Before someone else mentions it:
Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money, but until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter. Plus there being more small donors is good news since it helps campaigns be less reliant on big money
You either play by the rules of the game to change the rules of the game or just lose by default.
Yes it would be better to not have a system that needs so much money
Needs?
Biden spent over a billion and Kamala will dwarf that.
And even with that much money. We’re still just punting a bunch of states.
If over a billion dollars isn’t enough to run a full court press, how much is?
Like. At what point would you say they have enough money and the priority should shift to getting votes and not money?
I legitimately can’t figure out how that much is “spent” except as a feedback loop to get more donations. A never ending hamster wheel where regular Americans are priced out of influence because a billionaire can give 960k to the “victory fund”
How many small donors are able to even come close to the actual 2.something thousand?
We can’t do shit about getting money out of the general yet, but the reason is u til we get it out of Dem primaries, the majority who make it to the general won’t want to ban it.
The only way to fix everything is to fix the dem party first.
In the event of emergency please put on your own oxygen mask before helping others.
* the biggest reason being that the Supreme Court overturned a prior law to stop super pacs from having unlimited spending in Citizen United. Sure, maybe Congress could pass the same law again only for the court to overturn it 6-3
You have to fix the Supreme Court for that. It’d be difficult to regulate spending in primaries either because money is “free speech” according to them
What happens to all of this money after she stops campaigning?
It’s great she’s getting support, but how much money does someone really need to run for office, and what is all of it spent on?
Unspent campaign money is a whole thing but it usually gets transferred to a future campaign, other candidates, state/local/national party, or used to create a “Leadership PAC,” which is like a slush fund to donate to peers. A more honest example of a Leadership PAC might be someone with unusual star power (like AOC) raising a shitload of money in a safe seat and so using funds to donate to progressive candidates in tougher races. A shadier example might be the Speaker of the House using their fundraising ability to let people know that if they expect a donation, he or she expects their vote on a bill. And I’m sure you can imagine a thousand undeniably corrupt ways to use a Leadership PAC.
They could also refund donors or donate to a real charity if they’re done with politics or trying to stay in donors’ good graces for the next try. But that’s not what ambitious politicians (basically all of them) typically do.
But unless a candidate drops out or is in a safe seat, they really do try to spend every dollar that comes in almost as it comes in. There’s a very good likelihood a candidate ends up in the red at the end of the campaign and has to solicit donations even after the race is over to pay vendors, staff, etc.
Interesting. Thank you.
I’m not clicking on a random link that looks like that, sorry.
Needs?
Yes, needs.
Biden spent over a billion and Kamala will dwarf that.
Unfortunately, that’s needed.
If over a billion dollars isn’t enough to run a full court press, how much is?
The problem is it’s an arms race. After Citizens United opened the doors, Republicans got flooded with money from secret corporate donations.
Dems need to match that, else they can’t afford to campaign on an even playing ground with the GOP.
I mean this comment from the OP was insightful,
until citizens united is overturned it unfortunately still matter.
Moving on…
The only way to fix everything is to fix the dem party first.
Everything is kinda ambitious. How about just reversing Citizens United and getting campaigns back down to a reasonable amount of spend first?
I wonder if one shared and split pot of money for campaigning would help but guess you’d need some way to let individuals support their personal choice
There already sort of is one in the US for candidates who exceed a certain threshold of the vote. It comes with spending limits that could be exceeded by a lot by raising money outside it, so parties stopped taking it. Plus tax payers have to opt into doing it, and the rates of people doing so have dropped over time
If you’ve ever filed US income taxes and seen the question
“Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund”
That’s what it’s referring to
I donated $25, and then another $15 with a 4x match (got that email after) just to send my approval of the debate performance. That’s on top of $25 at 3x earlier.
All of that after being out of work for 5 months. It’s not much, but it’s what I could do. That’s not meant to brag. We can’t have Trump.
I’ve been doing $10 a week since Biden dropped out. I do have a steady job so it’s just lunch a week basically. I like feeling like I make a difference.
You know the “4x match” stuff is bs right?
Nope. No idea how that works. I assume someone rich says they’ll donate a million bucks to match smaller donors, but I really don’t have a clue what it’s supposed to mean.
It’s supposed to get you to donate. That’s it. Obviously it works or they wouldn’t do it. It’s just a sales tactic though. Doesn’t actually mean anything.
Where can i find this info? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case, just curious where it was proven wrong
Guys talking out of his ass; the donation match is indeed rich people who agree ahead of time and ultimately plan on donating the whole amount anyway, or at least a chunk. Iirc, they sign away X amount of dollars and the campaign leverages that for the 4x or 8x and so forth. Usually it’s a few hundred or even thousands of pledge donors, though
I think of it sort of like those walk-a-thon donations by the mile. You pledge knowing you’ll probably be out a few miles but know it could be more or less… And usually when it’s less, you donate a bit more later anyway.
That said, be mindful of scams. I saw one offering 20x pledge but the link looked phony.
So it sounds like theres 3 steps here:
- Campaign receives large donation from wealthy donor
- Campaign spins up an advertising campaign, encouraging potential donors by saying they will get matched from funds in step 1
- Campaign receives donation from small donor.
Yeah that kinda sounds like bs to me. There are 2 donations, and an advertising campaign. No extra money is generated by the “match”.
I mean, 1 is more of a pledge as I understand so it wouldn’t be guaranteed that they donate the full amount planned. I just suspect that they ultimately would, though, given it’s their cause. But I agree that it is more of a gimmick to secure more funding.
Then again, so are walk-a-thons and other fund raising events. If you believe in a cause, it shouldn’t matter. I once waited tables for a rich person’s wine tasting fund raiser, and that was a gimmick too. Had raffles and entertainment, etc. Good cause for some kind of illness research, although I only volunteered my time because I had a crush on a girl. That was stupid, of course, but I was 18 so, yeah.
I would like to know what Trump reeled in during the same time period.
his August total was about 40% of Harris iirc.
no, money doesn’t vote, but donors do!
I guess not hearing anything from him tells the story.
I’m sure he’ll be fine with all that truth social cash he’s been raking in…
Numbers don’t matter if people get complacent and sit it out. Dema need to get out and vote.and tell their republican friends to sit it out.
That’s roughly 783 dollars per person, and since people usually donate small sums, 10 bucks here 50 bucks there, a handful of people donated ashit ton of money to her campaign.This seems great and all, but the fact that you need this much money to run a campaign at all is a huge problem.
Edit: I forgot a zero, it’s actually like 78 dollars a person. Still ridiculous that you need so much money to run a campaign.
I think you forgot a zero there or added an extra one to the dollar amount. 47 million / 600 thousand = $78.3333 per person
Average is much more reasonable
Ah, yep, you’re right. I totally did. Good catch, still insane that someone needs that much money to run a campaign.
Money is free speech. It takes a lot of free speech to beat these cult members.
CNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNBC:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/12/harris-raises-47-million-trump-debate.html
CNBC being rated as left-center is one of the funnier of these.
This bot is completely useless, and it always make me smile seeing how many people downvote it for being just that. Useless.
