We have no evidence any politicians or journalists were compromised. (Journalists at no-name outlets writing puff pieces is unfortunately banal.) That makes this a crypto story, and one whose victims are particularly unsympathetic at that. Those have a niche. But they aren’t mainstream.
Plenty of people hopelessly throw money at politicians. Most get no remuneration. Again, there is a paranoid subculture that assumes every donation brings legislative power, and for them, this is a relevant story. Most do not because, in most cases, it does not.
Those people throw tens or hundreds of dollars. Not tens of millions of dollars. Big difference.
> Again, there is a paranoid subculture that assumes every donation brings legislative power
No I don't believe the $3 Bernie was asking for would bring any legislative power but $30,000,000?
Nope. I’ve been close to New York, California and Wyoming federal politics for a short bit. There is always someone throwing big money in a bill market. They get suave dinners and photo shoots. But nobody takes what they’re saying seriously. Enough is done, in private, to keep the dollars rolling. But for powerful incumbents, there are more big donors than swing senators. (The non-swing guys can’t push the margin. But they still get dollars, because the point is the photo shoot.)
And there is a certain class of people so naive that they think any individual would give hundreds of millions to a politician with nothing but just good intentions, and that any politician would warrant such a donation purely through being outstanding and Jo able politicians.
Of course I don’t. They’re just raised outside power. They think money buys influence through donations. It doesn’t. They’re being played, and there will eternally be a joker in their seat.
I'm not really a fan of WSJ or NYT but calling them no-name outlets is a bit much.