Hundred of millions of dollars are pouring into the midterm elections.
Who are the big donors? The Republicans get far more money than Democrats.
This article in The Washington Post identifies them. It is a gift article. That means you can open it and read it without a subscription.
George Soros is by far the biggest giver to Democrats. That helps explain why the MAGA folks demonize him.
The conclusion I draw from this article is that our political system is warped by the influence of unlimited money. We desperately need a Congress that will limit campaign spending.
Until then, we have a government for sale.
Most give to Republicans.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
France limits campaign contributions and limits how much can be spent on elections. For some bizarre reason we do not. Much could be achieved by adopting a simple rule that only people in a voting district may donate money and material aid. So, for governorships, an entire state can be solicited but not people in other states. For school district elections only contributions from people living in that district are acceptable. Anything other than that is state sanctioned influence peddling.
Why should people who will be unaffected by the results of an election have any say whatsoever. That violates the one man, one vote principle. What we are doing is giving the very rich votes all over the country in elections that do not affect them, aka influence peddling/bribery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve,
That’s a great idea.
Big money flows into local school board elections, Congressional races, Senate races, etc. Why should Elon Musk have a say in your district or state?
LikeLike
The Republicans’ $880 million in donor funding compared with the Democrats’ $290 million is a significant difference—roughly three times as much.
A big influence on my support for the Democratic Party was my father. He rarely talked about politics, but when he did, he kept it simple: “David, I’m a Democrat because I really and truly believe they do more for the people.”
I don’t think either party is free from the influence of major donors, and it’s fair to criticize Democrats when they become too dependent on special interests. But in my view, the Republican Party has become far more beholden to large donors and corporate interests. Democrats may be compromised, but I believe they are considerably less so than Republicans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Large pocket democratic donors also want something for their money. Get it all out. No money in politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Roy, Diane and I have been discussing Darializa Avila Chevalier’s victory and the broader question of what should matter more in choosing a candidate: controversial or “radical” policy positions, or the influence of large campaign donors.
Diane has expressed concern about some of Chevalier’s past statements and policy positions. I understand those concerns, but I’m more troubled by the money Adriano Espaillat has accepted. To me, the influence of large donors is one of the root problems poisoning our political system. It affects issues that many progressives care deeply about—affordable housing, the role of ICE, corporate influence in government, and U.S. policy toward Gaza. Critics of Espaillat have also pointed to significant support from pro-Israel donors, real estate interests, ICE detention center contractors, and corporate PACs, arguing that these relationships raise questions about his independence on issues such as affordable housing, immigration enforcement, corporate influence in government, and U.S. policy toward Gaza.
You say that any amount of money from these interests is too much. If that’s your standard, I’m curious how you would evaluate this race.
Given the choice between a candidate whose views you may consider too far to the left and an incumbent who has accepted substantial support from powerful, organized interests, which concern weighs more heavily for you? Do you think one presents a greater risk to progressive goals than the other?
I’d genuinely be interested in hearing how you think through that tradeoff.
LikeLike
Those big dollar donors are transactional – that is there are always, always strings attached. Two effects flow from that:
One of the first decisions this era’s Supreme Court delivered signaling their and our government’s corruption was Citizens United. There are a host of other decisions supporting that corrupt turn, but they, and that particular decision, are why we are on the cusp of authoritarianism and collapse of the post WW II economic and political order. At long last, our nightmare of peace and prosperity for the common folk is over.
LikeLike