Hacker News Reader

Comment by admax88q | Hacker News Reader

It's news worthy because it provides hard evidence that the Tea Party is not as "grassroots" as it markets itself as.

Just because funding comes from large donors doesn't mean something isn't a grassroots movement. Do you think any other grassroots movement doesn't have large donors?

The largest donor in this case was $1M...do you think there weren't any million dollar donors for BLM or Bernie Sanders?

I also see it as a chicken and egg problem. Do we fault a 'grassroots' movement for becoming big enough to get donor money? Or do we fault a 'grassroots' movement because it was launched by donor money?

In any event, big money just seems like a necessary evil for any impactful social/political movement, sadly.

Was there big money donors for the 60’s civil rights movement? I don’t think it had billionaire backing but I might be mistaken.

Billionaires no...but he did fundraise for his movement and put all of the money he got for his noble prize into it as well. Lets not confuse the 60's civil rights movement with anything going on today though...there is a lot more shadow money with today's activist movements on both sides of the political spectrum.

the question also arises as to whether the tea party would have been more populist and more rightwing if the funders had not been billionaires...or whether an alternate and more rightwing populist movement would have arisen if the tea party had been there and funded by the rich

It popped up almost instantly when Obama was elected. Nothing that pops up fully formed that rapidly is grassroots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com