"Ever since the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations had the right to free speech and therefore could make political donations, American billionaires are constantly finding new ways to dump money into politics. Sure, there are technically legal limits to how much they can directly donate to candidates, parties, and causes. But that's old-fashioned, analog, and 20th-century thinking. Baby stuff."
"The clever modern billionaire could theoretically bend the law enough to spend unlimited money on winning elections, and, in my humble opinion, the tech billionaires have been truly innovative - possibly too innovative - in this space. But there appears to be a limit to how much political power a single tech billionaire can wield: Thiel dropped out of politics, citing the exhaustion of dealing with the entire Republican Party asking for money; Zuckerberg's donation blew up in his face four years later, when a vindictive Trump acc"
The Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling granted corporations free-speech protections that enabled political donations. American billionaires have exploited that ruling to develop new ways to inject money into politics. Statutory donation limits still exist for direct contributions to candidates, parties, and causes. Modern wealthy individuals treat those limits as outdated and pursue alternative mechanisms to exert influence, sometimes bending legal boundaries to spend large sums on elections. Tech billionaires have been notably inventive in these strategies. However, individual influence can be constrained: examples include Thiel leaving political engagement due to fundraising exhaustion, and Zuckerberg facing backlash after a major donation.
Read at The Verge
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]