cross-posted from: https://lemmy.whynotdrs.org/post/399058

  1. Donate the maximum amount legally allowed (as an individual).
  2. Tell the Member that you would like to become a bundler.

(A bundler is a person or small group of people who pool or aggregate contributions “from the community” and then deliver them in one lump sum to a political campaign).

  1. Once you have raised a sizeable amount, deliver the money to the Senator so they can use it wisely. In turn, trade stock options based on insider information to the tune of millions, be super glad that you helped the democratic process!

1% vs the 99%

    • snowraven@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The world is such a sad place to live. This comes from USA, just think about all the third world countries, it’s not any better but worse sadly.

    • Rottcodd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      A Supreme Court justice, on the other hand, costs as much as a luxury motor home.

      Exactly as much as a luxury motor home in fact…

  • workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Politicians shouldn’t have to do any fundraising, or to be allowed to. They should be given a budget by the government.

    • vonxylofon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That could be pretty easily abused, imagine, by straw men siphoning state money without any prospect of winning.

      At least in Europe, there are campaign financial limits so things don’t get too out of hand. Corruption, therefore, is done via other means.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Iirc here in Germany you get some funding based on the votes you got last election.

        This reduces reliance on outside funding without enabling freeloaders, but sucks for first timers.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is not being able to diferenciate between disabled people fighting tooth and nail for their rights, and oil companies (as a single example of capitalisms) paying pocket change over cocktails to continue exploiting humanity and destroying the planet.

      They are not the same, nor do they deserve the same rights and considerations, yet disabled people are still marginalised and widely discriminated against, while oil companies make record profits, because they’re actively working to convince people like you that they are the same, and do deserve the same consideration, and that if you stop them, you’ll be harming disabled people too. They’re literally concern trolling you while they stomp all over the disabled people you’ve evoked to argue for the capitalists’ rights, as well as billions of others.

      • Edward Internethands@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. And the fact is that if you are trying to systematically tip the scales in favor of moneyed interests versus the general electorate, the lobbyist system looks like a good design choice.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Exactly - it’s there for those already hoarding all the wealth and power to control government, not an actual viable route for “every people” (never mind those who are further marginalised) to have any impact whatsoever on the system those aforementioned people are maintaining.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, clearly not better:

          A blanket end to “lobbying” would also lock out citizens groups.

          they already are locked out, one group that you clearly don’t care about but I happen to be a member of managing to fight despite the current system to get less than the bare minimum isn’t the proof you think it is of lobbying providing access.

          But hey, if arguing in favour of avenues for legal corruption is the hill you want to die on, knock yourself the fuck out, you just don’t get to do that, especially when you try to (badly!) use marginalised people as your debate tool, without getting your bullshit called out… ¯_(ツ)_/¯

          Also, fuck off patronising and tone policing me, your first reply was perfectly clear, and me telling you you’re wrong and explaining why isn’t you being persecuted, despite how it might feel to your clearly privileged and wilfully ignorant (of, at the bare minimum, the fight for disability rights, never mind how lobbying actually works and who it actually serves) self.

  • Metal Zealot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    And the most infuriating part is, they really fucking think that their lobbying isn’t blatantly obvious

    • Lemonyoda@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Err… Ist this so?

      What you mean is probably Something Line this:

      1. Prepare Special interest
      2. Provide Consulting or Presentation/Speech opportunity for pay
      3. Choose your favourable politician for speech
      4. Profit
  • MNByChoice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have been meaning to do this. I have found that local politicians are exceptionally cheap. Buy a few, and hope that one makes it big.

  • MissJinx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if both were ilegal the democratic political system is still corruptible. Let’s say you want to make a law that’s going to help a lot of people, you still need others from the opposing party to vote for it, (even if there are more than 2 parties) so they also need you to vote in something for them. Even if there is no money in the middle, it is still a corrupt system. Is there a better one today? I don’t think so. But still crap

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not corruption. That’s politics.

      EDIT: in advance of questions, to explain the difference, what you have described is called political compromise (finding solution that suits both parties). We need MORE of that. Corruption is when politician personally benefit from “selling” their votes.

      • vonxylofon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The stated problem is actually more pronounced with a larger number of parties than 2. If the governing party is strong, but doesn’t have majority, and the opposition is split, they usually need to trade favours with the opposition parties to get anything done.