It was bought by Mark Zuckerberg.
In brief, Zuckerberg poured money into election offices in Democrat-leaning areas.
These two private non-profits [funded by Zuckerberg] were responsible for an 85 percent increase in total additional election funding — and that largess was concentrated in a relatively small number of heavily Democratic municipalities.
Corporations are people too. Think Romney said it and of course SCOTUS basically opened the door for abuse.
We could have only publicly funded elections etc, etc. In the past Repugs didn’t want it. Bernie’s called for it. If he was adversely affected by publicly funded elections he might change his tune…idk. Maybe since Repugs have been adversely affected, they might want to change the rules?
When hasn’t money bought elections?
Corporations are “people” in a narrow sense for very good legal reasons.
The Zuck story raises a few questions.
1. Is this reporting accurate?
2. Is what Zuck did legal? (I assume it is.)
3. Should it be legal?
I would think it would be fairly non-controversial that we don’t want billionaires interfering in elections. What precisely that means — in terms of what they can and can’t do — is a little more complicated.
For example, can they buy tons of advertisements? Can they pay for people to do voter registration drives in areas that are likely to support their candidate?
I’m sure there are a hundred ways rich people can influence elections. Who’s regulating it?
QUOTE: I’m sure there are a hundred ways rich people can influence elections. Who’s regulating it?
Well, it surely isn’t Congress because they get their slice of the pie too. ISTM, this one of those issues like the Southern border…no one really wants to solve it because it wouldn’t be to their benefit if they did.
That said, I found this article quote interesting…“This unprecedented merger of public election offices with private resources and personnel is an acute threat to our republic, and should be the focus of electoral reform efforts moving forward. Seems that when Democrats benefit from skeptical practices it’s considered a “threat to our republic”. Yet, when it’s been demonstrated that a foreign power has meddled in our elections, not so much. In fact, some try to spin it as a hoax despite evidence to the contrary.
Paul Ryan: “They did interfere in our elections — it’s really clear, there should be no doubt about that.”
Mitch McConnell: “indisputable evidence that Russia tried to impact the 2016 election. The Russians better quit messing around in our elections.”
Marco Rubio: “What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.”
ISTM that the general Repug/conservative strategy for electoral success is voter suppression. We can see it in Vivek’s response: limit who can vote. We can see it in GA where you can’t even give a person in line a glass of water…in areas where they knowingly an notoriously under staff voting precincts in the hope that people will get tired and walk away.
That seems to be more of that. “Conservative” take seems to be less democracy and not more.
I don’t want billionaires buying elections. And, I get sick of Repugs/conservatives suppressing the vote.
Typically, the military often voted absentee because they were often stationed far away from their “residence” where they were registered to vote. Republicans even seemed to want to suppress absentee voting in the 2020 cycle…. even though my general experience tells me that military were more likely to vote Repug.
It’s not so hard to give people more rights. However, taking away rights… I believe a revolution was fought over that.
I wonder if Vivek is going to be the first candidate to say Trump was justified Jan 6 and that he should have done more to overturn the election? If not Vivek, who? He’s trying hard to be Indian Trump. I wonder if he’s angling for a VP slot? We know it won’t be Pence.
Here’s what I see as the Republican’s primary strategy for election success:
*VOTER SUPPESSION – eliminate polling locations, onerous voting regulations (to make it more difficult to vote and discourage non-GOP voters)
*GERRYMANDERING – modify voting districts to favor GOP (e.g., DeSantis in Florida)
*BASE ANGER/FEAR -consistent demagoguery to motivate their base to vote, culture wars featuring numerous “woke” boogeymen
*SOCIAL MEDIA WEPONIZATION – constant misinformation campaigns, unverified/fake accounts, ignore/welcome support from foreign influence campaigns (e.g., Russia, China)
*MANUFACTURED CRISIS LEAKS – constant news stories about conspiracy theories (e.g., Hunter Biden, Deep State corruption, etc.)
*CONGRESSIONAL GRIDLOCK-obstruct all efforts by Dems to minimize legislative accomplishments-possibly letting the country default on its debt)
*ELECTION BOARD INFILTATION – change/manipulate voting rules
*SCOTUS LEGAL CHALLENGES – attempts to get SOCTUS to take up lawsuits relative to election outcomes not favorable to GOP (as they attempted in 2020)-with hopes their conservative majority will rule in their favor
*LIE, LIE, LIE – given the success of the “big lie”, continue to spew “alternative facts”. Trump’s performance at the CNN Townhall was a preview of coming attractions.
*VIOLENCE – if all else fails, accept the support of extremist, neo-fascist, white supremist groups to force election outcomes (e.g., January 6 Capitol Riot, Call to Republicans – “if Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket-you in?”)
Unfortunately, I don’t see a lot of effort being placed in efforts like: strong candidate quality, platform that highlights benefits to the electorate via GOP leadership, proposals for economic improvement, strategies for successful foreign policy, etc.