Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", sykesix asked the members: "What do you do if you arrive early at movie besides go to the snack bar?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (33) |
Author: Umm ✹🐝🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 88902 
Subject: Re: What would you do?
Date: 10/29/26 8:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 13
"I would find language that would allow for the regulation of contributions to politicians, direct or indirect, to a defined maximum per person - and *nothing* from corporations or so-called think tanks or PACs or whatever the next life form might be.

I am mindful of Albaby’s theory that doing so would disenfranchise some (the New York Times gets voice, while poor little Goofyhoofy does not). But then Sean Hannity gets voice, and in the current system Elon Musk’s half-a-billion gets a loud enough voice to drown out everybody (even if unsuccessful) and makes it near pointless for me or other individuals to participate."


I have often mentioned this going back to TMF days, but I think it is weird that we try and regulate the donation of political money instead of the acceptance of political money.

People should be allowed to spend their money however they want. If Musk wants to spend billions then that is his right (so far his political spending choices have been pretty poor, he might have gotten more attention just staging a bonfire and lighting the money on fire). What should (and can) be regulated is the role politicians have in this. People running for political office (i.e. politicians) should be required to know their donors over a certain amount of money and then be forced to abstain from any votes that would affect those donors. So if Elon Musk donates $1,000,000 to a person running for the Senate from Texas, that Senator would have to abstain from all votes that affect Musk's businesses and interests.

I know this means that billionaires just won't donate directly to politician's campaigns and will instead spend the money on their behalf, and that to me is fine. The caveat being if there is any coordination, even in the slightest, between the spender and the politician, then the politician is required to abstain from votes.

The problem isn't people spending money on speech. That will always be a thing that the richest get the loudest voices. They can afford the biggest sound systems. The problem is that our politicians are now beholden to donors in a way that is just thinly disguised bribery.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Umm here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 88,852 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (33) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community | Privacy