Rendered at 08:17:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
wpm 4 hours ago [-]
If they have the money for this, they have the money to pay more in taxes.
OccamsMirror 3 hours ago [-]
Why do you think they're dumping money into the election?
plugger 2 hours ago [-]
Because they're greedy and self absorbed.
nromiun 3 hours ago [-]
Exactly. A large part of Kalama Harris's loss was her wealth tax point.
khriss 3 hours ago [-]
Fairly unlikely. Quite a few people in the US(60%) are in favour of a wealth tax.
For better or for worse, the narrative in the US is slowly shifting to class differences rather than the usual culture war dog whistle issues. No matter how much the ultra wealthy wring their hands and try to explain their plight, the people are less and less inclined to be sympathetic when they are seeing the full effects of the K shaped recovery we've been in since the GFC.
The key thing here is to look at the trend over time, esp the last few years. There has been a steady rise in support for a wealth tax since the GFC, with a sharp rise in recent years.
Gud 2 hours ago [-]
Kamala Harris lost because of the shady primary the democrats won. The public didn't like it.
The USA assumed Donald Trump #2 would be similar to Donald Trump #1(Trump mostly golfing).
At least, that's my understanding.
skrellm 8 minutes ago [-]
> The USA assumed Donald Trump #2 would be similar to Donald Trump #1(Trump mostly golfing).
He was definitely not "mostly golfing", he was actively destroying US allies and was actively helping US adversaries, and obvious from the Capitol incident that he already started building a fascist dictatorship.
Gud 4 minutes ago [-]
I am not saying Donald Trump #1 was some success story. The damage he did was low-to-moderate, all things considered.
Now, the damage is beyond repair. The USA is fucked, on a downward spiral that will be difficult(near impossible) to correct.
dboreham 4 hours ago [-]
I think you misunderstand the direction of the trade.
applebottomjean 3 hours ago [-]
Wouldn’t it be great if all the money Musk dumped into this election was wasted? I guess it’s still not that much money for him, but the repudiation of these tactics would be wonderful.
dragontamer 3 hours ago [-]
It won't be.
Musk largely dumped the money into the election to prove to everyone he can keep dumping money perpetually into every election. Its a pain to deal with $400 Million this year, but can you imagine 2028, 2030 or 2032? Its going to be a constant onslaught until we figure out a way to mitigate Citizens United vs FEC
Even if Democrats win, Musk has proven that his money is now part of our political system moving forward.
pavlov 3 hours ago [-]
With the executive powers that the Supreme Court has allowed Trump, the next president could simply nationalize SpaceX.
Of course the Supreme Court will change its mind about executive powers soon after the next election, because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
khriss 2 hours ago [-]
> because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
I assume the /s was implied?
ggreer 2 hours ago [-]
Had Citizens United gone the other way, do you really think the Trump administration’s FEC would fairly decide which movies are allowed to be shown in the months before elections? Because that’s the power that law granted the government.
If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda, then the problem is the voters, not the propaganda. Anyone so easily manipulated can’t be trusted to decide who is in power. It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.
nixon_why69 2 hours ago [-]
The SC could have made a way more limited finding about movies without unleashing the superPAC hell we find ourselves in. Why did a case about a limited run movie enable people to run ads during football games?
> If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda
Buddy, advertising works, there is a reason why coca-cola does it.
ggreer 2 hours ago [-]
If you don't think people can decide whether statements made in ads are true or false, then why trust them to decide who makes & enforces laws? Either they're rational adults or they're not.
You're saying you want Trump's FEC to decide what ads can be shown during a football game. Do you really think that would be an improvement?
bkaae 43 minutes ago [-]
This is not as black and white as you portray it to be.
Humans are inherently irrational, but that doesn't mean they can't make good decisions as a group [0].
But we can also be convinced to not trust our own eyes, at least in the short term.
[0]The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (2004) is a great book covering this idea.
nixon_why69 1 hours ago [-]
I'm saying that in living memory we had campaign contribution limits (still do!) and we also had limits in outside groups buying advertising intended to swing elections. Maybe Trump's FEC wouldn't have enforced them but then campaigns have standing and can sue directly.
anon7000 2 hours ago [-]
What you’re missing is that, yes, human minds are actually feeble in some ways. And you’re not even immune either!
Firstly, consider how freaking adaptable humans are. Even though you would hate moving somewhere with really poor living conditions, you would get used to some degree of it within several months or years. People have health problems they… just kinda get used to and ignore (which causes them problems down the road).
My point: it’s part of being human to adapt to your environment.
So here’s the problem: if you have enough money, you can influence other people’s environments. Specifically, their information environments. If your information environment is extremely negative and stressful, you’ll tend to feel more negative and stressed too.
And not to mention, have you heard about how the human brain is so susceptible to addiction when technology manipulates dopamine response? So social media companies are also manipulating your attention by spending money.
This isn’t some personal failing in you or me or anyone else. This is billionaires and tech giants manipulating very normal aspects of humanity to make more money and control politics.
Like, you’re seriously telling me there’s nothing wrong with billionaires buying up and merging nearly all of the media companies and newspapers in America? It’s just our feeble brains that are the problem?
Give me a break. The problem is that because of technology, anyone with enough money can very easily manipulate and influence the information we consume and the media we’re attentive to.
That gives a small number of people frankly too much power in a society. And your argument is that whoever “figures out” this hack of… having a lot of money… should have the right to control elections, because humans can’t be trusted.
I personally find that argument incoherent.
The real question is: why exactly should a society put up with a power dynamic that gives 99% of people less power and worse lives?
ggreer 1 hours ago [-]
If one accepts your claim that elections are manipulated by the wealthy, then it makes no sense to give the government the ability to restrict what people are allowed to see or read before an election. Doing so would cement current power structures, not subvert them.
hightrix 4 hours ago [-]
This is an old article. Musk has spent close to half a billion himself this election cycle.
epistasis 3 hours ago [-]
Establishing a wealth tax based on the rolling 10 prior years worth of PAC donations would feel somewhat fitting. A basis point per $50k or something.
toast0 3 hours ago [-]
You could just tax political donations or political ads. I'd suggest 50% federal tax, 25% state tax, and 25% local tax.
scotty79 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe donations to political parties could be just taxed at 200% (technically ~76% but 200 sounds better)?
To give a million to any party you have to pay 2 in tax.
bestouff 2 hours ago [-]
Even better, tax progressively. 0% under $100, 200% above $1000.
tancop 2 hours ago [-]
That would make it more expensive but still worth it for a billionaire who really cares about their favorite getting elected.
All of that money should go to lower funded candidates so spending above the limit becomes self defeating. Republican mega donors might end up supporting a small communist party more than their own.
scotty79 20 minutes ago [-]
We can't stop them using money for influencing politics. But this way the society could get a fair residual from that activity.
QGQBGdeZREunxLe 4 hours ago [-]
Is there any viable road to campaign finance reform that is also constitutional?
tancop 2 hours ago [-]
Tax campaign related spending at 200% after you hit a limit, and distribute the money to smaller candidates so donating more becomes self defeating.
There is no hard cap and no limit on doing things that don't cost money so no one is ever prevented from speaking (that would open censorship challenges). It doesn't need to survive strict scrutiny because all candidates are treated equally making it viewpoint neutral topic discrimination. And Congress has a long established power to tax basically anything they want.
free_bip 3 hours ago [-]
I believe Hawaii already has, by redefining what rights corporations have under their state constitution. If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
majorchord 3 hours ago [-]
> If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
Or it creates an entirely new problem. People like this don't just go away after hitting a single roadblock.
free_bip 2 hours ago [-]
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good my friend. Closing a loophole that's done so much damage to the country is a good thing, even if there's another loophole waiting to be found.
QGQBGdeZREunxLe 3 hours ago [-]
If it isn't done federally then it isn't done.
mindslight 2 hours ago [-]
The dynamic is that corpos are chartered/registered by states, both domestic (operating in the state its chartered in) and foreign (operating in a different state than where its chartered).
Federal regulation would make a mess of the idea due to preemption, eliminating the state regulatory option and leaving us with just the federal options of a Constitutional amendment or impeaching/replacing the Supreme Court and repudiating their openly corrupt precedent (decree).
SV_BubbleTime 3 hours ago [-]
> If every state followed suit, the problem would be solved.
If we just change the rules, the game will stay exactly the same? Sorry, but this awfully naive.
free_bip 3 hours ago [-]
That's how all changes to the law work... First you change it, then you enforce it.
jacquesm 4 hours ago [-]
There always was. You just have to make sure your Supreme Court isn't bought and paid for by the same people who wish to buy elections.
epistasis 4 hours ago [-]
Yes, we need a vastly larger supreme court, probably with a reorganization such that there are smaller panels that hear cases, etc, like happens with other courts.
The current court is completely partisan and has zero judicial theory other than backing partisan power and oligarch power. They have the final say on how to interpret the constitution but reject the founding principles of the USA.
jacquesm 3 hours ago [-]
And far better checks on whether or not a SC member has been bought. There is so much evidence of this and yet everybody just sits around as if they couldn't possibly do anything about it. A politicized Supreme Court is worse than nothing because it concentrates insane power in the hand a few un-elected people.
defrost 3 hours ago [-]
There are no checks because (US) Supreme Court judges aren't subject to any laws making non declaration of gifted RV's and expensive holidays illegal.
That said - yes, they need anti corruption / bribery regulation, fixed terms, and those terms to be co-prime wrt political fixed terms.
Also the court follows laws. There are numerous cases where weird stuff happens with supreme court rulings only because congress never passed any law regarding whatever it is.
wisty 2 hours ago [-]
What do you want to ban?
There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions". Where is the line? Should every charity that "raises awareness" be banned? Should every sponsored Youtuber be forced out of political commentary? (I mean, I don't hate the idea completely ....)
There's the skeezy links behind organisations that support a political stance, and claim no real links to politicians. But we know that it's all kinda bs with strong links between the "nonaffiliated" "Political Action Committees" that claim to just represent causes and ideas, and the politicians who just happen to be close friends with the organisers. But it's rarely totally black and white.
seszett 2 hours ago [-]
> There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions".
There's a free speech issue to letting money make someone's speech be heard louder than others, making most other people's speech technically free, but inaudible.
Most countries have limitations on the broadcasting of political opinions and candidate support for periods before elections.
These laws don't work as well these days with the importance of social media (and it's mostly the same rich Americans that take advantage of this to meddle into European affairs) but at least the principle is there, while I think the fundamentalist way that the US interpret "free speech" prevents anything from being doable at all to curb the undue influence in politics that money can give.
kart23 2 hours ago [-]
who actually can defend this being good for our society? (that’s not affiliated with a super pac)
There’s a fact about the spend in this that’s so transparently obvious on the face of it that it hardly needs to be remarked upon, and yet the fact that the newspaper of record studiously refuses to remark upon it has led to its total omission from the political discourse, to the degree that both its blinding obviousness and the fact that it’s considered gauche to mention it mean we can’t really talk about what’s happening in our politics right now.
Helluva world we’ve written ourselves into.
sigilis 3 hours ago [-]
Sorry, was there a fact about the spend that you wanted to mention? I didn't see it in your post.
Maybe the newspaper of record also got distracted on the way to saying it because they treat the effect of elections as irrelevant and report on it like they're talking about drafting players for the NBA.
pixelready 2 hours ago [-]
They do call out the fact that the megadonors are overwhelmingly Republican about halfway down the article.
senderista 3 hours ago [-]
Musk isn't Jewish, if that's what you're insinuating.
darth_avocado 3 hours ago [-]
How is Elon Musk only being reported as $90M when other sources say it’s more than $400M+? Seems like this is a big discrepancy.
For better or for worse, the narrative in the US is slowly shifting to class differences rather than the usual culture war dog whistle issues. No matter how much the ultra wealthy wring their hands and try to explain their plight, the people are less and less inclined to be sympathetic when they are seeing the full effects of the K shaped recovery we've been in since the GFC.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2026/10/28/tax-wealth...
The key thing here is to look at the trend over time, esp the last few years. There has been a steady rise in support for a wealth tax since the GFC, with a sharp rise in recent years.
At least, that's my understanding.
What are you talking about?
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why Iran started the nuclear arm race in the first place https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-iran-deal-then-and-now/
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why Putin got his hands on modern drone technology https://asiatimes.com/2026/02/irans-drones-giving-russia-a-c...
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why there's now a high tension in Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Korea%E2%80%93Unite... https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/17/politics/fact-check-trump...
Donald Trump #1 is the reason why the USA is so dependent on (now more and more expensive) oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_fi...
Donald Trump #1 is (one of) the reasons why Britain went through Brexit https://ukandeu.ac.uk/trump-and-brexit-two-nations-divided/
...etc.
He was definitely not "mostly golfing", he was actively destroying US allies and was actively helping US adversaries, and obvious from the Capitol incident that he already started building a fascist dictatorship.
Now, the damage is beyond repair. The USA is fucked, on a downward spiral that will be difficult(near impossible) to correct.
Musk largely dumped the money into the election to prove to everyone he can keep dumping money perpetually into every election. Its a pain to deal with $400 Million this year, but can you imagine 2028, 2030 or 2032? Its going to be a constant onslaught until we figure out a way to mitigate Citizens United vs FEC
Even if Democrats win, Musk has proven that his money is now part of our political system moving forward.
Of course the Supreme Court will change its mind about executive powers soon after the next election, because they are an impartial body dedicated to the abstract intellectual pursuit of discovering the true intent behind 250-year-old sacred documents.
I assume the /s was implied?
If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda, then the problem is the voters, not the propaganda. Anyone so easily manipulated can’t be trusted to decide who is in power. It is incoherent to endorse restrictions on free speech while also supporting universal suffrage.
> If you think voters’ minds are so feeble that they can be swayed by propaganda
Buddy, advertising works, there is a reason why coca-cola does it.
You're saying you want Trump's FEC to decide what ads can be shown during a football game. Do you really think that would be an improvement?
Humans are inherently irrational, but that doesn't mean they can't make good decisions as a group [0].
But we can also be convinced to not trust our own eyes, at least in the short term.
[0]The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (2004) is a great book covering this idea.
Firstly, consider how freaking adaptable humans are. Even though you would hate moving somewhere with really poor living conditions, you would get used to some degree of it within several months or years. People have health problems they… just kinda get used to and ignore (which causes them problems down the road).
My point: it’s part of being human to adapt to your environment.
So here’s the problem: if you have enough money, you can influence other people’s environments. Specifically, their information environments. If your information environment is extremely negative and stressful, you’ll tend to feel more negative and stressed too.
And not to mention, have you heard about how the human brain is so susceptible to addiction when technology manipulates dopamine response? So social media companies are also manipulating your attention by spending money.
This isn’t some personal failing in you or me or anyone else. This is billionaires and tech giants manipulating very normal aspects of humanity to make more money and control politics.
Like, you’re seriously telling me there’s nothing wrong with billionaires buying up and merging nearly all of the media companies and newspapers in America? It’s just our feeble brains that are the problem?
Give me a break. The problem is that because of technology, anyone with enough money can very easily manipulate and influence the information we consume and the media we’re attentive to.
That gives a small number of people frankly too much power in a society. And your argument is that whoever “figures out” this hack of… having a lot of money… should have the right to control elections, because humans can’t be trusted.
I personally find that argument incoherent.
The real question is: why exactly should a society put up with a power dynamic that gives 99% of people less power and worse lives?
To give a million to any party you have to pay 2 in tax.
All of that money should go to lower funded candidates so spending above the limit becomes self defeating. Republican mega donors might end up supporting a small communist party more than their own.
There is no hard cap and no limit on doing things that don't cost money so no one is ever prevented from speaking (that would open censorship challenges). It doesn't need to survive strict scrutiny because all candidates are treated equally making it viewpoint neutral topic discrimination. And Congress has a long established power to tax basically anything they want.
Or it creates an entirely new problem. People like this don't just go away after hitting a single roadblock.
Federal regulation would make a mess of the idea due to preemption, eliminating the state regulatory option and leaving us with just the federal options of a Constitutional amendment or impeaching/replacing the Supreme Court and repudiating their openly corrupt precedent (decree).
If we just change the rules, the game will stay exactly the same? Sorry, but this awfully naive.
The current court is completely partisan and has zero judicial theory other than backing partisan power and oligarch power. They have the final say on how to interpret the constitution but reject the founding principles of the USA.
That said - yes, they need anti corruption / bribery regulation, fixed terms, and those terms to be co-prime wrt political fixed terms.
* https://www.abc.net.au/science/archive/articles/2001/11/27/4...
There's a free speech issue to saying "you can't advertise your own opinions". Where is the line? Should every charity that "raises awareness" be banned? Should every sponsored Youtuber be forced out of political commentary? (I mean, I don't hate the idea completely ....)
There's the skeezy links behind organisations that support a political stance, and claim no real links to politicians. But we know that it's all kinda bs with strong links between the "nonaffiliated" "Political Action Committees" that claim to just represent causes and ideas, and the politicians who just happen to be close friends with the organisers. But it's rarely totally black and white.
There's a free speech issue to letting money make someone's speech be heard louder than others, making most other people's speech technically free, but inaudible.
Most countries have limitations on the broadcasting of political opinions and candidate support for periods before elections.
These laws don't work as well these days with the importance of social media (and it's mostly the same rich Americans that take advantage of this to meddle into European affairs) but at least the principle is there, while I think the fundamentalist way that the US interpret "free speech" prevents anything from being doable at all to curb the undue influence in politics that money can give.
Helluva world we’ve written ourselves into.
Maybe the newspaper of record also got distracted on the way to saying it because they treat the effect of elections as irrelevant and report on it like they're talking about drafting players for the NBA.
Example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey%27s_Paw
I don't know why I asked Americans to do something.
We're fucked, we're so fucked.