this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
2 points (75.0% liked)
New York Times
34 readers
139 users here now
The newspaper of record.
Don't post archive.is links or full text of articles, you will receive a temp ban.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This fixation on donated money in the US election campaigns really irks me.
It nearly seems like Americans find it desirable and are proud of how much their elections depend on money and how much of it is just bought. How without millions and millions of donor money from the oligarchy nobody has even remotely a chance.
I mean, I understand that donations also symbolise approval, but most of it doesn't come from big groups of individual voters, but it comes in huge chunks from the rich and from cooperations. So its more like, who can draw more billionaires.
I might be ignorant here, since I'm from Europe where campaigns and elections are generally very different and not so focused on entertainment, show and money...
I don't think my fellow Americans are fond of money in politics, we've just come to understand that's a major factor in our elections. It's similar to how European election campaigns span weeks while the US's are months to years.
One sort of positive change I've noticed in the past few cycles are campaigns boasting the average donation size. Don't get me wrong, rich people throwing money at each other is still a factor. But at least our candidates that align closer to the average constituent can show that their average constituent is primarily funding the campaign.
Al Jazeera reported these numbers last week showing donations received since Biden dropped out in July: Small donors are defined as those contributing less than $200. Kamala Harris $209,442,720 Donald Trump $83,467,443
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/8/30/more-than-200bn-how-kamala-harris-is-winning-the-small-donors-battle