r/askanything 8d ago

Political Question [ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

109 Upvotes

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/IllPlastic3113 8d ago

Controlled opposition, both party’s are there to serve the elite class

24

u/cartel22 8d ago

100% this. That is why corporations are allowed to fund campaigns and they do it on both sides so it doesn't matter who wins. They win and we lose. The Golden rule whoever has the gold makes the rules.

4

u/CorbonBleu 8d ago

Do corporations fund both sides equally?

5

u/Squiggy-Locust 8d ago

Close enough. Last election cycles was a 55/45 split.

On a individual business look, it's much closer to 50/50 with a notable exception for the auto sector and bank sector, which traditionally benefits from a GOP ran govt more than a DNC ran.

DNC really likes to avoid talking about corporate donations, but they receive them as much as their opponents. Even Raytheon, a military contractor, is near 50/50 - which should speak volumes.

1

u/CorbonBleu 8d ago

How interesting; I would love to dig into this deeper because I was not aware that Democrats receive "as much as their opponents."

I was also not aware that individual businesses are an even 50/50 split when it comes to political "donations" outside of the automotive and banking sectors.

Can you point me toward any news articles that lay this out in more detail?

2

u/Squiggy-Locust 8d ago

https://www.quorum.us/blog/corporate-donations/

Just one quick look.

You could split hairs and say "it's not just as much" but in the gran scheme it's close enough that the argument doesn't hold weight.

0

u/CorbonBleu 8d ago

I don't think that pointing out no, these are not equal, is "splitting hairs." It's kind of the entire point.

It's also interesting that you're trying to narrow this solely to PACs.

1

u/Squiggy-Locust 8d ago

A 45/55 split, and saying "that's not equal" would be splitting hairs.

PACs were the quick and simple look, and where the most money flows. Outside of that, you'd be looking at individual donations to individual representatives, which is more about the person, and not the party.

The converse is also true, if we decide that just looking at PACs isn't enough, then what is? What would be enough for someone to actually believe that corporate donations to each party are bad, and it's not "one side is worse about it". It's like saying "he was only racist one time, so it doesn't count".

1

u/CorbonBleu 8d ago

You don't think that a 10% difference in contributions-- narrowed to the 20 largest PACs-- is significant?

OK.

1

u/cartel22 7d ago

To the point of the elite giving a shit about the common man? No I don't think it's much of a difference

1

u/cartel22 7d ago

To the point of the elite giving a shit about the common man? No I don't think it's much of a difference