isn't there a limit of how much one can spend for political donation?
There is the SuperPac, and then there is the private takeover of public elections under the guise of get out the vote. Or charities that are not allowed to be political but are.
Pick your poison, whatever the law may or may not say, it's open season.
The fact the media is openly shoving this down our throats says all you need to know. They don't care, they are going to do whatever it takes to win.
The United States has done everything possible to enable and encourage this kind of spending.
If you don’t like it I would encourage you to establish a SuperPAC and fund it with a few $Billion to push through some reforms.
Actually, Mark Zuckerberg did $400+ million, but he pretended it was a fair and balanced get out the vote.
If states do as they should and ban private funding before the next election, there is no way this guy puts $100-1000 million into the next election.
This entire article is about billionaires salivating to take over, run, and own public elections to ensure their candidate wins.
The response, "voter suppression", by Republicans should be in the form of allowing no private money, no ballot access, and no voter rolls WITH voters vote status.
Of course this is all to easily seeable, the game is out in the open.
They even write articles on how billionaires are going to imitate Mark Zuckerberg without mentioning Mark Zuckerberg or what he did.
Just because one side does worse when more people are voting , it doesn't mean that "getting out the vote" isn't fair and balanced.
In other countries the election day is a bank holiday....just saying.
Words have been shifted to trick you into thinking that "get out the vote" is "get out the vote". It isn't.
Get out the vote TODAY means charities violating their charitable exemptions (aka, the law) to campaign in a partisan way.
They claim that they don't pick and choose where to spend the money based on voting record, but everyone including yourself knows that isn't true.
The trick is to simply never say it out loud, put it in writing, or explain why the decisions were made the way they were made. Otherwise, jail time, loss of tax exempt status, etc.
Statistically, almost all the Zuck Bucks went to A) key states that needed swinging B) Counties in states that need swinging that are massively Democrat slanted.
Forget about them worrying about getting votes for Republicans, they don't even do 55-45 for D races, because it takes ten ballots to make one ballots difference.
They are "ghetto bashing" (a colloquiul term used in sales) to target areas that have the highest rate of return. 85-15, 70-30.
That way 10 ballots swing the race by 7 or 4 votes.
You can simply look at where the money goes, and it is impossible to conclude anything else.
How many D votes does $400,000,000 buy if it costs $50 per vote?
A: depends on the areas hit!
If it's a 50-50 state (and they all are where the money went), then the money should make no difference!
But onto the math, if $50 (random out my butt number) "gets out a vote", then thats 8 million votes.
If the targeted areas for get out the vote are 50-50, you buy 0 votes.
If the targeted area is 55-45, you buy 800,000 votes.
If the target area is 70-30, you buy 3.2 million votes.
If the target area is 80-20, you buy 4.8 million votes.
Mark Zuckerberg bought the 2024 election in 5 swing states.
There is no mental gymnastics to get around this, the voting record of the places he put money was known, and he got what he paid for.
Pioneered by Berlusconi and embraced by Bush, Trump, Musk and now apparently this Bankman crypto-bro.
People are always the same, they always fall for old tricks as long as it's a different and new face pulling it.
