[terminalshort]

This is a tired old trope that really has no basis in reality. There have been no large scale policy changes favoring billionaires since the campaign finance laws changed. In two out of the last 3 elections, the major corporate money backed candidate lost. The government is run by the 24 hour news cycle and the attention economy, not by the decree of billionaires. We operate firmly under the tyranny of the majority.

[Esophagus4]

> There have been no large scale policy changes favoring billionaires since the campaign finance laws changed

Just for anyone else reading this comment, it’s pretty wildly incorrect.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61387

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/business/trump-administra...

[terminalshort]

From your own link:

> CBO estimates that as result of P.L. 119-21, U.S. households, on average, will see an increase in the resources available to them over the 2026– 2034 period. The changes in resources will not be evenly distributed among households. The agency estimates that, in general, resources will decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources will increase for households in the middle and toward the top of the income distribution.

That's hardly a picture of billionaires pulling the strings

[Esophagus4]

Going down with this ship, huh?

Care to quote the second one? The one whose byline is “Trump giving hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the ultra wealthy”?

Or will you dismiss that too because it doesn’t explicitly say billionaires?

[terminalshort]

Of course I quoted the CBO instead of some attention grabbing drivel from journalists. Of course tax cuts "give hundreds of billions" to the ultra wealthy because that's who pays all the taxes. It isn't evidence of your childish conspiracy theory that we are all governed by a cabal of billionaires buying elections.

[mmooss]

We could argue that there didn't need to be change, because favoring the wealthy was already the policy: Wealth concentration was already at historic highs. Taxes were already very low, including capital gains tax (the primary source of income for the very wealthy - return on capital is the primary income of capitalists), social safety net relatively underfunded including widespread lack of health care, social and economic mobility dropping, access to higher education relied primarily on family wealth and not grades, access to housing dropping, etc. State governments brag about no income tax, which means they rely on regressive taxes to pay for the common good.

Regardless, I think the parent comment facts are wrong and there there have been massive changes benefitting the wealthy: There have been massive tax cuts for them, reduction in enforcement of financial laws (e.g., by the SEC, etc.), lagging financial regulation of private equity, destruction of consumer protection (such as the CFPB), massive changes in policy and action to benefit the fossil fuel industry including use of the US military, ... there was a big tax law change to benefit SV founders that was advocated here on HN, protectionist measures increasing prices for consumers and giving the benefits to corporations, etc.

[lateforwork]

> the major corporate money backed candidate lost

Elon Musk spent $290 million to elect Trump. Are you saying that had no impact? How do you know this?

[tjwebbnorfolk]

It's widely reported that the democrats spent over twice as much money as Trump. Both parties have their share of big donors, this isn't new, nor is it specific to Elon. It's been this way a long, long time.

[mmooss]

Are those shares equal? It's true that both parties got votes in every state, but that doesn't tell use much.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

Ok at this point I don't know what you're talking about anymore.

[anonymousiam]

Zukerberg spent almost twice that much to get Biden elected.

https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/118th-congress/hou...

[terminalshort]

Both sides have their supporters. Everyone knows that. I'm not going to take your bait to prove a negative. In both 2016 and 2024 Trump raised less money than his opponent (massively less in 2016) and still won.

[lateforwork]

That was a different election.

[irishcoffee]

Trump raised and spent less money in 2024. Full stop.

[lateforwork]

Right, he didn't have as many people giving $10 to $25 instead he had a few billionaires ploughing millions into superpacks.

[irishcoffee]

I don’t like trump. I very much dislike trump.

I don’t see how your point disagrees with what I said.

Mostly though: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-billionaires-publicly-ba...

Headline: More billionaires are publicly backing Kamala Harris than Donald Trump

[mrtesthah]

Citizens United is precisely why we have a majority of politicians following the will of the donor class rather than a majority of actual voters. It’s why we lack universal healthcare, for example, despite 62% of Americans supporting it a year ago, with a similar number supporting raising the minimum wage.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

Regarding the last national election:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fift...

The Court’s decision and others that followed shaped the 2024 election to a greater degree than any that came before it. Most notably, Donald Trump substantially trailed Kamala Harris in traditional campaign donations, which are subject to legal limits and must be disclosed. Yet he was able to compensate for this disadvantage by outsourcing much of his campaign to super PACs and other outside groups funded by a handful of wealthy donors. While such groups had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ads in previous cycles, this was the first time they successfully took on many of the other core functions of a general election presidential campaign, such as door-to-door canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts. Their activities unquestionably would have been illegal before Citizens United.

[terminalshort]

We didn't have universal health care before CU either. It wasn't included in the ACA, before CU. It failed when Clinton tried in the 90s, and it failed every other time anyone tried before that too. You are just using Citizens United as a bogey man for a policy you don't like. You can complain about Trump all you like, but Harris didn't have much less dark money than he did. And Clinton / Biden had double what Trump did in 2016 and 2020. https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

[mrtesthah]

Universal health care wasn't as popular back then as it is now, so that's to be expected:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

This isn't about who wins campaigns -- this is about who influences the issues they campaign on. Since the Citizens United decision politicians have had to switch to the Super PAC model to be competitive, which gives drastically more power to dark money donors. And unsurprisingly, as cited in that study, the influence of average citizens on politics has been completely surpassed by businesses and economic elites:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

[terminalshort]

2000 - 64% 2025 - 64%

Doesn't matter anyway because the poll doesn't mean shit. Most people are idiots and will answer the poll completely differently if you actually give them a realistic question like "would you accept a major tax increase to get universal healthcare?"