> It didn’t all go to him buying Lamborghinis
Beachfront properties, random companies, journalists... but no Lamborghinis.
Got it.
Beachfront properties, random companies, journalists... but no Lamborghinis.
Got it.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd say 2008 was blamed a lot on an industry that largely played fairly outside of some truly revolting players. Letting too many bent actors get away with their misgivings emboldens the next generation, and you could certainly argue a lot of this next generation of bent actors are playing fast and loose in crypto.
How did any of that change exactly?
That 2008 style Wallstreet corruption is bigger than ever, it's just a matter of time before the world sees that the upcoming/ongoing inflation is not actually "due to the war in Europe and Covid".
The same political conflicts of interest exist, regardless of whether the funding comes from a carbon Super-PAC, or a crypto con man... But you wouldn't be able to tell that from any of the blatantly partisan rhetoric around it. It's all very "We're not mad that campaign funding works the way it does, we're mad that the other guys got more of it."
Trying to limit 'who' can contribute is fraught with violations of free speech or picking and choosing the definition of what a 'company' vs an 'organization' is.
'The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3'
As it is now, they decided to stop.growing the House because ... big bribes to the controlled-by-lobbyists Reps.
That case is even murkier, but the intent seems clear.
Did I miss something?