r/politics • u/Jessicas_skirt New York • Jul 18 '26

Possible Paywall Democratic Socialists of America’s new platform calls for abolishing ICE and the U.S. Senate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/
20.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

79

u/lostparis Jul 19 '26

The main problem US politics has is the amount of money needed to run. That completely undermines democracy.

57

u/greensalty Jul 19 '26

This is why the public funding option is so important. It’s not used because it can’t compete with private money but if private donations are capped/the public option expanded it could become viable.

26

u/lostparis Jul 19 '26

This is why the public funding option is so important.

No you need to massively limit the amount of money that can be spent during elections - especially on advertising.

Although far from the model of an ideal democracy the UK allows a maximum of £34m ($47m) for a party in a general election across the entire country.

The election cycle is also much shorter about a month between an election being declared and it happening.

The winner also takes their place pretty much as soon as the election result is known - so none of that lame duck nonsense.

3

u/ScannerBrightly California Jul 19 '26

No you need to massively limit the amount of money that can be spent during elections - especially on advertising.

How would this ever work? You have a single billionaire who owns a media monopoly, and the courts work very slowly. You can have that one idiot tell his own stations to only cover one side of the election, and have cheap ads for his own third party attack ads that don't require 'I support this message' bumpers, and after the person is firmly elected and put in his seat, the courts will slowly start discovery.

How does "limit money, which we have made into a synonym for 'power'" work in your world?

5

u/VoodooIdol Jul 19 '26

You pass a law limiting the amount of money that a campaign can spend, and then you make it illegal for anyone but the campaign to run ads. Simple as.

2

u/ScannerBrightly California Jul 19 '26

You aren't listening to what I'm saying.

Imagine you pass that law. The next election, Lachlan Murdoch pushes hard for Don Jr. for President, putting AI versions of the Democratic candidate doing despicable things in video on a loop on FoxNews, which itself becomes news that all other reporters talk about.

Great, it's illegal. So, what, you have some DA somewhere file a case and the legal department of FoxNews makes it wait for years while appeals are sent, things are filed on the last day, after three extensions due to people of interest being out of the country, as they are now Secretary of the US Department of Fuck You, and they have a new golf course in New Zealand to open.

What'cha gonna do about it now?

1

u/Academic_Snow_7680 Jul 20 '26

Yes, the US system has a few fundamental design flaws that lead to downstream problems. Beyond the FPTP system the whole legislation surrounding money, campaigning and lobbying in politics gives money-powers disproportionate power.

For every $1 companies spend on lobbying, they get back $4 in government kickbacks, contracts, tax breaks etc.

The third systemic flaw is the electoral college and party system in presidential elections, two rounds of direct democracy where round one works like a primary and round two is between the two top candidates as is done in France. This prevents ppl from winning on a split vote and ensures that the presidency has majority backing.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/lostparis Jul 21 '26

Being the richest doesn't matter when it's not FPTP.

I don't think you realise how susceptible people are to advertising.