
Billionaires, Not Voters, Are Deciding Elections - Jerry2
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/billionaires-not-voters-are-deciding-elections/
======
outside1234
Proposition 10 in California lost because it was a horrible idea. Economists
agree, at almost the scale of way they agree about climate change, from the
left to the right, that rent control is the most effective way to destroy a
city and is counterproductive to its goals. It is a simplistic solution
designed by people that have flunked economics who think that just declaring
that "rent shall be frozen" that that will make housing cheaper.

It was not because billionaires supported it. It failed because it was a
terrible idea.

* [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-re...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-does-more-harm-than-good)

~~~
bcherny
I’m not sure that’s quite accurate.

If you just look at it through the lens of supply and demand, of course rent
control is bad. But the real issues are more nuanced than that.

For example, a recent study from Stanford found that rent control reduces
supply of housing by 15% and raises the income you need to move into the city;
on the other side, that same study found that rent control helps protect
people that live in the city already, which disproportionately helps people of
color and lower income people.

There’s a few similar studies. There are definitely tradeoffs here, which
depend on your own values.

[https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf)

~~~
compsciphd
isn't that another way of saying its a way to create slums?

i.e. if wealthier people can't move in, I'd think there's a good chance the
existing wealthy people will move out as well, leaving only the lower income
people without any tax base to support the services needed for them.

~~~
bcherny
I’m not sure there’s any evidence of that in the studies I’ve seen. It seems a
bit far removed from what we actually see today.

------
hodgesrm
> ...fight against Prop 10. Sadly, Californians bought the corporate
> propaganda hook, line and sinker, and voted it down by a whopping 61.7
> percent, saying “no” to rent control.

Californian here. This statement is true only if 'corporate propaganda hook'
means the recommendations of most reputable economists. There's ample evidence
that rent control not only reduces housing stock but also fails to help people
most in need of assistance. California has a serious housing crisis--there are
people living under bridges in my town--but Prop 10 was not the answer. I hope
the No vote will force some rethinking about a more comprehensive solution. I
predict _that_ proposition would pass by a large majority.

------
TangoTrotFox
I think money in politics is certainly an issue, but there seems to be an
increasing amount of evidence that this its influence seems to be diminishing,
not increasing. One party's presidential candidate in 2016 achieved record
breaking fund raising, and outspent their opponent by 2:1. In recent midterms
one senatorial candidate raised $38 million in one quarter smashing all
records and obviously outspending his opponent, also by about 2:1. Both
candidates lost. According to WaPo [1] candidates from one party outspent the
other party in 75% of 80 of the most competitive contests. But fewer than half
of those candidates who outspent their opponent ended up winning their
election.

This didn't used to be the case. Money spent used to be one of the most
reliable methods of determining who'd win an election. Now voters seem to be
voting in ways that are much less predictable.

[1] - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/despite-record-
spend...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/despite-record-
spending-2018-midterms-highlighted-limits-of-campaign-
cash/2018/11/07/4ded1e34-e12e-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html)

------
kartan
This is one of the problems of allowing the accumulation of power. As an
individual, I have little money to spend and the gains are distributed to all
citizens. Billionaires have a lot of money to spend and they are rewarded
quite directly from the policies that they affect.

The best option would have been to not get here in the first place. To have
stopped it when it was easier. But now that power has accumulated so much
there is more reason to work for wealth re-distribution.

I also interested to know how much relationship there is between the
accumulation of wealth in a few and war. I see that the rise of the far right
and the economic inequality are happening at the same time. But I do not know
what is the relationship between them. Anyone has data on this?

~~~
danemacaulay
Picketty discussed the relationship between wealth inequality and the world
wars. Specifically, he notes how these wars served the function of destroying
wealth accumulation centers and effectively redistributing them. He cynically
notes that if we don't do anything that we may end up seeing another war do it
for us...

~~~
majewsky
I'm skeptical that we'll see another world war. Or if we do, it'll be over
really quick. Because whoever ends up being enemies of China will be cut off
from access to advanced electronics, which are quickly becoming more and more
important in warfare.

(I'm not saying that there are no fabs anywhere outside China, but if e.g.
Germany decides to start WW3, they'll have a hard time producing enough
electronic components given the existing foundries in the country.)

------
talrobinson
Title should read “Voters decide elections, but are easily duped by political
commercials paid for by billionaires.”

~~~
greglindahl
The article is terrible in more ways than just the title -- their claim that
Prop 10 was voted down billionaires were against it has no evidence behind it.
Correlation is not causation.

------
catacombs
The Washington Post has been tracking everyone, including corporations,
contributing to super PACs. All told, they funneled $1.1 billion in 2018:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/superp...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/superpac-
donors-2018/)

More than a billion dollars. Think about that.

~~~
rayiner
A billion dollars is nothing in an economy of 325 million people. That’s half
of what Colgate-Palmolive spends each year advertising toothpaste and dish
soap. It’s about three days of Google ad revenue.

It’s $5 per person of voting age, which is about Facebook’s ad revenue per
user in a month. Think about that: has Facebook ever convinced you of
anything? Because that’s 12x the advertising intensity of PAC funding.

The causal inference the article draws is insane. California voters rejected
more rent control by a 60-40 margin. Facebook can’t convince more than 0.9% of
users to even click on each ad, but somehow a fraction of the level of
advertising changed peoples’ minds about rent control?

~~~
maxxxxx
I think the problem is that when 100 million people contribute $10 to a cause
they basically don't get heard but one person contributing the same amount
will have all doors opened and be listened to.

~~~
rayiner
We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A
billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a
single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct
advertising for the issue.

~~~
scoggs
> We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A
> billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a
> single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct
> advertising for the issue.

Now, I could be 100% wrong because I'm not looking at any data to back up what
I'm stating next but from what I remember what you say above is not 100% true.

From the time the campaign starts until the campaign ends and the election is
complete the PAC's $ can not go directly to a candidate. The problem is what
happens to / with that money after the campaign is over? From what I've heard
that money can go directly to a candidate (or now official-elect) with no
strings attached.

Of course, I do not have a citation handy, but I've never heard of leftover
PAC $ being reimbursed to those donating nor have I ever heard of candidates
or a PAC donating the leftover PAC $ to charity.

~~~
rayiner
See: [https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/what-
happens...](https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/what-happens-to-
surplus-super-pac-money/)

> Mostly, it’s up to the super PAC. “Super PACs have fairly broad discretion
> on what they can do with excess funds,” says Robert Kelner, chair of the
> Election and Political Law Practice Group at the law firm Covington &
> Burling. They can transfer them to a charitable organization, use them for
> wind-down expenses like clearing out offices or filing reports, or pay
> consulting fees. _The main thing they can’t use leftover money for is to
> make contributions to a candidate for federal office._

------
lxmorj
Yes, overt things do SEEM more influential than the money moving behind the
scenes. And yet...

------
claydavisss
The "Establishment" loses all the time. Trump was "supposed" to finish last in
Republican primaries and ended up President. At every step, he faced and beat
the Establishment choice, up to beating the Wall St/Hollywood/Tech endorsed
candidate for President.

------
RickJWagner
As a conservative, I'd gladly trade every single GOP-supporting billionaire in
exchange for a balanced message from Hollywood.

Rich people with a microphone and groupie followers seem more influential than
just monetary donors.

