Fair point on Meta, it was the first company that came to mind and I didn’t do any investigation to see if it was representative. It’s also a company and not individual contributions like the graphic you shared.
I still don’t think it’s useful to look at total spend to each “party” vs the spread of spend from each source and what they are targeting. I’m not arguing against the idea that billionaires are seeking to influence elections. Of course they do. But what I think is important to consider is what specific races they are funding and why.
I still don’t think it’s useful to look at total spend to each “party” vs the spread of spend from each source and what they are targeting.
Party represents what they are targeting, because party lines are how much of our legislation is defined. For example, low taxes on wealth is associated more with Republicans, and less restriction on abortion rights is associated with Democrats. Even if they may sometimes mix across party lines, they tend to have extremely strong correlations between party and policy, so donating to a given party is effectively donating for the policies they tend to represent.
Again, it’s not that these issues don’t sometimes mix across party lines, the police spending is a good example of that, but generally speaking when a party receives donations, it’s because the donors believe they are supporting that party’s political positions.
Pounded with facts and logic!
I’m not sure what message you are trying to convey with this image, do you want to elaborate? (Genuine question)
Fair point on Meta, it was the first company that came to mind and I didn’t do any investigation to see if it was representative. It’s also a company and not individual contributions like the graphic you shared.
I still don’t think it’s useful to look at total spend to each “party” vs the spread of spend from each source and what they are targeting. I’m not arguing against the idea that billionaires are seeking to influence elections. Of course they do. But what I think is important to consider is what specific races they are funding and why.
Party represents what they are targeting, because party lines are how much of our legislation is defined. For example, low taxes on wealth is associated more with Republicans, and less restriction on abortion rights is associated with Democrats. Even if they may sometimes mix across party lines, they tend to have extremely strong correlations between party and policy, so donating to a given party is effectively donating for the policies they tend to represent.
The largest donors donate vastly more to Republicans than they do to democrats.
If you want individual policy, it lines up.
Big-tech PACs donated 2-to-1 toward Republicans and Republican-aligned ad and influence campaigns in favor of data center construction: https://www.industrialinfo.com/news/article/money-votes-and-data-centers-will-political-spending-overcome-rising-public-opposition-to-data-cente--359789
Billionaires have outspent on ads to fight a one-time billionaire’s tax in California 250-to-1 https://www.commondreams.org/news/wealth-tax-opponents-spending
Law enforcement PACs spend lots of money on Democrats… https://readsludge.com/2020/06/24/law-enforcement-pacs-give-millions-to-the-politicians-who-set-their-budgets/ …and Democrats shift to being more pro-police. https://truthout.org/articles/in-2024-platform-democrats-lurch-right-on-policing-and-immigration/
Again, it’s not that these issues don’t sometimes mix across party lines, the police spending is a good example of that, but generally speaking when a party receives donations, it’s because the donors believe they are supporting that party’s political positions.