Neither further proof of the Robert’s Court idiocy

FastLane said:
AI Overview



George Soros
has spent hundreds of millions, potentially over half a billion, on liberal causes and Democratic politics since 2020 alone, primarily through the Open Society Foundations network, funding advocacy groups, ballot initiatives, and candidate campaigns, with significant individual donations to Super PACs in recent election cycles like the 2022 midterms where he was the top billionaire donor. While exact lifetime figures are elusive due to "dark money" channels, his total giving to the Open Society Foundations network exceeds $32 billion by 2017, funding broad democratic and progressive initiatives.
Recent Examples & Figures:
  • 2021-2022: Donated over $170 million directly to Democratic campaigns and an additional $140 million through the Open Society Policy Center to advocacy groups and ballot measures.
  • 2022 Midterms: Contributed over $128 million, making him the top billionaire donor, notes from CNBC.
  • 2020 Cycle: Spent at least $138 million via the Open Society Policy Center on aligned causes and groups.
Methods of Funding:
  • Open Society Foundations: The main vehicle for his philanthropy, with a massive $18 billion transfer in 2017 to support future work, bringing total foundation giving past $32 billion.
  • 501(c)(4) Nonprofits: Uses groups like the Open Society Policy Center for political advocacy and funding ballot initiatives, often described as "dark money".
  • Direct Contributions: Funds federal candidates, Super PACs, and political parties, notes OpenSecrets.
In essence, Soros channels vast sums, often in the hundreds of millions per cycle, into progressive efforts through complex philanthropic and political structures, making precise total lifetime spending difficult to quantify but clearly substantial.

Nonprofit financed by billionaire George Soros donated $140 ...
  • Sep 19, 2024 — Hungarian-born US investor and philanthropist George Soros answers to questions after delivering a speech on the sidelines of the ...

    Congress.gov



  • George Soros
    In 2017, the Open Society Foundations announced that Soros had transferred $18 billion of his fortune towards funding the future w...





Click to expand...
Over 26 years, Musk kicked in close to 300 million in the last election alone, and Soros donations aren’t focused on one candidate but over an array of candidates and causes
 
archives said:
No, nobody is in Musk’s league, are you going to tell us one person giving a candidate close to 300 million isn’t abnormal?
Click to expand...
I'm claiming nothing beyond both sides playing this game where they find a boogieman and make him the object of all their complaints. The Left does, however, seem better at doing this.
 
zymurgy said:
the hypocrisy is why nobody gives a shit what you say

Long before Citizens United, democrats found a way around the system by "bundling". Money in politics is easily solved by breaking up the power and decentralizing - but a strong federal government is your goal, not mine
Click to expand...
That’s not true, the majority of Americans will tell you giving fortunes to one candidate to get that candidate elected is buying a politician and it is wrong

You may not care why the Founders founded a democracy but most others do
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'm claiming nothing beyond both sides playing this game where they find a boogieman and make him the object of all their complaints. The Left does, however, seem better at doing this.
Click to expand...
Which proves my point, the Robert’s Court’s Citizens United decision was a debacle that has changed elections for the worst, Obama was correct
 
archives said:
Which proves my point, the Robert’s Court’s Citizens United decision was a debacle that has changed elections for the worst, Obama was correct
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way. Money is important in a political campaign, but it is not anywhere close to the thing that wins or loses one.
 
archives said:
That’s not true, the majority of Americans will tell you giving fortunes to one candidate to get that candidate elected is buying a politician and it is wrong

You may not care why the Founders founded a democracy but most others do
Click to expand...
Political Action Committees were never restricted by campaign contributions. So you are wrong. And so long as we give an entity major power and influence as Democrats always hope to do - money will be spent on elections. You just make it even easier to see the spending having a single central government to focus on.
 
Damocles said:
Considering that Kamala spent over a billion in 100 days and still lost that would be a very good assessment.
Click to expand...
It actually is not a very good assessment and both you and @T. A. Gardner are wrong. With both Trump and Kamala setting records at ~1.5B and ~1.8B respectively, the idea that either could have simply not spent that money and been competitive is a fallacy.

Money is now the table stakes that determines if you will be in a position to 'win an election', in the vast VAST majority of instances.

What Terry could have properly said is 'above and beyond a certain amount raised and put in to a campaign the returns become diminishing', especially if the other campaign is competitive in spending up to the 'diminishing returns' point.

But Money and gerrymandering are the two most defining things now driving election results.
 
QP! said:
It actually is not a very good assessment and both you and @T. A. Gardner are wrong. With both Trump and Kamala setting records at ~1.5B and ~1.8B respectively, the idea that either could have simply not spent that money and been competitive is a fallacy.

Money is now the table stakes that determines if you will be in a position to 'win an election', in the vast VAST majority of instances.

What Terry could have properly said is 'above and beyond a certain amount raised and put in to a campaign the returns become diminishing', especially if the other campaign is competitive in spending up to the 'diminishing returns' point.

But Money and gerrymandering are the two most defining things now driving election results.
Click to expand...
Not the point. If spending were half that by both or one would the outcome have changed? I don't think so. Yes, the law of diminishing returns applies to elections and politics. Some spending is necessary. But there seems to be the idea that you can buy your way into office and I really don't think that works in the US, at least not currently.
 
archives said:

“Musk shocks with $10 million donation in Ky. Senate race”​


Easy to recall Obama scolding the Court at his second Inauguration immediately after the Citizens United debacle and Alito shaking his head as if what Obama predicted would not come to fruition

But we’re not heading to an oligarchy partially made possible by the Robert’s Court, not what the Founders had in mind
Click to expand...

If we don't get some people with principles in office to revamp Citizens United, we are lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Hawkeye10 said:
SCOTUS is not a court...it is a second ledg.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS cannot even be compared to a second legislature as they have assumed onto themselves, under this Roberts Court powers that Congress cannot even touch, in terms of writing laws.

Consider the new POTUS Immunity law. Congress would have to write is a law, get it passed in both Houses by a 2/3rds vote, or pass the new legislation and get 2/3rds of States to ratify it.

It is am immense task.

OR

As the Roberts court did you simply write it in to the Constitution by Court fiat, via a power you do not have just because you can.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not the point. If spending were half that by both or one would the outcome have changed? I don't think so. Yes, the law of diminishing returns applies to elections and politics. Some spending is necessary. But there seems to be the idea that you can buy your way into office and I really don't think that works in the US, at least not currently.
Click to expand...
You are repeating what i said "...especially if the other campaign is competitive in spending up to the 'diminishing returns' point...."...


But to the original point you were responding to, which was the "... Citizens United decision..." and your comment that you 'do not think it changed much', you are simply naive, even granting what i point out above 'that somewhat comparative spending cancels each other out'.

What the Citizens United decision did was greatly shifted who the politicians needed to listed to and cater to run a successful election.

If you go back to the early 1900's up to 2010 when Citizens United opened up the Dark Money era there was no comparison to this...

-----

Immediate Impact and "Dark Money" post Citizens United Ruling:
  • Explosive Growth: Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after 2010. Between 2010 and 2022, super PACs spent roughly $6.4 billion on federal elections.
  • Dark Money: The post-2010 era brought a surge in "dark money"—funds from non-profits that are not required to disclose their donors. This increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in 2024.
  • Billionaire Influence: Since 2000, political giving by the wealthiest 100 Americans has increased nearly 140 times, with a major surge following 2010. By 2024, the top 100 donors contributed over $1 billion, accounting for 1 in every 13 dollars spent in national elections.
 
zymurgy said:
the hypocrisy is why nobody gives a shit what you say

Long before Citizens United, democrats found a way around the system by "bundling". Money in politics is easily solved by breaking up the power and decentralizing - but a strong federal government is your goal, not mine
Click to expand...
You don't seem to know what bundling is. It isn't a billionaire donating millions of dollars. It is many people with similar viewpoints donating $2000 or less and bundling all that money into one donation to show they support an issue. Bundling has nothing to do with Soros. It seems you are an idiot.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You don't seem to know what bundling is. It isn't a billionaire donating millions of dollars. It is many people with similar viewpoints donating $2000 or less and bundling all that money into one donation to show they support an issue. Bundling has nothing to do with Soros. It seems you are an idiot.
Click to expand...
bwahahaha

sure buddy. and it never used straw donors either

derp derp.

fucking retards thinking they can actually gaslight their superiors
 
QP! said:
You are repeating what i said "...especially if the other campaign is competitive in spending up to the 'diminishing returns' point...."...


But to the original point you were responding to, which was the "... Citizens United decision..." and your comment that you 'do not think it changed much', you are simply naive, even granting what i point out above 'that somewhat comparative spending cancels each other out'.

What the Citizens United decision did was greatly shifted who the politicians needed to listed to and cater to run a successful election.

If you go back to the early 1900's up to 2010 when Citizens United opened up the Dark Money era there was no comparison to this...

-----

Immediate Impact and "Dark Money" post Citizens United Ruling:
  • Explosive Growth: Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after 2010. Between 2010 and 2022, super PACs spent roughly $6.4 billion on federal elections.
  • Dark Money: The post-2010 era brought a surge in "dark money"—funds from non-profits that are not required to disclose their donors. This increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in 2024.
  • Billionaire Influence: Since 2000, political giving by the wealthiest 100 Americans has increased nearly 140 times, with a major surge following 2010. By 2024, the top 100 donors contributed over $1 billion, accounting for 1 in every 13 dollars spent in national elections.
Click to expand...
I don't think spending has to even be competitive. Once you reach a certain threshold, more spending quickly diminishes to few, if any, new votes. This is particularly true if the voting pool has a distinct choice, or has other influences making their decisions such as one candidate (in a binary race) is obviously a terrible candidate, or there say crime, the economy, etc., under an incumbent has gotten far worse.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I don't think spending has to even be competitive. Once you reach a certain threshold, more spending quickly diminishes to few, if any, new votes. This is particularly true if the voting pool has a distinct choice, or has other influences making their decisions such as one candidate (in a binary race) is obviously a terrible candidate, or there say crime, the economy, etc., under an incumbent has gotten far worse.
Click to expand...
again you are simply repeating what i said, now switching to my second part of my post....

"....especially if the other campaign is competitive in spending up to the 'diminishing returns' point...."

The fact is that Citizens United ruling created a new 'Table Stakes' threshold of spending that both parties need to meet for Nationwide Campaigns with contributions, and getting to the point is critical. If you are not in the game at all, if you are not raising any of that Dark Money that was opened up, then you simply cannot and will not be competitive nationwide.

Once you reach those table stakes, then the diminishing returns kick in, BUT YOU MUST have the table stakes.
 
archives said:
Which proves my point, the Robert’s Court’s Citizens United decision was a debacle that has changed elections for the worst, Obama was correct
Click to expand...
Citizens United had nothing to do with this. SpeechNow.org v. FEC is how PAC's came to be allowed to donate directly to a campaign.

Elon Musk is an individual - he was always allowed to give massive money to political action committees - Citizens United didn't change his ability to do so
 
QP! said:
again you are simply repeating what i said, now switching to my second part of my post....

"....especially if the other campaign is competitive in spending up to the 'diminishing returns' point...."

The fact is that Citizens United ruling created a new 'Table Stakes' threshold of spending that both parties need to meet for Nationwide Campaigns with contributions, and getting to the point is critical. If you are not in the game at all, if you are not raising any of that Dark Money that was opened up, then you simply cannot and will not be competitive nationwide.

Once you reach those table stakes, then the diminishing returns kick in, BUT YOU MUST have the table stakes.
Click to expand...
You miss the point of that excess spending. When corporations make big donations it's not so much to get someone elected as it is to buy cooperation and favors once that person is in office. Something like Citizens United won't change that. All it changes is how the payola gets paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top