• adminofoz@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Im with you on Citizens United being a nightmare but if I understand your argument and your chart you are saying 100s of millions per election to politicians equals “banned money in politics.” Is that correct?

    If so I dont believe we mean the same thing when we say those words.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      It banned PACs and Corporations from spending on and engaging with campaigns, so yes, it removed money from politics.

      Would the world not be so much better without oil companies and AIPAC running elections?

      • adminofoz@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        I agree with you on banning PACs and corps from spending on and engaging in campaigns.

        My point is you aren’t going far enough. If you think $100 million spent for a candidate in 2002 is an ideal worth striving for or somehow equal to no money in politics, you are in for disappointment or you don’t remember that era well enough.

        This still nearly entirely excluded normal people from becoming a candidate. Corporations were still writing our laws during that time through lobbying. Not to mention a dozen other in roads for money in politics during that era, such as insider trading.