Hacker News Reader

Comment by erentz | Hacker News Reader

People keep talking about citizens united. And sure it needs to go. But it doesn’t really solve more than a small part of the problem because it just reduces what /corporations/ can spend.

Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.

View on HN

There is a personal cap at $3500, Musk uses the PAC organization that arose after CU. The big money is not giving directly or personally; it goes through PACs which CU enabled

(aiui)

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/undoing-citizens-un...

https://legalhelp.us/how-much-can-a-private-citizen-donate-t...

That cap is what a person can give to a campaign.

CU let companies donate to campaigns and PACs. This talk about state by state changes to put a stop to that is nice (Montana, Hawaii). But Elon Musk is not a company, he actually is a person.

You can give unlimited to a super PAC. Ok, next you get rid of super PACs, which came after CU, fine.

But now still, how does that stop an Elon Musk going out and spending $100m on political advertising as a private individual? That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.

> That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.

I don't think so, political add spend counts towards personal spending afaik.

AFAICT the distinction is if it is “in coordination” with a campaign. Same with PACs. Your super PAC can’t coordinate with a campaign. It’s part of what differentiates them and why they can raise unlimited money.

All he has to do is spend the money himself, as a private, real person, without any coordination with a campaign, and he can spend as much as he likes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com