It would be wonderful to see pro-democracy and pro peace groups holding as much resources and influence as groups like aipac does. Being able to offer candidates that sort of security. The sad truth is we can’t.
We really can’t. AIPAC has the money if a country that gets unending support. Americans can barely afford rent. Americans are paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford sudden expenses, like medical care and bills.
This is intentional at this point. If the people who need to vote for you don’t have the money, but the corporate and international lobbyists can fund and sway the politicians more than the general public, it’s a win/win. They get elected, pay back the companies who got them into office, and the people who got them in feel accomplished, when neither the companies or candidates care about any of the voters.
Trump won because the poor and rural people who saw some dude talking what they wanted to hear, and he wasn’t bound to them, he was bound to thr corps and Russians donating to him.
To stop this would stop the income of Politicians across every step of government, local, state, and federal. Super PACs outweigh any of the members of Lemmy or the Fediverse. What we want doesn’t matter.
If we want to stop AIPAC, we would have to stop the same things that enable Russia to fund candidates. Republicans would keepto any money flowing, Democrats would want to keep any money flowing for them. Sensible people want less money in politics. Politicians don’t.
Lobbying is good for them, and bad for us. Lobbying defunds welfare, education, healthcare, and puts that money into the pockets of the wealthy.
And that’s not to say “both sides”, one party often has members who want to stop this. One party has a progressive wing, one party has a fascist majority. But both together will probably prohibit overturning Citizens United.
We really can’t. AIPAC has the money if a country that gets unending support. Americans can barely afford rent. Americans are paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford sudden expenses, like medical care and bills.
This is intentional at this point. If the people who need to vote for you don’t have the money, but the corporate and international lobbyists can fund and sway the politicians more than the general public, it’s a win/win. They get elected, pay back the companies who got them into office, and the people who got them in feel accomplished, when neither the companies or candidates care about any of the voters.
Trump won because the poor and rural people who saw some dude talking what they wanted to hear, and he wasn’t bound to them, he was bound to thr corps and Russians donating to him.
To stop this would stop the income of Politicians across every step of government, local, state, and federal. Super PACs outweigh any of the members of Lemmy or the Fediverse. What we want doesn’t matter.
If we want to stop AIPAC, we would have to stop the same things that enable Russia to fund candidates. Republicans would keepto any money flowing, Democrats would want to keep any money flowing for them. Sensible people want less money in politics. Politicians don’t.
Lobbying is good for them, and bad for us. Lobbying defunds welfare, education, healthcare, and puts that money into the pockets of the wealthy.
And that’s not to say “both sides”, one party often has members who want to stop this. One party has a progressive wing, one party has a fascist majority. But both together will probably prohibit overturning Citizens United.