It sure is interesting how much money our corporations have to spare when it comes to political advertising versus when it comes to taxes.
PACs are legal. Those who are obsessing over this can only ruminate in their own pouting until the supreme court rules otherwise.
I just got back from 5 days in Amsterdam. I saw two homeless people the whole trip. TWO. Clean streets, no garbage, no blocked sidewalks with tents, and most importantly, nobody suffering from the evils of poverty. And yet, the streets are packed with thriving businesses, a robust economy, and a raging night life.
Feel free to look up the reasons. I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with bocialism. VOTE!
@4: For the billionth time, a capitalist nation whose economy runs on capitalist principles is not a socialist nation because they have higher taxes than America.
Why do socialists always list capitalist nations when giving examples of successful socialist nations? Aren't there any real examples?
@4: Apple: Relatively new metropolis experiencing explosive growth and change with more than three of the worlds largest business.
Orange: Centuries homogeneous society with an entrenched social order and a relatively flat business climate.
"Aren't there any real examples [of socialist nations]?"
I don't think so. Nearly every nation in history has had a mix of different political and economic policies. I can't think of any nation that had pure capitalist or pure socialist policies. The Netherlands aren't purely capitalist or socialist either. They have a lot of both. You know this though.
Also bothersome is capitalists (or anyone really) who always list non-communist nations when giving examples of how communist nations failed. There has never been a communist nation in history any more than there's been a capitalist or socialist nation. The world's a hell of a lot more complicated than black and white.
Lester, can you address Strickland's actual claim that "from all of the political action committees... it’s about evenly split between the number of PACs and the amount of money raised by both business and labor"?
You've shown that the Amazon/chamber candidates are receiving much more Super PAC money overall but haven't addressed any specifics regarding the sources of that PAC money. Could it be that labor unions are contributing to the Amazon candidates? I don't know because your article didn't address it.
Luckily Zach Wurtz's tweet shed some light on the subject, showing that the Amazon PACs are greatly outspending the labor PACs, but it would be helpful if the article itself better addressed Strickland's claims.
Corporate donations are like yeast.
They just give you an STD that's a UTI.
3: Yes, they're legal. What's your point? There are a lot of horrible things that are legal, and people get to decide whether it sits well with them or not. I dislike the Chamber, hate NIMBYs and shit on Amazon. A candidate's willingness to take their money might not matter to you, but it matters to me. I don't give two fucks about legality.
“(I left Council Member Debora Juarez out of these figures because she's supported by both the chamber and labor. Super PACs have spent $59,675 trying to elect Juarez this year).”
(I often deliberately and intentionally leave out all facts which don’t support my narrative.)
Meanwhile, half of Sawant's campaign contributions don't even come from within the city of Seattle. But not a peep about that...
@11: Not a peep because you made it up.
@11 or @12, please link to a source
It's dated, but I wonder if @11 was referring to this: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/06/12/40456394/where-is-kshama-sawants-campaign-money-coming-from-her-competition-wants-to-know
Here's a more recent article that says Sawant's contributions are 48% from outside Seattle, whereas Orion gets only 7% from outside Seattle, and 61% from inside District 3: https://mynorthwest.com/1528410/seattle-city-council-sawant-amazon-campaign-money/?
35% of Sawant's contributors are from outside of Seattle. She has 3849 contributors from within the city (2643 from District 3).
6% of Orion's contributors are from outside of Seattle. He has 2409 contributors from within the city (1526 from District 3).
@16, that was a weak rejoinder for getting proven wrong @12. @11 wrote "contributions", not "contributors," and was right on the mark with his statement. (Also, assuming your figures are correct, why are her out-of-city contributors giving more per capita than her in-city contributors?)
You can apologize for your false "made it up" claim any time now.
@12: Because I "made it up?" See for yourself, as of 10/28, 45% of Sawant's contributions come from outside Seattle:
@17: My figures are correct. I provided links. Sawant has a lot of small donors in Seattle, and her overall average donation is $70, while Orion's is $148. 65% of her contributions come from people living within the city of Seattle.
@20: The link you provided is the exact same one that I provided to you. Look at the pie chart, 45% of her contributions come from outside the city. So are you saying the reporting is wrong?
@20: First, you need to own and apologize for your groundless accusation @12 that hayduke fabricated his claim. The numbers validate what he wrote. Half of Sawant’s campaign contributions are from outside the city.
Second, adding the totals for all seven districts gives 49%, not 75%. Only by adding in the 1% from “Seattle Area P.O. Box” can we get her to fifty percent.
@21: I trust the reporting. And whether you consider outside-of-Seattle-contributions as a percentage of people (35%) or as money (45%), your statement is at best exaggerated.
@22: I'm sorry hayduke fudged his numbers.
@23: Math is hard, eh? Let’s walk you through it again:
45% of the contributions are known to come from outside Seattle. 49% are known to originate within Seattle. Another 1% came from “Seattle Area P. O. Box[es]”, another 1% were “uncodeable,” 3% were “miscellaneous,” and 1% had “no address.” So, to the best of our knowledge, half came from outside Seattle — which just so happens to be what hayduke wrote. Meanwhile, your claim he “made it up” has been proven entirely groundless; apology at your leisure.
Your claim he “fudged his numbers” is equally groundless. “Half” is a really good way to describe a 49% / 45% split with 6% unknown.
I apologize on behalf of your elementary-school math teachers.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.