A Mistake About Campaign Finance

I have seen a number of posts and articles lately expressing a considerable degree of satisfaction over the fact that Democrats seem to be outraising Republicans by a considerable margin in the funding race for the 2024 election.


All of these self-satisfied comments ignore one fact that should be obvious to anyone who has followed American elections for any length of time:  Republican campaigns are largely financed by the avalanche of dark money that is poured into our elections by billionaires and their corporations; overwhelmingly so for the mountain of negative ads which are the main feature of the last month or so of the campaign, and which, sad to say, are a major factor in getting the stupid "undecided" voters to go one way or another in November.  


This has been true for decades, but has been a primary feature of American elections since five corrupt Republican Supreme Court Justices rendered their "decision" in the Citizens United case, making the collaboration of the hyper-rich and the Republican party the central feature of our electoral system.


That dark money is what fuels the Republican party these days; the funds collected from ordinary people out in the open are merely window dressing to obscure that fact.


Comments

Cpt wilerd said…
This is a great point. I remember when that decision came out how Thom Hartman predicted how things would turn out and he was dead right!
May 16, 2024 at 8:18 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more