Comment by dr_doom | Hacker News Reader

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by dr_doom | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't know why comparing political donations to food puts these numbers in perspective. A better comparison is other nations fundraising.

Canadians spend less on campaigns than the "biggest spenders" on that chart combined, with 37 million citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_...

During the 2010 presidential election Brazilians spent $2 billion on campaigns and have ~200 million citizens.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/world/world_global-campai...

Because pets are a luxury, but political participation is a necessity for the country to work properly.

Political donations are not a necessity for the country to work properly.

Pets may be a luxury, but once you have them feeding them is arguably a necessity. What's missing is whether they are buying more luxurious food than necessary.

Anyway, in the end it's a completely arbitrary comparison.

Point taken about having to feed them once you have them.

And I agree that political donations are not a necessity, but only if donations are banned, which is not the case. If your opponents are getting donations, then you are at a net loss if you don't. In that sense, being idealistic does not get you supporters, and donations really are necessary.

Feeding pets isn't a luxury. Without food, they die.

From this tiny sample, it appears that the US is fairly average.

Has anyone compiled a fuller list of per capita campaign costs by country? I could find none.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com