Hacker News

points by sneurlax 1 day ago | 0 comments

Are both parties not driven by their largest donors?

Yes and no

The internet era has brought about the rise of small dollar donors making an outsized impact (for better or worse - it's not always a good thing)

This has given rise to more forms of populism (left and right, benign and toxic)

In any case, it does provide some counter weight to large donor class.

Money tends to have diminishing returns past a certain point, when it comes to elections.

And I think people underestimate what dopes many large donors are - that just get milked by the party people pumping them full of sweet talk and don't really get much in return

[–] cucumber3732842 1 day ago

>And I think people underestimate what dopes many large donors are - that just get milked by the party people pumping them full of sweet talk and don't really get much in return

They also see it like an insurance payment. Kick some amount to both sides in the hope that they leave you alone.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

Trump famously won without having the largest donors. He only had 1 big backer (Robert Mercer) in 2016 before the Republican primaries, he was assumed to be a joke candidate. After he won the primaries, he finally got some recognition from the establishment, but even then, they were tepid on investing in him because he was assumed to lose the election.

He’s basically proof of the power of the common man’s vote in the US.

[–] 5upplied_demand 1 day ago

Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man. Now, back to 2026, the richest person in the world has spent almost $500 million on helping Republicans in the midterms. Clearly him and Trump don't believe too much in the power of the common man's vote.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

>Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man.

He still spent the least and publicly eschewed donations. His skill was being able to connect with the voters that matter (unfortunately).

As far as I can tell, donations after he was elected in 2016 are simply bribes.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

When did he publicly eschew donations? He raised plenty of money, albeit bit as much as his competitors.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer...

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-shrugs-off-campa...

>Trump has spent much of the race so far breaking the mould of a traditional campaign, defeating a crowded field of primary opponents who vastly outspent him in ads and staff.

>During the Republican primary race, he often told his supporters not to contribute money and ridiculed opponents for accepting cash from special interest groups and wealthy contributors.

>He has so far showed little interest in calling donors to ask for money for his general election battle. He only began holding in-person fundraisers in late May.

[–] 5upplied_demand 1 day ago

He gave over $60 million to his own campaign and used his existing celebrity to get media coverage 24/7.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

>that hardly proves the power of the common man.

What I meant was the 2016 Repub primaries are evidence that the common man votes for who they want, not who the large donors want. The Repub party leadership and previous decision makers were usurped, and hence the idea of MAGA supplanting the Republican Party. More evidence is Dick Cheney and the Bush family becoming quickly irrelevant.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

not at all. wow people need to do some basic research on this. the Republicans are driven by a tiny handful of billionaires and with Musk, trillionaires. Democratic candidates OTOH rely to a vastly larger extent on millions of individual donors sending $100 or less - there are still large donors but their contribution to Democrats is close to an order of magnitude less than what GOP megadonors provide.

Of course, both of these funding models should be banned which would mean dismantling the Citizens United decision spearheaded by the now-known-to-be-fully-corrupt Roberts court, which might require a constitutional amendment.