Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrguyorama | Hacker News Reader

I personally view small groups of people having such large amounts of power to be undemocratic, whether they be the Koch brothers, or Soros. I may support the same causes he funds and supports, but I'd like it if people like him funding government choices was not possible

View on HN

Why? Via freedom of association we all can (and do!) pool our money very well, and we have more money altogether than the Soroses and Koches of the world.

The ""1%"" have more than half the world wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-ri...

This is becoming an increasingly serious problem, that contributions from the general public don't outspend rich people who are keen to push an idea.

http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/11/19/the-theory-of-th...

(and http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2018/01/26/pro-market-pro-b... )

In a (simplified and ideal) democracy, 1 person, 1 vote. Allowing someone to contribute more than one "vote" (dollar) each is allowing them to out "speak" other contributors. Why do Soros or the Koch brothers deserve to be able to speak louder than me, just because they can?

"It's okay if my vote counts for 100 and everyone else counts for 1, since 300 people are voting".

They're not directly funding government programs or departments are they? They're surely just giving money to politicians who spend it on advertising because - this is the real problem - Americans insist on only ever voting for candidates who spend enormous amounts of money advertising themselves. That's ultimately your fault if you refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't receive funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com