51
Bernie Sanders, seven other senators urge Democrats to break with billionaire donors
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10523 readers
81 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even though I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, I think it's hard to break with money, since statistics show that almost every win is tied to who spent the most on campaigns.
If you take the numbers for spending and just look at competitive elections, the correlation is very weak if non-existent. Harris and Clinton both outspent trump and yet lost their elections.
More money tends to be spent on individual competitive elections, but the spending on competitive elections is not correlated well with winning, and there are way more safe elections than there are competitive elections. So more money tends to get spent over all across the many safe elections than on the few competitive, and very few donations go to the unfavored candidates in safe elections. Creating the illusion that higher spending correlates with success.
Ultimately the money flows to those liable to win because that is the best spend per dollar for someone trying to buy influence. And those safe seats need lots of money for their campaigns as a way to reward to those who have worked for them, but can’t be guaranteed further promotion do to a lack of opportunities. The rewards being things like lucrative consultant positions.
Nice point, thanks for explaining further.