LoriQuaid
Starmer could introduce new law to block Musk from donating to Reform, minister suggests
As a US citizen, Mr Musk cannot legally make a personal donation to a UK political party but he could do so through the UK subsidiaries of his companies.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-elon-musk-reform-uk-donation-b2668577.html
KeepTakingTheSoma
LostInCalifornia
@KeepTakingTheSoma @LoriQuaid If those politicians wouldn't complain, they should.
Cit United makes it impossible to cap donations here, and subsidiaries of foreign corporations is one of the ways a noncitizen can funnel money into our campaigns. Elon has already shown he's willing to destroy democracy, free speech, the electoral process, "to save it"; I don't think this is an overreach.
(I don't think banning corporate donations is such a bad idea. I'm all in favor of it.)
KeepTakingTheSoma
LostInCalifornia
@KeepTakingTheSoma @LoriQuaid Yes. They should make you suspicious. Especially when they promote such flagrant lies as "bot driven facts are truth."
I started as a ban all parties person. A prof told me off early on. Yeah, it's a bout bit about "teams", but it's more about collective action. I'm still convinced she was right.
I'm still left of center, but the center keeps moving.
KeepTakingTheSoma
LoriQuaid
@LostInCalifornia @KeepTakingTheSoma When a person ran for the U.S. Senate as originally conceived, it cost nothing. The candidate's campaign amounted to talking to people in the state legislature. Moving to direct elections by the populace meant that campaigns were now expensive, and the candidate became beholden to the political party that was financing him/her. The political parties grew in power, and the region that was supposedly being represented lost power
LostInCalifornia
@LoriQuaid @KeepTakingTheSoma Yes, there is a ton of money in senatorial elections. There is also a ton of money in cronyism for a select few.
Reforming campaign finance will address the first issue. The second, not so much.
LostInCalifornia
@LoriQuaid @KeepTakingTheSoma Plaything of the people who elect them directly.
"States rights" is a fool's game.
California has 30 million people. It has 2 senators. Wyoming has a half million. It has 2 senators.
Regional differences for low population areas are adequately are represented in in the Senate.
LoriQuaid
@LostInCalifornia @KeepTakingTheSoma The whole point in having two US senators from each state is to represent the state which elected them.
LostInCalifornia
@LoriQuaid @KeepTakingTheSoma And how does that change with direct elections?
Besides, you know, the whole eliminating the old, corrupt state official crony appointments, how do the people electing a senator change regional representation?
The state is also elected by the people. The 14th Amendment is supposed to guarantee that. The state has no business other than the people.
LoriQuaid
@KeepTakingTheSoma @LostInCalifornia I think that the 17th Amendment to the US constitution is at least partly to explain. Previously, US senators were elected by their respective state legislatures, which forced them to represent their state's regional interests. After they were elected directly by the people, instead of representing their region, they became the plaything of whichever political party funded and conducted their campaign.
LostInCalifornia
@KeepTakingTheSoma @LoriQuaid True. Anything that sticks around tends to solidify and become stodgy.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.