Skip to main content

View Diary: How we could stop the Adelsons and their millions (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is a fallacy in this proposal (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, rcbowman, DeminNewJ, Mokurai

    There is a fallacy in the logic of that proposal.  The fallacy is that billionaires would feel that their contribution is "canceled out" by a matched contribution to the other side.  Wrong.

    Ten million dollars buys ten million dollars of influence.  If ten million bucks is matched by the other side, it is still money that buys big influence.  Perhaps fund raisers will even go back and ask for another ten million and another ten million, holding out the possibility that the other side will fold.  Elections could develop into one gigantic poker game.

    The fallacy is empirically illustrated by big corporations routinely giving large contributions to both sides of elections.  Why would they do that and why would they cancel out their own money?  Influence, that's why.

    The matching gambit will not reduce contributions.  This is a poorly thought out idea and will not "stop the Adlesons and their millions."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site