I think I would temper this by arguing there's no real alternative. The 2024 elections cost $16b. Bill Gates gave $100m, Elon Musk gave $150m. Kamala Harris got 74m votes; in order to counterbalance Elon Fucking Musk every Harris voter would have needed to chip in $2. In order to counterbalance Musk & Gates, they needed to chip in 68 cents. But now we're talking campaign finance reform and we're both already asleep with boredom.Democrats are not doing anything because they’re captured. They take money from the same business interests and banks that the Republicans do.
Honestly I think part of the problem is how long the campaign is. It takes several years to run for president, and the formal kickoff is often more than a year out. People in formally elected offices basically spend 70% of their time in office preparing to campaign and actively campaigning for office. Of course they need that much money.
Danielle Allen did a series of ten pieces for the WaPo but they didn't exactly set the world afire. I'll say this: WA state does jungle primaries, which helped contribute to outcomes like this: Our Trump-annointed gubernatorial candidate was Semi Bird, who walked out of the primary with 11% of the vote (even though the Republicans had registered five candidates with the same name as the Democratic candidate). The most contentious and expensive race in Washington was for Commissioner of Public Lands, primarily because the Republican who was running was a big timber shill who got primaried for impeaching Trump. EDIT: hot off the presses
I do not trust Gluesenkamp Perez. I can't remember what she did or said years ago that first raised my warning flags, but the recent banana peeling claims are another questionable installment. Honestly I get Paulina-Luna vibes from her. If you have to be a pandering liar to get elected, again, curtains for democracy. Speaking of which, I'll get back to you about the information environment in that other thread soon. Have a good Monday bro(s).