#political spending

[kesarijournal]

The Global Landscape of Money in Politics: A Comparative Analysis

In the intricate dance of democracy, the relationship between money and politics is both inevitable and controversial. As nations strive for a balance that ensures political influence cannot simply be bought, they grapple with the dual imperatives of fostering political participation and preventing corruption. This article delves into the regulatory frameworks governing campaign finance in five…

[captain-casual]

Next up: Biden continues to be a crusty piece of shit who ignores his voters

Story here

[worldwatcher3072]

Citizens United

Money in politics is a highly debated topic, as it has the potential to influence political decisions and undermine the democratic process. In this context, here are 10 facts about money in politics:

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision removed restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions, opening the floodgates for outside spending in politics.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, spending on federal elections has skyrocketed since Citizens United, with more than $14 billion spent on the 2020 elections alone.

Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, have become a major force in American politics since the Citizens United decision.

Wealthy donors have an outsized influence on the political process. In the 2020 elections, just 1.5% of donors contributed 68% of all donations to federal candidates and political parties.

The revolving door between government and the private sector allows special interests to gain access and influence over elected officials.

Lobbying is a major industry in Washington, D.C., with more than 11,000 registered lobbyists spending billions of dollars each year to influence policymakers.

Dark money, or undisclosed political spending, is a growing problem in American politics, with more than $1 billion spent by dark money groups in the 2020 elections.

Campaign finance laws vary widely by state, with some states imposing strict limits on contributions and others allowing unlimited donations.

Public financing of elections is an alternative model used in some states and municipalities, which provides a set amount of funding to qualified candidates who agree to abide by certain rules.

The influence of money in politics has led to calls for reform, including proposals for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and limit the role of money in elections.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Lan Wangji Goes To Lotus Pier AU: Part 1: Dread on Arrival

(Part 2)

[jakeperalta]

I've said it before that taylor's many years of receiving (often unwarranted and ridiculous) criticism have seemingly skewed her ability to pick up on what is valid criticism and what's just ""haters"" and she pretty much proved that correct with but daddy I love him and I fear that is now her attitude towards all criticism (even without the excuse of being blinded by love or whatever). which is sort of why it would probably help to be surrounded by more people who can help make that judgement of valid criticism vs celebrity hate. but alas :/

[reasonsforhope]

"The South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, has announced plans to ban political donations from state elections, paving the way for nation-leading electoral reforms.

The state’s electoral amendment bill announced on Wednesday [June 12, 2024] night will ban electoral donations and gifts to registered political parties, members of parliament and candidates. The state will provide funding to allow parties and candidates to contest elections, run campaigns and promote political ideas.

Malinauskas said his bill would put South Australia on the “cusp of becoming a world leader in ending the nexus between money and political power”.

“We want money out of politics. We know this is not easy. These reforms may well face legal challenge,” Malinauskas said.

“But we are determined to deliver them, with this bill to be introduced in the parliament in the near future.”

In a subtle challenge to his federal and state counterparts, the premier told Guardian Australia he thought it was “something that democracies everywhere should be pursuing”.

The Albanese government pledged to introduce spending and donation caps, and truth in political advertising laws, as revealed by Guardian Australia after the 2022 federal election and confirmed by a parliamentary inquiry that reported last July.

The special minister of state, Don Farrell, said last month an agreement between the major parties and the crossbench had not yet been reached. An amendment bill is still expected by the middle of the year.

In order to level the playing field for newly created parties and independent candidates, the South Australia bill will allow candidates to receive donations up to $2,700, although they will remain subject to campaign spending caps.

Those spending caps have been set at $100,000, multiplied by the number of candidates up to a maximum of $500,000.

If the bill is passed, a registered political party will be entitled to a one-off payment of $200,000 before 31 August 2026. Whichever is lower out of $700,000 or the number of party members of parliament multiplied by $47,000 will also be given to parties for operational funding.

Membership fees will be allowed to continue but will be capped at $100 or less a year.

To deter attempts to circumvent the proposed changes, a maximum penalty of $50,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment will apply.

The guide acknowledges the proposal would lead to a rise in the cost of South Australia’s electoral system, but says a tightening of expenditure and party registration rules will keep costs to a minimum.

The Albanese government is under crossbench pressure to introduce electoral reforms before the next federal election.

Lower house independents, including Kate Chaney, Zali Steggall, the Greens, David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and the Jacqui Lambie Network, joined forces to introduce a bill for fair and transparent elections in March [2024].

The bill contained a suite of reforms including truth-in-political advertising, a ban on donations from socially harmful industries including fossil fuels, and tightening the definition of gifts to capture major party fundraisers, including dinners and business forums."

-via The Guardian, March 18, 2024

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

*tries to organize my thoughts*

*remembers i'm not in school and therefore beholden to neither heaven nor hell nor any man's grading system*

*joyously shredding & tossing all my carefully arranged 3x5 mental notecards into the air like so much beige confetti. raising my arms in victory, cheering raucously until i accidentally inhale bits of homemade confetti*

(*coughing up itty bits of paper like a cat evicting a hairball with a firm understanding of tenants' rights*) wait wat happens next

[brother-emperors]

hey! hi! the cartoonist cooperative has an e-sim drive for gaza, offering art for e-sim donations (instructions etc in the link)

[anghraine]

Speaking of the social context of P&P and Austen in general, and also just literature of that era, I'm always interested in how things like precisely formulated hierarchies of precedence and tables of ranked social classes interact with the more complex and nuanced details of class-based status and consequence on a pragmatic day-to-day level. I remembered reading a social historian discussing the pragmatics of class wrt eighteenth-century English life many years ago and finally tracked down the source:

"In spite of the number of people who got their living from manufacture or trade, fundamentally it was a society in which the ownership of land alone conveyed social prestige and full political rights. ... The apex of this society was the nobility. In the eyes of the Law only members of the House of Lords, the peerage in the strictest use of the word, were a class apart, enjoying special privileges and composing one of the estates of the realm. Their families were commoners: even the eldest sons of peers could sit in the House of Commons. It was therefore in the social rather than in the legal sense of the word that English society was a class society. Before the law all English people except the peers were in theory equal. Legal concept and social practice were, however, very different. When men spoke of the nobility, they meant the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters, the uncles and aunts and cousins of the peers. They were an extremely influential and wealthy group.

"The peers and their near relations almost monopolized high political office. From these great families came the wealthiest Church dignitaries, the higher ranks in the army and navy. Many of them found a career in law; some even did not disdain the money to be made in trade. What gave this class its particular importance in the political life of the day was the way in which it was organized on a basis of family and connection ... in eighteenth-century politics men rarely acted as isolated individuals. A man came into Parliament supported by his friends and relations who expected, in return for this support, that he would further their interests to the extent of his parliamentary influence.

"Next in both political and social importance came the gentry. Again it is not easy to define exactly who were covered by this term. The Law knew nothing of gentle birth but Society recognized it. Like the nobility this group too was as a class closely connected with land. Indeed, the border line between the two classes is at times almost impossible to define ... Often these men are described as the squirearchy, this term being used to cover the major landowning families in every county who were not connected by birth with the aristocracy. Between them and the local nobility there was often considerable jealousy. The country gentleman considered himself well qualified to manage the affairs of his county without aristocratic interference.

"...The next great layer in society is perhaps best described the contemporary term 'the Middling Sort'. As with all eighteenth-century groups it is difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between them and their social superiors and inferiors. No economic line is possible, for a man with no pretensions to gentility might well be more prosperous than many a small squire. There was even on the fringe between the two classes some overlapping of activities ... The ambitious upstart who bought an estate and spent his income as a gentleman, might be either cold-shouldered by his better-born neighbours or treated by them with a certain contemptuous politeness. If however his daughters were presentable and well dowered, and if his sons received the education considered suitable for gentlemen, the next generation would see the obliteration of whatever distinction still remained. The solid mass of the middling sort had however no such aspirations, or considered them beyond their reach.

"...This term [the poor] was widely used to designate the great mass of the manual workers. Within their ranks differences of income and of outlook were as varied as those that characterized the middle class. Once again the line of demarcation is hard to draw..."

—Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (29-34)

(There's plenty more interesting information in the full chapter, especially regarding "the poor," and the chapter itself is contracted from a lengthier version published earlier.)

[ot3]

[phoenixyfriend]

One of the insane things I've learned due to bingeing political and news media is why the US has such a high military budget.

Like, don't get me wrong, I still disagree with it, I hate the military industrial complex, I do not THINK we should be doing this...

But finding out that a number of countries have more or less officially contracted their emergency military responses to the US does make more sense. We aren't just the US's army, we're functionally the reserves for all of NATO. Europe gives us good trade deals in exchange for being able to borrow our gun guys.

Again, I don't AGREE with this. I'm just much less confused about the WHY now.

Unless I'm wrong about how the budget works, in which case, please explain using pie charts. I like pie charts.

EDIT: Also it's more than just Europe, some noteworthy others being Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, and Japan.

[little-cereal-draws]

I don't remember the word for the title of this position but I've decided that Polites was Odysseus' Patroclus. I don't mean in the romantic sense (tho I have no problem with that ship), I mean in the political/hierarchy of the palace sense.

Like how Patroclus slept in Achilles' room, went to his lessons, got to sit at the royal table during meals, etc bc he was Achilles' best friend and protected under that title. That's what I want for Polites and Odysseus

Edit: therapon was the word I was looking for!

[violent138]

I love Barry Allen being the unexpected calming nexus for ND superheroes in the JLA, obviously helping Wally be a bit more patient, managing to stabilize Hal to a baseline normal, et cetera.

[sciderman]

finally got my hands on a physical copy of the one, the only, the notorious, the most hilarious spider-man issue ever

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Izutsumi character study

[useless-englandfacts]

bit rich coming from an unelected prime minister but okay