How to Profit from Political Campaign Donations

 

There are a few examples of how any person or business can profit from making political donations. 

Jeff Yass the donor in this case gave $6 million to Mr Abbott, a politician in TX.  Mr. Yass has been called the richest man in Pennsylvania. Yass is a mega-donor having made contributions to controversial lawmakers such as Kentucky’s Republican Sen. Rand Paul, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in addition to Mr. Abbott in TX. In total, he has donated more than $40 million in some form or another to various conservative causes. 

A gambler turned trader he founded SIG with a handful of other people. He has made billions trading stocks and managing funds. His donations go into PACs and Super PACs or directly to campaigns and he expects something in return for those donations. What isn't abundantly clear but after getting $6mil Mr. Abbott adopted a strong opinion about school vouchers and has dedicated his career to fighting this battle for what appears to be Mr. Yass's directive. 

California passed a new minimum wage with one very strange exception, retail bakeries that bake bread on-site. Oddly specific and why would this one exception be made? It seems very strange until you learn that one of the governor's biggest donors owns 24 such locations, that bake bread on-site with around 1,000 employees, who will be the lowest-paid employees in the state. Every hour this donor earns a return on their investment in the governor.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which led to deregulation of the telecom industry, was seen as beneficial to many large telecom companies. These companies were active political donors to campaigns on both sides of the political spectrum. The deregulation allowed for mergers, acquisitions, and expansion that benefited these companies financially. Their investment in a few campaigns continues to pay them a return today. Comcast has a monopoly in many places in America as a direct result of its investment in elections.

The path to profits can be much more direct in terms of "industrial complexes" where the government spends billions on contracts for things like airplanes or bullets for the military. Several industrial complexes put a greater importance on profits than the nation but they fund campaigns so our leaders who are meant to represent the people instead work for those that fund their campaigns. This has been allowed to continue for so long that it has created a new class of ultra-wealthy that controls more and more wealth year after year while the poor get poorer and our imprisoned populations grow as the ruling class criminalizes poverty.

Addiction is a disease that has been criminalized. The very few at the top that made billions from selling opioids suffer no harm while the people impacted by their deception are vilified and incarcerated. Those very few at the very top invested some of those billions into political campaigns, which ones and how much we may never know because dark money is unlimited money.

Taxes and regulations are rather obvious. Mr. Jass is worth $30 billion. If he spends 1% of his wealth to prevent spending 5% of his wealth on taxes it would be a prudent decision but he is actually spending .1% to pay for an effective tax rate that is 5% less than the middle class. It is very cheap to buy influence when so few people can afford it.

The pharmaceutical and healthcare industries are among the largest political donors. They often benefit from policies related to drug approval processes, that allow ultra-wealthy people to sell heroin in a bottle marked safe. They shape patent laws that allow them to charge $700 for $7 worth of medication. That is what makes them an industrial complex. The needs of the for-profit companies are greater than that of the nation.

The intricate relationships between government spending and private industry, particularly in sectors like defense and healthcare, raise important questions about the priorities and values that guide our national policies. The influence these sectors have on policy through political donations speaks to a broader pattern where the interests of the few can outweigh the needs of the many.

As we stand at the crossroads of history, it is clear that the path to a more equitable and just society requires us to rethink and reform how political influence is exerted and regulated. We must strive for a democracy where every voice is heard, not just those amplified by wealth.

Redefining Political Power: The Case for Single-Donor Campaign Financing

In the intricate dance of democracy, where every voice yearns to be heard, the crescendo of political financing often drowns out the symphony of individual voters. When the majority of time and effort campaigning is spent fundraising money equals access.

Imagine a system where transparency isn't just an ideal but a vivid reality. This vision isn't as distant as it may seem. The single-donor campaign financing model offers a revolutionary approach to redefining political power, ensuring that every citizen's voice is amplified, not sidelined. This blog post aims to inspire and motivate us to embrace this novel approach, shedding light on how it could transform our political landscape.

The Beauty of Simplicity and Transparency

At its core, the single-donor model is beautifully simple: one identifiable source funds an entire political campaign. This simplicity is its greatest strength, offering unparalleled transparency in an age where the origins of political contributions often remain shrouded in mystery. In a single stroke, this model peels away the layers of complexity that have long obscured the flow of money in politics.

When we know where every dollar comes from, we reclaim the power to hold our representatives accountable. This model isn't just about financing; it's about fostering a deeper connection between politicians and the people they serve. It's a testament to the belief that in a true democracy, transparency isn't optional—it's fundamental.

Empowering Voices, Not Silencing Them

One of the most profound benefits of the single-donor model is its potential to democratize political participation. For too long, the political arena has been a battleground where only the financially mightiest can compete. This model levels the playing field, allowing candidates to step forward based on the strength of their ideas, not the depth of their pockets.

Imagine a future where diverse voices and innovative ideas flourish, where candidates from varied backgrounds can make their case directly to the electorate without the daunting barrier of fundraising. This is the promise of the single-donor model—a promise of a more inclusive and representative democracy.

A Call to Action: Finding Our Champion

Now, we stand at a crossroads, seeking a champion with the vision and courage to embrace this model. Our goal is to find a single donor, a trailblazer willing to invest in a transparent, equitable political campaign. This isn't just about finding someone with deep pockets; it's about finding someone with a deep commitment to changing the way politics operates.

We recognize that such individuals are rare, but we also know that they exist. These are the visionaries who understand that true profit isn't measured in dollars and cents but in the health and vibrancy of our democratic process. By supporting a single-donor campaign, this pioneer can help ensure that elected officials remain accountable to the people, not to a convoluted web of financial interests.

Join Us in This Revolutionary Journey

We invite you, the electorate, to join us in this revolutionary journey. Your support is crucial in finding our champion and proving that there's a hunger for change. Together, we can demonstrate that transparency, accountability, and inclusivity aren't just lofty ideals but achievable realities.

Imagine the impact of a political campaign where every decision, every policy proposal, is made with the public's interest at heart, unswayed by the multitude of anonymous donors. This is the future we can build together with the single-donor model.

Let's rally behind this novel approach to campaign financing. Let's spread the word, ignite conversations, and kindle the flame of change. Our collective voice can and will find the visionary donor ready to stand with us in redefining political power.

This is more than a campaign; it's a movement towards a brighter, more transparent future in politics. Join us in making this vision a reality. Together, we can transform the landscape of campaign finance and ensure that our democracy remains of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Single Donor Campaign: Legally Speaking

The landscape of campaign finance in the United States has undergone significant transformations, particularly in the wake of landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). These rulings have expanded the boundaries of political speech and independent expenditures, laying the groundwork for innovative approaches to campaign financing, such as the single-donor model. This brief is intended to provide the legal basis for a single-donor political campaign.

Argument I: Legal Foundation and Free Speech

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

• Principle: Distinguished between direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures, highlighting the latter as a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment.
• 
  
• Support for Single-Donor Model: This decision underpins the single-donor model by affirming the constitutional protection of independent political spending, allowing a single donor to contribute to independent expenditure efforts without infringing on free speech.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

• Principle: Extended the right of free speech to corporations and labor unions, allowing for unlimited independent political expenditures.
• Support for Single-Donor Model: By removing limits on independent expenditures by entities, this ruling provides a constitutional basis for the single-donor model, emphasizing the role of transparency over restriction.

Argument II: Enhancing Transparency and Accountability

McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014)

• Principle: Struck down aggregate limits on individual contributions to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees, underscoring the importance of individual freedom in political contributions.
• 
  
• Support for Single-Donor Model: This decision aligns with the model’s aim to simplify and make transparent the sources of campaign finance, suggesting that limitations on individual contributions to independent expenditures may be counterproductive to transparency.

Argument III: Addressing Concerns of Influence and Corruption

While critics argue that the single-donor model could lead to undue influence, the legal framework established by key Supreme Court decisions provides mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability, thus mitigating these concerns.

SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

• Principle: Established the basis for Super PACs to receive unlimited contributions for independent expenditures, reinforcing the distinction between coordinated expenditures and independent expenditures.
• 
  
• Support for Single-Donor Model: This case supports the model by highlighting the effectiveness of transparency and disclosure requirements over contribution limits to combat corruption, aligning with the model’s emphasis on a clear, identifiable source of campaign funds.

Additional Arguments and Rational

Encouragement of Political Innovation and Diversity

Argument: The single-donor model encourages political innovation and diversity by providing candidates with the means to compete on a more level playing field. By reducing the barriers to entry for those without substantial personal wealth or access to a wide network of donors, this model can lead to a more diverse range of candidates and ideas within the political arena.

Rationale: Diverse political representation enriches the democratic process by ensuring a wider array of perspectives and solutions to public policy issues. This diversity can lead to more innovative and inclusive governance.

Strengthened Public Trust in Political Systems

Argument: By making campaign financing more transparent, the single-donor model has the potential to significantly strengthen public trust in the political system. When voters can clearly identify the sources of campaign funding, they are more likely to trust that elected officials are acting in the public's interest rather than being unduly influenced by a multitude of anonymous or opaque donors.

Rationale: Trust in political institutions is foundational to the functioning of a democracy. Enhanced transparency and accountability can lead to increased voter engagement and confidence in electoral processes.

Facilitation of More Focused Policy Debates

Argument: The clarity and simplicity of financing under the single-donor model could lead to a political landscape where candidates spend less time fundraising and more time engaging in substantive policy debates and discussions. This focus on policy over fundraising could improve the quality of political discourse and voter engagement.

Rationale: Campaigns often require candidates to dedicate a significant portion of their time to fundraising activities. A single-donor model could free up candidates to concentrate on policy development and voter interaction, potentially leading to more informed and engaged electorates.

Reducing the Risk of Corruption

Argument: While concerns about undue influence are valid, the single-donor model's inherent transparency significantly reduces the risk of corruption compared to systems with numerous anonymous or hard-to-trace contributions. With only one donor, it becomes easier for watchdog groups, the media, and the public to monitor and hold the donor and candidate accountable.

Rationale: The direct line of sight to the donor simplifies the enforcement of existing campaign finance laws and enhances the ability of regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Simplification of Regulatory Compliance and Oversight

Argument: A single-donor approach simplifies the process of regulatory compliance and oversight for both candidates and election authorities. The straightforward nature of this funding mechanism reduces the administrative burden associated with tracking and reporting numerous small contributions from a wide array of sources.

Rationale: Simplified compliance can lead to more resources being allocated toward policy development and campaigning, rather than administrative tasks. Additionally, election authorities can more effectively monitor compliance, ensuring that campaign finance laws are adhered to more consistently.

Conclusion

The single-donor model represents a novel approach to campaign finance that is grounded in the principles of free speech, transparency, and accountability as affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Through the precedents set by Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and subsequent rulings, this model finds its legal justification, offering a pathway to reduce the influence of undisclosed money in politics while democratizing access to political participation. By focusing on the simplicity and transparency of having a single identifiable source of campaign funds, the single-donor model seeks to enhance the integrity of the political process, ensuring that campaign financing serves to bolster rather than undermine democratic principles.

This brief supports the contention that within the current legal and regulatory framework of campaign finance in the United States, the single-donor model not only aligns with constitutional protections of free speech but also advances the goals of transparency and accountability essential for a healthy democracy.

Climate CHANGED

Yes, the climate has changed that's why it must be a top priority in the upcoming election. 

Threat to Public Health

Climate change is already causing significant harm to public health, including increased air pollution, more frequent heat waves, wildfires, and the spread of disease-carrying pests such as ticks and mosquitoes. These impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and low-income communities.

The largest ever wildfire in the state of TX can be linked to climate change. We have seen the "fire season" get longer in duration and larger in size as more acres burn year after year. We are seeing diseases spread to new areas by insects that are moving due to climate change. 

These factors have a tremendous economic burden as do the other impacts of climate change that are also significant. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and wildfires, are becoming more frequent and severe, leading to billions of dollars in damages and economic losses. These costs are borne by taxpayers, businesses, and insurance companies and all have ripple effects throughout the economy. 

The 2015 wildfire season was the largest on record, with more than half of the burned acres in Alaska. The 2015 fire season was 54% higher than the 10-year average and 133% higher than the long-term average. In 2016, over 6,900 fires burned an area of over 669,000 acres across California. The Soberanes Fire, which lasted 12 weeks and cost over $250 million to fight, was the costliest in California history. In 2017, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) reported 66,131 fires that burned 9,781,062 acres, which is the third most. Year after year, disaster after disaster the problem continues to get worse and cost more money. 

Either there is very good money in fighting these fires, so much so that political kickbacks ensure the problem continues or our elected leaders fail to understand or appreciate the severity of the problem. Either way, they have failed and must be replaced, now.

National Security

Climate change is also a threat to national security, as it can exacerbate conflicts over resources such as water and food, and can lead to displacement and migration. In addition, extreme weather events can disrupt critical infrastructure such as power grids and transportation systems, creating security vulnerabilities.

In recent years we have seen extreme cold cripple the power grid in the great state of TX that today is reeling from the largest fire in its history. According to the Pentagon climate change poses "immediate risks" to our national security.  The National Intelligence Council has identified more than 30 U.S. installations that already are facing heightened risks from rising sea levels. The world’s largest naval base, Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, already is experiencing regular tidal flooding, with the prospects of nearly daily flooding by mid-century. Hurricanes and extreme weather can hinder our military readiness, today. It will become untenable in 25 years. 

Addressing the economic cost of our changing climate and supporting our military, and national security are pillars of conservative values.  

In this critical moment, our collective future hangs in the balance, demanding bold action rather than passive acknowledgment. The undeniable impacts of climate change on public health, our economy, and national security underscore the urgent need for transformative leadership willing to confront these challenges head-on. As the upcoming election looms, we must prioritize the health of our planet and our people, recognizing that the cost of inaction far exceeds the investment in prevention and adaptation. Let us rise together, transcending political divisions, to champion a sustainable future for all. Our resolve in this election can be the turning point towards a resilient, equitable world where we not only survive but thrive in harmony with our environment. The time to act is now.

Elevating the Issue of Homelessness in the Upcoming Election

In America today, homelessness stands as a stark and persistent challenge, affecting more than half a million people. This underscores the complexity of homelessness, compounded by poverty, the scarcity of affordable housing, mental health and substance abuse issues. 

Homelessness stems from multiple, intertwined causes:

Economic Insecurity

Poverty and unemployment push individuals towards homelessness, as they struggle to afford housing and basic necessities.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2019, the official poverty rate was 10.5%, representing 34 million people living in poverty in the United States. While this was a decrease from previous years, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 reversed many of these gains, exacerbating conditions leading to homelessness

Affordable Housing Crisis:

The escalating costs of housing leave many unable to secure stable accommodations.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) states in its 2021 report that there is a shortage of 7 million affordable and available rental homes for extremely low-income renters, with only 37 affordable and available homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter households. This scarcity of affordable housing significantly contributes to homelessness among the impoverished and unemployed.

From the graph, we observe a consistent increase in both wages and housing costs from 1970 to 2020. Notably, the rate of increase in housing costs appears to outpace the growth in wages, particularly in the latter decades. This trend suggests that, over time, housing has become a larger financial burden relative to income, potentially contributing to the affordability challenges faced by many Americans today.

Health Challenges

Mental health and substance abuse issues complicate the ability to maintain housing and employment.

Studies indicate that mental health disorders are prevalent among homeless individuals at rates much higher than the general population. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) reports that approximately 30% of people experiencing chronic homelessness have a mental health condition.

When healthcare includes mental healthcare as a nation we directly address homelessness, gun violence, domestic violence, and addiction.

Addressing these root causes is pivotal to effectively combatting homelessness, necessitating policy reforms to enhance access to affordable housing, healthcare, and job training.

The Detrimental Impact of Homelessness

Homelessness inflicts profound negative effects on individuals, communities, and society:

Health Deterioration

Homeless individuals face severe physical and mental health issues, from malnutrition to infectious diseases and psychological disorders.

Homeless populations are at a higher risk for infectious diseases due to overcrowded living conditions and limited access to hygiene facilities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports increased vulnerability to diseases like tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis C, and HIV among homeless individuals compared to the general population.

Public restrooms and sanitation can greatly improve the health of these populations if for some reason housing them is impossible in the wealthiest nation in the world.

Research indicates that homeless individuals face compounded physical and mental health risks, leading to a higher prevalence of co-occurring health conditions. These comorbidities significantly impact life expectancy, with a study in "The Lancet" revealing that the average life expectancy for homeless individuals is approximately 30 years shorter than the general population (Source: "The Lancet", "Premature mortality in homeless populations: A review of the literature").

The risk of violence and victimization is heightened, including assault and exploitation.

 Homelessness imposes economic burdens through increased healthcare and emergency services costs, strains community resources, and impacts environmental well-being.

Understanding the extensive impacts of homelessness is crucial for mobilizing effective interventions and policy measures.

The Imperative for Political Action on Homelessness

The upcoming election presents a vital opportunity to prioritize homelessness, a reflection of our societal values and commitment to human rights. Addressing homelessness is essential for fostering a just and equitable society, improving health outcomes, enhancing community well-being, and bolstering economic productivity. 

We must invest in affordable housing. Affordable housing provides a stable living environment for individuals and families at risk of homelessness. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) emphasizes that the lack of affordable housing is a primary cause of homelessness. By increasing the supply of affordable homes, communities can directly reduce the number of people living without shelter.

Affordable housing is a lever for social mobility, allowing individuals and families to allocate resources towards education, healthcare, and career development rather than disproportionately spending on housing costs. This investment facilitates upward mobility and reduces intergenerational poverty.

Most wealthy people come from wealthy families, same goes for poor folks. Access to affordable housing gives the next generation a chance.

Successful examples from various cities and states demonstrate the effectiveness of comprehensive and collaborative strategies, emphasizing the need for a unified effort involving government, community organizations, and the private sector.

Fiscal responsibility is a pillar of conservative values and it is often cheaper to provide affordable housing than to allow people to remain homeless. 

A study in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" found that providing permanent supportive housing to homeless individuals with chronic illnesses significantly reduced their use of emergency services and hospitalizations, resulting in an average cost savings of $4,745 per person per year.

The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness study reported that the cost of leaving a person homeless averaged $31,065 per year, primarily due to hospitalizations, jail stays, and emergency room visits, compared to $10,051 per year to provide housing and case management services.

We can save billions of dollars each and every year if we provide housing to the homeless. We can reduce spending and uphold our values as good decent people.

In the face of America's escalating homelessness crisis, a stark reflection of systemic failings and socio-economic disparities, the time for action is now. This isn't merely a call for empathy but a demand for strategic, compassionate policymaking that recognizes housing as a fundamental human right, essential for the dignity and well-being of every citizen. The data and stories we've shared illuminate the multifaceted nature of homelessness, rooted in economic insecurity, the affordable housing crisis, and compounded health challenges, each factor weaving into the next to create a tapestry of urgent need.

As we approach a critical juncture in our nation's political landscape, the upcoming election presents an unparalleled opportunity to place homelessness at the forefront of our collective consciousness, to challenge candidates and policymakers to commit to tangible, sustainable solutions. Investing in affordable housing is not just a moral imperative but a fiscal strategy that promises long-term savings and societal benefits, aligning with the principles of fiscal responsibility and human compassion alike.

Let this moment be a turning point, where we, as a nation, affirm our commitment to eradicating homelessness, to fostering a society where every individual has the security of a home, and the support to thrive. We must rally behind policies that offer not just shelter but hope and a pathway to stability for those in need. This is a call to action for all voters, policymakers, and community leaders: to prioritize, advocate for, and implement solutions that address the root causes of homelessness, transforming our collective vision of a just and equitable society into reality. The time to act is now—our shared humanity demands it.