To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.
He is paying you to leverage your reputation and trust networks, and you are extending your reputation and trust networks to him for a fee.
It doesn't matter that you think you don't subscribe to belief about people you posited above, because if you don't believe in Bloomberg's message, you are effectively deceiving those in your trust network.
Now, perhaps everyone in your trust network is in on your deception, but realistically the vast majority of humans, as social (vs. antisocial) beings rely on trust networks as a strong signal for forming opinions and taking actions.
So maybe it is not all doom and gloom?
I feel like this is often the crux of the argument against any kind of government regulation. "The people are smart enough to not be duped!" And in many cases it's easier to create chaos / scam people than it is to defend yourself against it. Just because some people seem capable of defending themselves / cutting through the fraud doesn't mean everyone who can't are idiots or children.
I'll give you an example. There used to be a ton of "Anti-Virus" apps on the iOS App Store. Due to how iOS is built, these apps literally weren't even able to do anything—they were all pure scams. But... people purchased them, not knowing about it. Many of us on HN would recognize immediately that these were scams, because technology like this is in our wheelhouse, so to speak. But it's likely someone in your family (a non-idiot) who's used antivirus software on computers before, and was comfortable with that arrangement, would easily be duped into buying one of these apps. Your analogy would have you advertise or endorse these products, then turn around and mock any "idiot" who purchased them. That's, to me, classic unethical behavior. I can't fathom how this is defensible to anyone with a modicum of empathy.
US schools do have educational system focused on presenting how US election system is supposed to work under ideal circumstances. By default, citizen should know wtf they are voting for. It may be a system issue, but that is a separate conversation.
Apps, otoh, are relatively new. There is no class out there on avoiding scams ( though there probably should be ).
I also disagree with unethical part. He is spending his own money. How is that unethical?
1. I was referring to your example scenario where you're taking his money and disingenuously working to support his campaign.
2. I'm not sure why you're suggesting "spending your own money" absolves you from unethical behavior. If I bought a bunch of worn-out tires and hired some kids around the neighborhood to start a tire fire in the nearest park, that'd be absolutely unethical (and probably illegal as well), despite the fact that I funded the operation myself.
2. I never claimed to be absolved. Then again I do not believe I committed a sin either. You may be pushing your analogies too far. Lets stick to the facts available to us.
Just because you're able, and many people in your left or right coast region may be, doesn't mean everyone is.
I agree with your sentiment, free will and less protectionism...
but, no - consumers/voters are not educated, or even given the tools they need to become so. Literally more is spent every year on the opposite.
Snap and media conglomerates alone ads so much noise, for no profit, to do just this - distract, and fuzz.
He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative.
If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.
Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising, but plenty of people decide for themselves.
(This is the core argument of Democracy for Realists).
So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?
Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business.
Money shouldn't disqualify you from being a good President, poor judgement, low moral character and lack of relevant experience should.
I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates ran for President and if he did I doubt he'd accept donations.
There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.
I don't believe anyone is saying this. Bloomberg, for example, is spending more on TV ads than every other candidate combined. It's not a level playing field at all. Bloomberg has a war chest nobody can compete with. His having it isn't the issue we're talking about here. The fact that he's able to use it in this manner should worry us all.
It's not really relevant to the argument. I have an issue with what Steyer was doing as well, but at least he followed the rules.
Bloomberg got the rules changed to suit him, by spending money with the DNC. He's been blanketing the airwaves and buying endorsements.
It's plutocracy.
Almost certainly yes. These people have out of control egos and little relevant experience. Bloomberg would be no different than Trump.
Gates too.
To say anyone with $X shouldn't be President sounds like profiling. Why not just disagree with his policies or actions?
As far as relevant experience, Bloomberg was the Mayor of NYC and has managed a large organization. That's a lot more government and leadership experience than Trump or Obama had.
Plenty of other things to not like about him but being Mayor of NYC or running a successful business shouldn't disqualify him by any means. So now no one who wants to be President should be a Mayor first or start a successful business? Maybe we should throw out senators while we're at it. Pretty soon we'll be left with armchair economists and self described philosophers who truly don't have any relevant experience.
It's flippant, but here's a simple test.
> has managed a large organization
If that's your justification for why you should be president, then you aren't actually qualified to be president. There is no business on earth that would adequately prepare someone to be president.
> Obama
Obama was a US senator for 4 years and a state senator 7 more.
> Trump
Is a disaster. Bloomberg would also be a disaster.