultancy".
Not even that hard, transfer to a "leadership pac" and you can spend it on anything, like a new motorhome for a Supreme Court Justice, or for yourself.
There's practically zero rules about what someone does with it
Yes. Another reason why Citizens United (2010) was so bad..
Well, err, not all funds are campaign funds. Political Action Committee funds, are not campaign funds. So they don't mind the same rules. But, yes, candidates retain funds they don't spend and rules apply such as they can't spend for personal use but can transfer money to other campaigns or to the party. So far Harris, by my read, has transferred 20 million to down ballot campaigns
Political Action Committee funds, are not campaign funds. So they don’t mind the same rules.
And one of the ways to launder campaign cash after an election is transfer to a PAC that they control...
A significant amount of that article is about it. That's why I thought it was relevant enough to link
There is one significant loophole in this process, however. That is the little-regulated leadership PAC, a political committee that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding a federal office. A candidate can opt to transfer their money into one of these entities.
"And the rules for leadership PACs are completely different than the rules for your official campaign committee," Deborah explains, "So the personal use rule doesn't apply there. You can use it for travel, you can use it for dinner, concert tickets, all in the name of fundraising. There's just not that much scrutiny on it. And politicians have used their leadership PACs quite lavishly. So that's that's another that's a huge loophole that I mean, neither side seems keen on closing at this point."
It's important to note that the FEC has a number of vacancies right now. In order to meet and review audits and complaints, the Committee must comprise at least four members. Currently there are just three, and Congress is unlikely to confirm a fourth soon. Even if someone were to notice wrongdoing or violation in the bounds of a leadership PAC, there isn't much that could be done.
Also:
So far Harris, by my read, has transferred 20 million to down ballot campaigns
Do you think that's more than the "victory fund" has taken from state parties this cycle?
If I took $5 and gave you $2 back how would you feel about me bragging about giving you $2 out of the kindness of my heart?
It’s important to note that the FEC has a number of vacancies right now. In order to meet and review audits and complaints, the Committee must comprise at least four members. Currently there are just three, and Congress is unlikely to confirm a fourth soon. Even if someone were to notice wrongdoing or violation in the bounds of a leadership PAC, there isn’t much that could be done.
To me this is the bit to worry about the most. What little rules do exist couldn't even be enforced.
And which party can we expect to a) not follow the rules and b) wait for the stature of limitations to expire and get away with cheating?
CNN - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNN:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/2024-election-most-expensive/index.html