| ▲ | qwerpy 14 hours ago |
| Are we supposed to be up in arms about this? > 66 different federal political action campaigns (PACs), nearly half of which are supporting Republicans. Seems balanced to me. |
|
| ▲ | manux 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Balanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent? |
| |
| ▲ | qwerpy 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Didn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”? | | |
| ▲ | sghiassy 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because for many people, and especially for the cohort that is HN readers, the current MAGA republican, doesn’t differ just on policy decisions like a Bush or Regan, but is undermining the institutions that keep our checks and balances in place P.S: I hope this wasn’t too political of a comment. I know we want to keep HN political free. But it does need to be said there’s a difference between policy differences and desecration. Example from today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-... |
| |
| ▲ | xp84 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things. Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of. | | |
| ▲ | zetsurin 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe one party doesn't have the claim to being ethical, but one party (Republicans) have an indisputable claim on being unethical. | |
| ▲ | tzs 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. No, but one party does have a disputable claim on being ethical. The other party doesn't even have a disputable claim any more. |
| |
| ▲ | legitster 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale. Even if the government is unethical, it's still a good idea to push for good policy (unless you're an accelerationist). Obviously we're talking about businesses here so what they are pushing for is probably ethically neutral in itself. But supporting everyone equally seems like the least bad option. | |
| ▲ | sghiassy 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’d also like to know the answer to this |
|
|
| ▲ | heaney-555 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wow, talk about a misleading headline! |
|
| ▲ | VCFundedGenYer 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Supporting fascists by 50% is pretty damn alarming to me. |
| |
| ▲ | qwerpy 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | That would be terrible! However I don’t see evidence of that in the article. | | |
| ▲ | delecti 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | The fact that the PAC donated to Pramila Jayapal shows that clearly supporting fascism isn't the point of the donations. But I would absolutely say that each of Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Lindsey Graham are (were in the Graham's case) fascistic in their positions. All of them support(ed) Trump, who readily accepted a description of "fascist" from Mamdani, on camera (if his status as such weren't already self-evident). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| While I agree, I still think it sucks that we are essentially now in a "pay-to-play" political environment. Any rich person who may be highly affected by government regulations (which is basically all of them) now is expected to donate a huge chunk of money if they even want to be listened to. This is why most of the money is going to incumbents (i.e. the people most likely to actually be in office in Jan). I'm not saying there haven't always been aspects of this but Citizens United really let this money explode exponentially. I really hope we can get a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United once we return to sanity. Also, the rationale behind CU looks woefully stupid and weak now. I honestly believe it is the Dred Scott of our day. The USSC has always interpreted "free speech" with an eye to potential unfair harms (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that), and the idea that rich people should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to their preferred candidates certainly hits that level IMO. |
