United States | News & Politics

7213 readers

434 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

165

Lauren Boebert critics cheer as she gets "devastating" fundraising news (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Critics of Republican Representative Lauren Boebert had something to celebrate on Thursday.

Boebert's political rival, Adam Frisch, raised $3.4 million for his campaign in the third quarter of 2023, ratcheting up his cash on hand to $4.3 million. The fundraising was backed by more than 100,000 donations with an average of $32, according to a press release from his campaign. The announcement comes after Frisch outpaced Boebert's fundraising 3-to-1 in the second quarter, when Boebert raised $818,000 to Frisch's more than $2.6 million.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

the most disturbing thing about this story is the idea that whoever has the most money gets to be elected.

It does strongly correlate but it's an open question whether the donations cause the win, or more viable candidates attract more donations. Big donors want to garner favor with and gain access to the winner, after all.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How about neither?

Big donors shouldn't be able to garner favor or gain access to the winner over other interests. And donations certainly shouldn't cause the win.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It would be great to get money out of politics, but that's not the way things are. The game must be played as it is if we are to improve the rules to be more fair and less corrupting. Current law is political money = free speech.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Wealth and power have always had that privilege. It's the very basis on which America was founded. Though it didn't originate in America, and predates it.

Over the centuries we've done minor things to ameliorate it. To whit those with wealth and power have rigged it back twice as hard. As long as capitalism goes unpunished however. That's not going to change.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There's also a question of the donors vs. the actual constituency. Boebert is running in a fairly strong-R district. They voted Trump in 2020 and they've been electing republicans to her seat for more than a decade. If money is an influencing factor, still Frisch is going to need more than Boebert to win.

The donors, on the other hand, could live anywhere. Every Democrat in this country wants Boebert to lose, whereas Republicans are pretty mixed on her. So of course Frisch is going to get more cash, that doesn't mean the people who can actually vote for him, those who live in CO-3, will do so.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This doesn't take into account how close he came to beating her in the last election. Or, at least there's no mention of it in your comment which suggests that it wasn't taken into account.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what's confusing about this: He didn't beat her. The people who voted for her that time are mostly still alive. He has an uphill battle.