Influencing an Election | Campaign Finance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ธ.ค. 2019
- With our never-ending election cycle, the constant state of political advertising is rightfully under scrutiny.
Check out CuriosityStream at www.curiositystream.com/knowin...
Get a free subscription to Nebula and use the promo code "knowingbetter" for your first month free!
Website ► knowingbetter.tv
Store ► standard.tv/knowingbetter
Patreon ► / knowingbetter
Paypal ► paypal.me/knowingbetter
Twitter ► / knowingbetteryt
Twitch ► / knowingbetteryt
Facebook ► / knowingbetteryt
Instagram ► / knowingbetteryt
Reddit ► / knowingbetter
---
Professor Politics video on Money's Influence in Politics
How Much Does a Politician Cost? - • How Much Does a Politi...
Dark Money (2018) - amzn.to/2MDcMDG
www.huffpost.com/entry/56-yea...
www.opensecrets.org/overview/...
www.fec.gov/introduction-camp...
www.opensecrets.org/news/2019...
ivn.us/2013/11/15/what-is-a-5...
money.howstuffworks.com/quest...
www.opensecrets.org/dark-mone...
www.washingtonpost.com/politi...
www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/ma...
www.nationalreview.com/2018/1...
www.politico.com/news/2019/12...
metrocosm.com/2016-election-sp...
www.propublica.org/article/ir...
www.opensecrets.org/news/2019...
---
Video Credits -
Stock Footage from Dreamstime.com
• Energy Citizens | Powe...
• We Are America's Gener...
Photo Credits -
www.flaticon.com/free-icon/fa...
www.flaticon.com/free-icon/fe...
www.flaticon.com/free-icon/of...
s3-prod.adage.com/s3fs-public...
---
Intro/Outro and Background Music by Michael Cotten/Nomad
www.mwcotten.com
Spotify ► open.spotify.com/album/0zCYP8...
Amazon ► amzn.to/2zbsfHd
Intro Art and Channel Avatar by PoetheWonderCat
/ thatcatnamedpoe
---
Hashtags: #politics #election #campaignfinance #superpac #pac #campaignfinancereform #political #citizensunited #softmoney #darkmoney #contribution #election2020
---
This video was sponsored by CuriosityStream.
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
I am in favor of getting rid of the penny, as I've said in many previous videos.
I wanted to show examples of SuperPAC ads, but I couldn't find any that weren't obviously partisan. So I made my own. I figured this was a pretty low-stakes issue and nobody would get too mad; and it was way more fun to think of absurd arguments to keep the penny.
Knowing Better I’m super fond of the penny....unsubbing.
J/K can’t wait for the new video!
You should collab with John green he also hates pennies
#AndrewYang2020 wants to get ridd of the penny. :)
Why dont you like pennies lol
☆I have my whole Army Platoon (is) watching your vids. and subscribed☆
And here I am, sitting in Germany, realizing I have not even the faintest clue how *our* campign finance system works.
Best to learn
gute frage ich weis es auch nicht seltsam oder?
Google es doch einfach.
Hahaha, i understand our's in Austria but a lot of politicians just don't comply with the rules.
It's very similar. Lobbying is a global system now.
"They closed the loop hole and just let them use the regular hole"
Lmfao
Catholic girls...
@@yadidimeanmaine Garfunkel and Oates - The Loophole :P
llo
When bi's dump a guy for a woman
@@swanstarr1441 lol
"Printing fliers for your anti littering campaign" oh the irony.
At least they're not for saving the trees!
It's not litter if it's purposefully attached to something.
Handing out fliers - "Here, You throw this away"
I've accused the local newspaper of littering after they threw a paper into my yard on multiple occasions. Apparently it was their idea of advertising. "See, we can throw garbage at you that you have to clean up! Don't you want to pay for this service?" Apparently they paid for a law that lets them litter on anyone's lawn, and we have to ask nicely for them not to do it.
One does not simply fly from New York to California to protest against Fossil Fuels.
When I say “too much money in politics” what I really mean is “politicians appear to spend their time listening to their big donors, not their constituents.” How we can effectively prevent that isn’t clear to me, but it is clear that money is the root cause of it.
More grassroots PACs and even SuperPACs from regular everyday citizens and funded by regular everyday citizens seems to be the answer.
I mean like, the NRA does have memberships, so it is pretty obvious to see that at a significant part of that money really is grassroots citizens who donate for the service of protecting the Second Amendment. They get money from gun manufacturers sure, but I think people forget how grassroots the organization is as well.
More organizations that focus purely on citizen donations is the most honest way to generate funds.
Of course, maybe the big evil donors really are just ourselves and we pretend that these PACs and SuperPACs are funded only by cackling evil rich men who wear monocles, top hats, and curly mustaches.
More grassroots PACs and even SuperPACs from regular everyday citizens and funded by regular everyday citizens seems to be the answer.
I mean like, the NRA does have memberships, so it is pretty obvious to see that at a significant part of that money really is grassroots citizens who donate for the service of protecting the Second Amendment. They get money from gun manufacturers sure, but I think people forget how grassroots the organization is as well.
For some reason, KB didn't mention public financing of elections as an option, when pretty much all developed democracies use some form of it, or at least a hybrid system where public funding makes up a sizeable chunk. With publicly financed elections, it would be possible to just ban all private contributions for electioneering purposes across the board. That would mean individuals, corporations, unions and PACs.
I don't agree with some of Andrew Yang's ideas, but his idea for "democracy dollars" really appeals to me. The jist is, every voter gets a $100 voucher to spend however they like on candidates and/or direct ballot initiatives (campaigns for or against).
@@jasongibson1225 that wouldn't work
I know I'm years late, but the best solution I could see in all of this would be to make sure none of it is dark money. Transparency won't get all of us more voice, but it can tell us who is shouting the loudest. That and better enforcement, like KB said.
“Pennies cost too much to make”
I see that mug, this is a reverse psychology ad and you are clearly in the pocket of Big Pizza John.
The best comments
Not to be confused with Papa Johns.
Who is Big Pizza John and should I fear him?
@@greenmario3011 John Green of the Vlogbrothers
@@greenmario3011 John Green of Vlogbrothers did a great vid years ago about how expensive it is to make pennies vs. the worth they have in $$. John Green sold T shirts with his face with the words "Pizza John"
I think the main problem comes down to "While everyone has a voice, some voices have better platforms. Since money can buy better platforms, voices with more money can usually overwhelm voices with less money, without having to actually silence them."
It raises an odd question, "Can more speech ever be less speech?"
In a way, yes, because in an attention economy, speech is a zero sum game. If one person gets more, someone else is getting less.
Absolutely true.
However, the ones spending the most might surprise you. Knowing Better hinted to it in the video.
This is the whole point. Using the excuse of free speech, who has more resouces has more influence in politics too, preserving and reinforcing their position of power.
due to rigid education, low morale, or cult party followings within the population, all ads can focus on captivation
Came for reinforcement of my preconceived ideology, left more informed instead. DAMN YOU!
“Hi, I’m Knowing Better, and welcome to ‘Everything’s F*kin Complicated’...”
They made it that way.
Exactly - made me think (strike 1), and depressed me by forcing me (to think - see 1) to realize that fighting the Corptocracy (which is also F*kin Complicated - strike 2 related to 1) is much, much harder than I had hoped.
Still - that is only 2 strikes, so Knowing Better did not strike out with me. :D
Wait - the 'depressed me' is strike 3. AND - strike 4 - made me do maths.
Actually, the penny political ads were very entertaining - so subtract 2 strikes.
"Closed the loophole and used their regular ones" 😂😂🤣🤣
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
more like poophole amirite
hangukhiphop yes that is the joke, congratulations
"Social welfare organizations, such as the NRA."
ok
Legally, they're a Social welfare organization. Though I doubt KnowingBetter truly believes they're actually a social welfare organization
@Luís Filipe Andrade You should read up on something called The "Straw Man Fallacy", a pair of glasses should probably be included as well.
They teach gun safety and gun information
@@jacobschweiger5897 They USED to teach gun safety and responsible gun ownership. They are now nothing more than a shill for the gun manufacturers who are the biggest source of their 'contributions'. Can it be proven? You just gave the justification for complete disclosure of all donations over $100.
@@redmeat4vegans62 when did they stop doing that about four years ago I was on a boy scout trip and some NRA members taught us how to shoot rifles the national company is a shill corporation but that's the case for most political corporations
Please never shy away from presenting facts without knowing a solution. Just knowing that things are complicated helps us to not come down so hard on people who hold opinions on these issues which differ from our own. Thank you very much for doing this video!
The transition to talking about CuriosityStream was smooth af
Now I finally realize what Mitt Romney meant when he said, "I'm rich! I've got fat stacks and super PACs!"
That last part always confused me, but it was heat!
We all know what went down in that 2008 election
me_high_low27 your a decent politician with a winning complexion
right but as you saw in the graphs, he got rocked by Obama in fundraising anyway
That you'll shut your mouth
"Vote no on Order 66"
Damn, imagine the Jedi that would've lived if people would've just voted no.
Well I mean, on the initial decision to make Palpatine the head of the senate, that might have actually worked
People of the galaxy by the end of the clone wars really hate the jedi
"the issue isn't really money in politics, it's money in politics you disagree with. because if you agree it's not politics"- knowing better 2019. I love this insight.
actually he kind of lost me there. I think the problem is the fact that individuals have vastly different power to influence candidates based on the individuals' wealth. Just because you have more money, that doesn't mean you should have more political say (or at least, that is my belief). So then it doesn't matter how much money in total there is in politics, but how much each citizen can leverage for their political voice, and in order for it to be "fair" that amount should be the same for everyone
@@zatcity I mean, you hate free speech then, at least as it is defined by the US constitution. This is basically the logical conclusion of what Knowing Better proposes, but he is too much of a brainwashed lib to understand it. Lenin was right to fucking ban them from spreading their bullshit to the public.
However, using this statement, we can somewhat create a metric for the degree of something being political. Because in the near-zero occasion that everyone agrees on something, this statement defines it as not being political in a global sense. But amount of agreement and amount of overall apathy can give a sense of what something means to be political. At maximum 'political-ness' one could say everyone cares and it's split down the middle across all demographics. If we were to create a measure, it would then be more possible to reduce the problem to some threshold or function of a threshold. However, devising this system and considering all the interacting possibilities makes this no easy task by any means. This is on top of implementing such a system being politics in of itself. But perhaps it would bring some structure to just regular conversation about how political something is. I don't like the notion that 'everything is political so this would destroy free speech entirely'. It might be true that it's impossible to solve due to mathematical intractability. But I don't want to make that statement and just call it a day.
I simply think its waste of money. But think companies/ppl waste money on alot of useless crap.
@@ZenobiaofPalmyra nah you're just another bootlicker who barely made it out of high school
“Order 66”? So pennies are Jedi?
From my point of view the pennies are evil!
Nico Bruin
THEN YOU ARE LOST
You can't vote no on it, because Palpatine IS THE SENATE
I have the cent ground.
I cents the force is strong with this one.
In my Junior year gov't class, our teacher had us write a report on what the Citizen's United vs. FEC ruling was about and its effects. Quite literally, nobody got higher than a C on that report because every piece of information given to us was confusing and poorly worded. The teacher herself said that nobody was even close to having a decent understanding, but we had to move on after she tried to explain it and failed.
I feel like that was a missed opportunity to show how political interests will warp things to make them as favorable to their goals as possible.
my problem lies with the “money is speech”. it implies some people should have more of a voice than others
I agree. The moral right that the wealthy have a stronger say simply by right of being wealthy, not more educated or vested, is a flawed perception and my issue with the entire discussion of lobbying and campaign finance. I reject that perspective and until we begin to have a mental shift away from having capital as the determining factor of worth we cannot have a good faith discussion about "money in politics."
If money is speech, free speech is a right, and all men were created equal...
#redistribution
@@bricknolty5478, if money is speech and we have free speech we should have free money too. 🤷♂️
The "money is speech" is a strawman. No one is saying money is speech. The government just cant financially sanction someones speech. Which was what Citizens United was really about.
How do you limit someone's spending tho? Without infringing on their rights??
I'm the land of the free, with free speech: I can spend 1M$ on a TV ad that said whatever I want.... How do you stop me? Or I can host a dinner for all my neighbors and talk about candidate x or Y...how do you stop this?
How you tied in your campaign for pennies to CuriosityStream letting you keep the penny was pure comedic genius. Way to put it all together! 🤣
I feel like this may actually be the most complicated issue you've ever covered
The American Healthcare System was more complex.
@@NordeGrasen34 The healthcare one had a definitive conclusion. This one ends in I donno what we could do
An idea like Yang’s proposed Democracy dollars could be a solution. There instead of trying to silence heavy donators they give the common man more of a voice by giving $100 to every citizen. This money can only be given as hard money to your favorite candidate, if you don’t spend it you lose it. If everyone were to use the money that’s $30 billion in contributions. You can read up the details of it on Yangs website. I’m not saying that this is THE solution, it’s just one way to go about it. Let me know what you think.
Ngl I read this as “influencing electrons”
Nini G everyone did
I read that the same too and thought this was going to be about quantum physics
At least the electrons don't have libertarian politics
I thought it was erections but close enough
I hate it when my car steals my god damm electrons. Ban LDFs!
I think Andrew Yang's 'Democray Dollars' seem like an interesting solution to this for me. Rather than dealing with the issue of what a 'good corporation' vs a 'bad corporation' is, the idea is to give every American $100 a year as a voucher to give to the candidate of their choice, which would simply render the amount of money from ill-intentioned sources irrelevant compared to the sheer size of the US population.
Like you said, the total amount of money in politics is actually not as much as commonly thought, so this seems like a reasonable idea.
According to Yang's website, it's been very effective in Seattle, though I don't live there so I can't confirm that.
I don't usually agree with Yang but this is pretty innovative
Now we just gotta figure out where to get that $100 from which is like 10 further steps lol
I like Yang's idea a lot. I like the idea of any form of public financing in elections. KB makes some good points about private money in politics - where do you draw the line? Who gets to contribute, who doesn't and how much? It's quite thorny.
There are no good answers to these questions and I think circumventing them altogether is the only logical answer. That means banning all private contributions in electioneering across the board. I'm talking individuals, corporations, unions, PACs and super PACs.
I was very surprised that KB didn't even mention public financing of elections as an option, since nearly all developed democracies use some form of it, or at least a hybrid system where public funding makes up a good chunk of the money spent on elections. He's usually more thorough than that.
So the issue is that we actually _have_ public campaign finance for presidential elections. Remember that little check-box on your tax return for the $3 matching fund? That goes into a pool that's available for qualifying presidential candidates (both for the primary and general elections). However, candidates who accept the public funding have to agree to several rules. Candidates can't accept any private funds (such as from individuals, their party, or PACs) and are limited to how much they get from the public grant (in 2020, it was $103.7 million). None of the candidates have accepted this public funding for years, at this point, because they can get more money through traditional fundraising. Bush 2 (2000) was the first candidate to refuse public funding for the primaries, and Obama (2008) was the first to refuse all public funds altogether.
It's also worth noting that $100 for each American, or even just each eligible voter, is an absurd amount of money. Even if we just let eligible voters designate that $100, that totals about $24 *billion* of public election expenditures, which is pretty wild.
(Also, Andrew Yang sucks. There. I said it. Don't @ me.)
Something giving everyone an equal amount to help the candidate of their choice, at least presidentially, seems like the fair way to go. And something like the voucher would make it so that those that couldn't normally afford to financially help a candidate, will get an equal voice and be of equal importance. It would also help other parties grow and have a chance at standing next to the two party system.
These are the kinds of videos I love from this channel. I don't care if the creator has an opinion or not. I just hate when I feel like I'm being manipulated rather than informed. I'll take a thorough explanation of an issue over a meme or sound bite or simple solution any day. Thank you for your research and cautious analysis.
Haven’t seen the whole clip yet but I LOVE the “Lucifer” on one shoulder and “On Becoming a God” on the other
I never noticed that, thanks for pointing it out.
With Lucifer on his left shoulder. Interesting how he shifts, exposing one then the other.
I was about say just this. Love that attention to detail
20:35 "... that means you can't go print flyers for your anti-litter campaign"
Thanks for that chuckle
16:38
The difference is that the top question advertises what management wants while the bottom question advertises what the workers want. 75.7% of people polled agree that we should have more union advertising.
Did you miss the part afterwards where he mentioned how a company could offer incentives to employees to push the corporations agenda or
I was looking for this comment.
The government works (or, should work, at least), to help the people, not the corporations. Mr. Top-Hat spending billions so he gets his way in law no matter what is quite different from people saying what would help the people.
(Re: people equals literally everyone but the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, and their respective shills.)
You’re a literal gay communist. You’re not an American
This isn't an issue with money in politics--it's an issue with money.
But bartering is inherently backward.
You have really inspired me as a creator I just wanna say Thank you! You do great work
I love you!
@@jerrylintz6227 ❤
I just subscribed (and clicked the bell yadda yadda....)
@@rachel_sj Thank you!
I think what you are after, is limiting the money stream from "for profit"-corporations in politics?
I think that might have to be the distinction.
The problem is that companies like apple and amazon are techniclly non profit since they dont have one in the eyes of the us treassury. So apple could influence politics even though it still ranks a profit
@@stefanoraffo5096 Source?
@@stefanoraffo5096 It would still be for profit as they are public companies tho?
It doesn't sound hard to work around from the information in the video.
@Stefano Raffo a company that loses money is still a for-profit company..
This kind of video is why I like your content. Well researched, nuanced, reasonable and not "the sky is falling".
Andrew Yangs “democracy dollars” idea can help get corporate money out of politics while giving everyone a chance to contribute regardless of income 🙌🏽
Was really hoping that Knowing Better would endorse Yang here, although I knew it was a long shot 🧢
Juan Morales it’s a cheesy and dumb name but a wonderful idea. Public campaign vouchers have been in use in Washington state with success!
No it can't. People who need more money wont spend it on political campaigns. People who dont need it (the rich and well off) just get extra money to use frivolously or on their own political issues and ultimately land lords benefit the most because they can all charge just a little bit more. Its asinine and paying for it with a VAT tax means that the cost just gets passed to consumers. Yang cares about his tech bro buddies not the poor.
@@TheEnoEtile (If too long, read the conclusion at the end of the comment)
Two things to break down here.
The democracy dollars (which is more relevant to this video) is a $100 stipend that every adult gets that can *only* be donated to political campaigns. It's not transferable to anything else and it doesn't carry over to the next year. I'm not 100% sure about the exact details, such as whether this is annual, if it can only be used for presidential elections, etc, but the idea is still clear. This is meant to replace the influence of for-profit corporations and other groups, with the influence of the people. Quick math. Assume 40% of adults use their allowance (that's approximately the amount of people who vote). 200 million adults in the U.S. That's about 8 billion dollars coming from the people (although it's technically tax dollars). That's enough to make the impact of corporate dollars in politics mostly negligible. It also helps candidates who are popular with lots of people but don't have big dollar donors actually stand a chance against the bigger names in politics. People like Democrat Tulsi Gabbard this year, or Republican Rick Santorum of 2016, stand a chance against the established names in politics.
Second.
Although Yang answers it many many times in interviews, I'll sum it up here. Giving people $1k a month will not raise prices very much. This is still capitalism. If you sell a hammer for $50 and Home Depot sells it for $10, you'll be ran out of business. This forces all businesses to price goods competitively. Where this doesn't always apply is health Care, education, and to a lesser extent, housing. He has separate plans for education and health care. Read his website. For housing the idea is that land lords still need to be somewhat competitive, but if many of them raise the price then you're screwed. However, $1k a month allows people to be more flexible, so they can move to a better housing market or a group of people can pool their extra money together to buy their own property.
Conclusion
The "Freedom Dividend" is multiplicative to the economy. Although it is a handout to people, it is the sort of handout that goes directly back into the economy. Amazon pays more in taxes, but they're also getting more business because people have more money to spend on Amazon. It's a bit of a win win. Also, "Democracy Dollars" are a separate policy. If I suck at explaining things, which I know I do, then go to his website or watch a few interviews with Yang. The longer the better. He has one with David Axelrod, one with Joe Rogan, 2 with H3H3 podcasts, and many others. The debates and cable network interviews don't do him justice because he doesn't have enough time to get the details of his policy across to people. Other candidates with no substantive policy thrive on sound bite media. Yang does not.
@@alexmueck8558 no one says the prices will rise that much but they still will and the 1000$ won't do a lot of shit
I was blown away when I read the ACLU's opinion of the Citizen's United ruling (they're FOR it!). They explained it so differently from what I had heard, so I started reading.
Great year of Knowing Better videos, can't wait for what is in store for 2020!
Thank you for the amazing content mate.
16:45 Well, when you say 'company' I interpret that as the owners, or at least people on the board. Their goals are often totally at odds with the general working force. Since, you know, what's good for the business, lowering wages, cutting benefits, raising quota's and the like is generally bad for the rank and file employees.
Very honest, well-researched, and nuanced video, elucidating an issue which kinda “feels wrong” but which perhaps people don’t know as much as they should about. Thank you!
A lovely Christmas present from my favourite TH-camr. Keep up the good work and let's hope the next decade will bring lots of new content for this channel
2:00 Look dad, I'm famous! are you finally proud of me
You had any trust before?
@@TBFSJjunior I was hoping Obama could appoint some good people, but yeah, that didn't happen the way I thought
You’re stuff is always so good. I love your effort as well as what and how you present the information!
FIRST: Vote Bernie.
SECOND: Yang has a great idea for an alternative to this issue. Every citizen gets $100 "Democracy Dollars", thus ensuring that only individuals can donate. So if a candidate appeals to 1,000 people, they would receive $100,000 Democracy Dollars to finance their campaign. Might have a few kinks to work out, but I like the idea that it would require direct involvement by each citizen.
First: Yang
Second: Yang
Third: Mickey mouse
Fuck yang
That doesn't really address the super PAC issue.
@@donalny It doesn't but according to Yang It'll counter PAC money 8:1
@@egoquid8848 unless a rich person does something like...buy a media outlet to bombard people with messages to use their supplement to donate to his cause. Like what happens already.
My favorite part of waking up on a Sunday is the potential of seeing a knowing better video.
It's been a while since I first saw this, and my perspective on a lot of things has changed. At 16:31, I think the difference between these two questions is significant, in one respect.
A company, or its leadership attempting to advance a political cause is already commonplace, and the results are predictable. They often succeed, enough that major traditions of this era such as bacon and egg breakfasts are almost entirely a result of deliberate corporate influence. These are people who already have power and influence, attempting to secure more.
Meanwhile, the workers attempting to do something similar on the surface, would have very different effects. Odds are they don't want personal power, they'd push for better working conditions and things that place more demand on their company, rather than pushing for more influence for themselves and their product.
Even in a worker owned business where everyone was a worker and owner, you're not going to get as much corruption. The desires of the company would be tethered to the desires of the workers, rather than the desires of people being molded to benefit a product and its producer.
This is the kind of actual informative, issue-focused content we need more of in the US. Thank you.
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you friends! :)
There's an obvious difference between "you and your coworkers" and "a company" forming a PAC: the company has access to far more resources than you and your coworkers could ever imagine having access to. People don't just oppose corporate contributions solely because "corporations bad". They oppose it because they realize a corporation is much more powerful than a group of workers could be.
There really isn't a limit tho, that's what you don't understand. A corporation is just 2 or more people coming together Todo something...they could be buying their mother's house, or speaking about getting candidate X elected...or digging for oil
But there all just corporations
There is a significant difference between the scenarios posed at 16:32 . The top one would further the interest of the corporation. The bottom one would address the interests of the workers which are not necessarily aligned. For example, the company could be lobbying to be able to pay workers less while workers are trying to increase their pay. Given the size of the megaphone the company's money gives it versus the one the workers salary provides that presents a problem for a true democracy. Not to mention the insult to injury from the fact that the company would be effectively using the profit from the labor of the workers to pay them less. Also, looking at the purpose and function of the corporation could help set rules. Money does change positions look at Mayor Pete after he got that Healthcare insurance money.
Thank you for this video. My depression is really high today. Your voice and this narrative was a few minutes of relief. I’m a disabled marine engineer. Injured on ship.
Hang in there, bro
Always good to see a new video from you.
16:51 hold on now. This is a huge difference because a company can do something against the interest of all (100%) of it's employees. Just because the shareholders or owners decide to. Whereas individual workers pooling money are clearly acting in their own interests with the fact they are co-workers being completely coincidental to the fact that they are advocating something in their interests.
This is why I love this channel. I want to know as much as possible what it is that I don't know. The world is not simple, and treating it as though it is is foolish, and seems to have caused some problems.
Good video man, extremely interesting and relevant! Keep it up
As always, an informative and excellent production.
Thank you for this video, this is a topic I never understood until now (even after taking government classes) and I thank you for helping to clear it up. (Plus I love all the satirical humor)
Now, we can end the year right! 🎊
Thanks Knowing Better. 😉
The difference at 17:00 is that a group of co-workers getting paid out to support a political group doesn't scale anywhere near as well as it is currently. This would also require all the members of a company to either agree with the statement, or be individually paid off. The scenario put forward is good, because it distributes the power money can buy, and requires more people to consent to money being given to specific causes
Honestly, I think that this is one of the best videos that I've watched on this channel. Good job.
I do enjoy your videos, but what I look forward to most is the ≈30 seconds of ferret shenanigans at the end. I think this ferret clip is my favorite.
This man gotta make a podcast, I would listen to that all day.
In my country, parties have to pay for their own campaigns. They fund these only through donations from private individuals, which have a ceiling on the amount you're allowed to donate. Everyone has one mind and one voice. Companies are not people. It's not that hard.
Just apply the same limit to corporations bruh
@douglas wahid They have one mind and one voice, there's just more than one person using them. it's essentially a timeshare setup really.
...
Joke Disclaimer: Schizophrenia is the single worst psychiatric disorder you can have and people who have it deserve sympathy and better treatment options.
Welcome back. Ive been anxiously waiting
LOVE THE CGP GREY REFERENCE! good job man, its why i watch you
I would really love to see your take on the electoral college.
Anyone else notice he used a *WEASEL* as the generic mascot for 'political party?' Very apropos.
It's more likely a nod to our host's pet ferret and not a weasel. Still a funny thought though!
Very well made video! Love the points brought up.
I’m about to watch this for the thirst time. Great video, KB. Keep up the awesomeness
Love the content - sorry I fell so far behind on these! I think the first step we should take is to have 100% of donations and donators information made public. Like you said the issue isn't really the rules (which are hard to get right) but enforcing the rules we already have. The more light that is shined on people and companies, the more likely they will behave in a manner that is socially acceptable!
Keep up the good work!!
-Shawn
imagine deciding how to run your country
-this post was made by non multi-billion dollar organizations
Really good video. You are very good at explaining just how complicated many simple things really are.
Great video covering the nuances of this topic. Learned a lot.
that intro was fabtacular.
Edit: lead-in to the outro was also speculous.
Well, I guess I know what im doing for the next half hour. What a fantastic morning!
I really appreciated and liked this video, it’s one of the subjects I knew the least about before watching, and I think I learned a good bit. thanks!
Hey man! I just want to thank you for your sensible work to educate us. 🙂👍
Thank You for making the distinction between Bribery and Campaign Spending. If real corruption hit we wouldn't have the language to describe it.
It's a good day
Edit: Dog grooming is a necessary service that is directly involved with animal health.
Yeah dog grooming isn't just buttons and bows, it's also making sure your dog is clean. If you don't have a ton of time for your pets then I think it would be a very helpful service, if you're there for your pets and a good dog owner, then you shouldn't need a groomer.
So you're telling me dogs have been getting sick for the millions of years they have existed because they didn't have dog groomers? ....riiiiight....
Let me guess, you're a dog groomer?
no, it is not a "necessary service". It is necessary to perform if you own a pet. Nobody demands you have to (be able to) hand this over to a business to do for you.
If hairdressers would be made illegal, shaving/beard trimming etc. up to and including washing would not stop to be expected for personal hygiene ;-p
Maybe if you do not feel comfortable to clean up your little animal pal with your own hands you should not OWN a pet.
Weird I've known lots of people with healthy happy long lived pets that never paid a groomer.
watching your ferrets at the end of a video always brings a smile to my face.
and I guess the topic you covered was interesting too
you're doing a great job, i really enjoy your videos.
I am not American so I don’t have much to say here. But am I the only one who thinks that the background music is too loud?
It was pretty loud in this one.
A lawyer talked about this too. This has to be discussed in order to be understood. Nice info.
The nail has been firmly stricken upon its head. Thank you.
Dude. Love your channel!
We need to get money out of dog grooming!
the username fits this comment
Big Dog is trying to suppress the truth! This is all a conspiracy! He's a good boy though, such a boy.
I like the John Green coffee mug 😂
Very informative and good to get a handle on the full picture.
lol that Curiosity Stream segway was awesome :D
I think a line can objectively be drawn, there, for those two polls you mention at 16:35. company run adds defend the interests of a smaller group (the CEO an his board, independently of what its workers would want) with bigger resources, while workers run adds defend the interests of a bigger group, with less resources. It goes against the spirit of democracy.
I guess a way to limit Corporate donation would be by putting a cap proportional to the amount of people that are their, donor and or members, or owners depending of the kind of corporation they are.
You would like to draw a line there but can you actually think of a way it would work?
Offer employees a large enough incentive (like a bonus mentioned in the video) and they'll support whatever group you'd like.
Plus CEO/Board represent all shareholders, a group that may vastly outnumber employees. You may end up giving them more power if you want a system that limits contributions proportionally to the number of people they represent.
@@johnm91326 The incentive thing is still a second hand thing and there is a way to not be stupid about it, and for the Union of those workers to realise that what the CEO want their workers to support might go against the worker's interest. There are, objectively, more safeguard there than a CEO directly providing support to politicians. I am not saying those safeguard will never fail, but they are there nevertheless. Union can also band to forbid the corporations of such practices.
As for Shareholder, the proportional cap per owners could be set to only start counting owners who have an ownership of, for example, at least 5%. That reduce the amount to 20 people at most. Or, if 5% is too high, set is at 1%, making it 100 people at most.
@@leGUIGUI 1% is absurdly high, in the case of Amazon you think almost $10B is equal to one employee? Think how many millions of self funded retirees who rely on these investments would be ignored.
You also have a very us vs them attitude, if all employees already have views aligned to a particular party surely said part would win by a landslide anyway. If not then changes like this would have no affect (expect heart being in the right place again like the video mentions).
@@johnm91326 You know those retirees are able to make donation as their own person,right? Moreover, the interests of small shareholders don't always align with the one of big shareholders. Anyway it's just a matter of of explaining the principle. The percent could be set at a different value that would be more fitting.
"You also have a very us vs them attitude" I do not. I simply think that it is within a democracy spirit that you make an higher number of people count more than a smaller one. and objectively, workers have their own interests as well the interest of the business (otherwise, they might lose their job), while a CEO only has the interest of the business.
"if all employees already have views aligned to a particular party" Realistically, they do not. And here it's not just about making a party win (as explained in the video, there are limitations for those sort of things already), but for pushing specific policies.
"If not then changes like this would have no affect" it would prevent a small group to be able to disproportionally flood the media with advertising for their interest, compared to a bigger group and their own interest.
John Macaulay If corporate management tells the employees that a given law or candidate will put the company out of business, whether true or not, if employees believe it, they will give to a super PAC they don’t believe in just to save their jobs.
@21:27-.-Wait a minute! You mean to tell me, That You Disagree, With… *_¡¡¿PRAGER-U“‽!”_*
Plot twist of the _decade“!”_
I love your dry sense of humor... & what i learn from you :)
Idk why but I wasn't getting any suggestions for your videos for a while. Here to like and comment to boost, hoping your subscribers get suggested your videos.
Thought this channel was taking a different turn when I read the title 😂
16:54 There is a huge difference between the two questions asked here. A decision made by "you and your co-workers" are made voluntarily by these people; a decision made by a "company" can be a decision involving only the CEO or the Board of Directors. (Although, there is likely an assumption being made here that the money that would be spent by the company would have gone to "you and your co-workers" to spend at their own discretion, which is not necessarily true)
EDIT: The example of the "conveniently-timed bonus" still gives more power to the workers because their own conscience and decision-making become a critical step in the campaign. While campaigns that the workers feel nonchalant about may pass with this tactic, campaigns they disapprove of will face much more resistance, giving the workers more power.
Then the company will just find workers who agree or are nonchalant. The workforce of a company is not a monolith.
@@PitLord777 Yes, but it is considerably harder to find only workers that would support a political agenda that much of their peers reject, especially since those in the same workforce pool usually are geographically, culturally, academically, and/or economically related and therefore likely experiencing similar life situations
I think you misses the point though. If you're creating a radio show or podcast you can effectively form a corporation or partnership. You would do it ASAP probably because of tax purposes to help you deduct certain expenses.
Nearly every major TH-camr you like has probably formed a business and corporation in many cases, but it's probably just them and a few people. Corporations aren't just "big companies."
Thank you for explaining all this.
Great video. It's this kind of stuff that I subscribe for.
I wish my paycheck was tied to inflation like campaign money...
12:50 "Those were already allowed." Then those are still a problem, even though you cannot blame Citizens United.
The point being that fixation on Citizens United is counterproductive at best.
0:28 pizzamas mug!! That penny joke goes so far back lol
super informative, thanks!
Still love the ferrets! But thus was very interesting!
What we actually need is an informed population, who actually know what they are voting for
And some way to make sure it's easy to read. I've seen ballot initiatives worded via a series of confusing double negatives, so voting "Yes" or "No" can mean the opposite of what you think, if you aren't careful.
Campaign Finance is an example of one of those things where every solution poses a problem. I think the most the most affective changes that could be made have more to do with equipping citizens to donate to political causes in limited amounts, and or providing voluntary services, but restricting for profit organizations from contributing hard or soft money. the tightening of reporting laws must also be encouraged. though again all of it is so complicated, excellent video as always keep it up!
Like your videos didnt realy know what i thought i knew thanks.