The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions
Absolutely fucking disgusting.
That's it, that's the post.
Well um ackshually dark money, spooky PAC's, and unlimited corporate campaign money is good, sweaty.
- Thread starter Eacaraxe
- Start date
Absolutely fucking disgusting.
That's it, that's the post.
Why do I have a weird feeling there’s going to be as many reads on what this means as there are stars in the sky?The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutionstime.com
Absolutely fucking disgusting.
That's it, that's the post.
I wouldn't necessarily say as many "reads" on the situation as desperate rationalizations for one's own self-contradictory political positions.
If you're on the "right" and buy into this whole corporate speech nonsense, well suddenly you have to defend that when the shoe's on the "other" foot. If you're on the "left" and just spent some portion of the last decade complaining about Citizens United, spooky PAC's, dark money, and inter-organization and campaign/organization collusion to influence election outcome, well suddenly you have to confront the shoe's on "your" foot. When really, the shoe didn't change feet, corporate America and the donor class just made a decision as to which candidate is best-suited to suit corporate America's and the donor class' economic and political interest and this time it wasn't the Republican.
The position of this article and ones like it that have come, and will invariably continue to come, fall neatly into the trajectory set by Lincoln Project in fully normalizing naked corporatism and late-stage capitalism among the "left" by reframing the subversion of American democracy through campaign finance, and opaque and unaccountable avenues of influence, as a net positive. Or, perhaps more to the point, "Fox-ifying" the Democratic party.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,447
- 3,416
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
You seem to forget how many weird lefties we have on here that seem to think anything short of advocating for lynching landlords is a betrayal of the cause and makes you a conservative worse then hitler.
Most of the activism described in the article is rather admirable. Neoliberalism all the way's the game, of course, but that keeps rolling forward no matter who is PotUS. The battle on social media platforms and about them too is controversial still; who and what and how it should be regulated or should it, and how long until this bites everyone's ass. The post-election stuff in Michigan was over a manufactured situation, and thus underhanded tactics vs underhanded tactics is fine.
So is this a "unions using super PACs to lobby against Citizen Untied to try to end super PACs is just as bad as using super PACs and Citizens United" sorta thing?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,447
- 3,416
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
No, this is about groups banding together to try and make sure trump couldn't steal the election with misinformation and assorted bullshit. While on its surface Citizens United seems bad, its more complicated then that. Without it would a non-profit group be able to put out a documentary on global warming right before an election? Maybe not since that could be considered political speech.
The public image of Citizen's United really is astonishing. If anyone wants an example of the media being basically a Democratic election machine, the fact that Hillary Clinton in 2016 got to use "people shouldn't be allowed to spend money criticizing me" as a talking point without being brutally mocked for it is a pretty good example.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,447
- 3,416
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I totally understand the publics image of it. The public is already wary of excessive corporate influence and the base reading of the ruling doesn't help, its just more complicated then a headline. Hmm, although, maybe political speech by any other than the campaigns or those that have the express blessing from them should be restricted before an election... Considering internet influencers, this would be so complicated that it might just be better to have the ruling. Since someone with a large enough twitter following that says something bad about a candidate might end up running afoul of the law.
Yeah, yeah. And Fox has a different take on Citizens United. You know what I mean.
Going to controversially suggest that the integrity of the electoral process shouldn't only be protected by the whims of business interests. I'm not so naive to think that money can ever be eliminated from elections under capitalism, but the US gleefully embraces campaign spending in a way that is quite alien to me, being from a country where it is prohibited by law for a party to expend more than £30,000 on advertising per candidate and broadcast political advertising is illegal.
It definitely shouldn't be protected by business interest. On the other hand the American government gladly abandoned its duty to protect the election when it turned out Trump lost.
The idea that 'democracy' was protected in 2020 is a farce. Neither of the candidates were democratically chosen in the first place, and the media manages public relations for both major parties, excludes major topics from real debate, and so forth and so on. Pretending that this is democracy only strengthens the arguments of people who don't like democracy.
You know what’s even worse. All these ‘Free Speech’ people keep going on about censorship but if one of these companies, say Google, fires a bunch of Lefties, including removing their STUDIES from JOURNALS, all I hear is crickets.
Yes, they do. Right now, whenever I hear the word citizen, patriot or proud, all it reminds me of is the 1930s. But that’s what they are meant to evoke, so.....
And to be clear, I do think CNN Etc has a bias. This is just a time when Fox clearly did bias. Fox is got a tough time ahead as baseless claims are being sent to court and whether they can give their viewership what they want. And, I want to reiterate, written Fox is usually way less sensationalist than TV. They know how not to do silly things like this
Unbalanced popularity contests shaped by a media that benefits of conflict?
Kidding aside, I think the US is really hurt by
A) The money it takes to run both a primary and a campaign as it blocks entry for those without wealth or incentivizes reliance on outside wealth.
B) The publicity of it all, as it forces public conflicts between candidates of the non-incumbent.
C) The duration, the fact that it only concludes shortly before the presidential election begins can honestly make it seem a bit drawn out. The protracted nature over-saturates the news with election related stories which gets old.
So would this be something like a Swamp?
I mean people on both sides working to stop Trump due to dislike of him and to try and protect corporate interests etc.........
I mean people on both sides working to stop Trump due to dislike of him and to try and protect corporate interests etc.........