I agree. The way it is now, its rich billionaires that have the biggest say in who wins the election.TheButcher wrote: ↑November 5th, 2024, 7:24 pmCitizens United v. Federal Election Commissiontacnet wrote: ↑November 5th, 2024, 6:43 pmI learned something the other day about the US election process which I wasn't aware of.
Apparently America has tried several times to put a cap on how much money each party can spend on elections. A lot of other countries do this to try and stop the ultra wealthy from having all the influence. They were partially successful in that the maximum any one person can donate is $3,300.00 . However both parties take advantage of a loop hole whereby corporations and billionaire superpacs can run add campaigns and events etc ON BEHALF of a candidate (in other words, they don't actually donate directly to the candidate)
This was challenged in the supreme court but it was ruled that corporations and superpacs have the same freedom of speech as individual people and therefore what they do with their money is up to them
Thats why you have these long and very expensive election campaigns in the USA
Just something I thought was interesting
The SC pretty much gave corporations the right to spend and I do not see the logic in corporation with deep pockets spending on elections. Limiting campaign contributions makes sense to me. But what do i know. In the real world the bigger a donation you make the more access you have to the elected officials. I can bet that candidates have a list of donations and the more you donated gets you more ear time.
I think Australia has got it right. There its compulsory to vote which might sound like a pain in the ass but it means that candidates don't have to worry about turning out their base. Lets face it, most of this election has not been about winning people over but rather getting their base out to vote by scaring the hell out of them with apocalyptic views as to what would happen if the other side wins.
