534
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
534 points (99.3% liked)
People Twitter
8768 readers
602 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It banned PACs and Corporations from spending on and engaging with campaigns, so yes, it removed money from politics.
Would the world not be so much better without oil companies and AIPAC running elections?
I agree with you on banning PACs and corps from spending on and engaging in campaigns.
My point is you aren't going far enough. If you think $100 million spent for a candidate in 2002 is an ideal worth striving for or somehow equal to no money in politics, you are in for disappointment or you don't remember that era well enough.
This still nearly entirely excluded normal people from becoming a candidate. Corporations were still writing our laws during that time through lobbying. Not to mention a dozen other in roads for money in politics during that era, such as insider trading.