Politics

10178 readers

546 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Republican primary spending projected to approach or surpass $1 billion (www.npr.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Exaggeration207@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Like a never-ending arms race, the price to become president has skyrocketed.

In 2020, almost $6 billion was spent on the presidential race alone, roughly four times what it cost two decades ago. (Even adjusting for inflation, it cost almost three times as much as in 2000.)

Including congressional races, the cost was more than $14 billion, double that of 2016.

In the last open GOP primary in 2016, candidates spent roughly $400 million, followed closely by super PACs, for $768 million in total primary spending, according to the former Campaign Finance Institute (which has since merged with Open Secrets).

In this cycle, candidate spending is expected to jump to at least $500 million with super PACs again spending about the same or a little less than the campaigns.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Valliac@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why can't we do like the UK does?

You can only campaign for a certain period of time (like, a month or two iirc)
You have a hard limit of what you can spend on said campaign
TV stations must give equal TV time to both parties, and parties can't start campaigning until a certain period after the election is announced.
EDIT: and they use ranked choice voting.

(I'm in the US so I'm pulling a lot of this from memory, please correct me if I'm wrong)

Yeah, people may still vote for an idiot. But it's an idiot they voted for, and not one that was bought for some company for tax breaks.

[–] Nanokindled@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The UK isn't even the best example of this. Denmark. Does it better. Campaign posters have to follow a specific format, can only be posted in specific places, and all candidates are publicly funded. Elections are cheap, quick, and (relatively) honest. Plus it's much harder to become a celebrity politician, or an extremely rich one.

[–] Valliac@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the info. I had a vague idea of UK elections, but didn't realize the specifics of other countries.

[–] dumples@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

What a waste. That money can really be better spent on almost anything else. Citizen United really messed everything up

[–] Lost_Wanderer@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hopefully it taps out their resources.

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately their donors have deep pockets. Many of whom support both parties..

[–] cereal7802@lemmy.game-files.net 2 points 1 year ago

As the costs to run/win go up, the expected return is greater.

load more comments