People keep talking about citizens united. And sure it needs to go. But it doesn’t really solve more than a small part of the problem because it just reduces what /corporations/ can spend.

Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.

▲

verdverm a day ago | parent [-]

There is a personal cap at $3500, Musk uses the PAC organization that arose after CU. The big money is not giving directly or personally; it goes through PACs which CU enabled

(aiui)

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/undoing-citizens-un...

https://legalhelp.us/how-much-can-a-private-citizen-donate-t...

▲

erentz a day ago | parent [-]

That cap is what a person can give to a campaign.

CU let companies donate to campaigns and PACs. This talk about state by state changes to put a stop to that is nice (Montana, Hawaii). But Elon Musk is not a company, he actually is a person.

You can give unlimited to a super PAC. Ok, next you get rid of super PACs, which came after CU, fine.

But now still, how does that stop an Elon Musk going out and spending $100m on political advertising as a private individual? That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.

▲

verdverm a day ago | parent [-]

> That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.

I don't think so, political add spend counts towards personal spending afaik.

	▲	erentz a day ago \| parent [-]
		AFAICT the distinction is if it is “in coordination” with a campaign. Same with PACs. Your super PAC can’t coordinate with a campaign. It’s part of what differentiates them and why they can raise unlimited money. All he has to do is spend the money himself, as a private, real person, without any coordination with a campaign, and he can spend as much as he likes.