MONEY IN POLITICS | The SHOCKING Differences in Elections Across the Globe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- Like it or not, it takes money to make it in politics…. but just how different is it between the USA, Germany, France and the UK? Let's find out.
Get an exclusive deal on a 2 year plan here: nordvpn.com/blackforest . It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
Episode 101| #germany #usa #france #unitedkingdom #election #electioncommission #politics #politicalcampaigns #campaignfinance #money #politicalnews #politicaldonation #superpac #supremecourt | Filmed March 16th, 2023
Jump to Your Favorite Topic:
00:00 Intro
02:18 USA Election Spending as GDP
07:22 Caps on Campaign Spending | France vs. USA
10:40 Germany's Nicer Elections & Political Burnout
15:17 Political Distrust: UK vs. America
18:26 What is Dark Money in Elections?
25:57 What all of that money buys you.....
Want to Watch more? Here's some other videos to check out
Do You Trust Your Government? Germany vs. USA & How 'Protestkultur' shaped modern Democracy
• Do You Trust Your Gove...
US Politics vs. German Politics EXPLAINED (with Ice Cream)
• US Politics vs. German...
All German Political Parties in 4 Minutes by @RadicalLiving
• All German Political P...
German POLITICAL Culture Shocks as an American Exchange Student by @MontanaShowalter
• German POLITICAL *Cult...
Political Spectrums Explained - Why is there a left wing and right wing? by @iammrbeat
• Political Spectrums Ex...
GEAR IN THIS VIDEO:
GoPro: amzn.to/3FM0WRr
GoPro Windshield Mount: amzn.to/3sPBiY3
Camera: tinyurl.com/22a5wbe7
Microphone: tinyurl.com/rufut97v
Lens: tinyurl.com/z3k73bv6
Bendy Tripod Thing: tinyurl.com/d4w687pk
Memory Card: tinyurl.com/zy7j54ac
External Hard Drive: tinyurl.com/nmters57
External Hard Drive Backup: tinyurl.com/vduwnaea
Music in Episode: tinyurl.com/BLACKFORESTFAMILY
DISCLOSURE: The links above may contain affiliate links. This means that, at no cost to you, the Black Forest Family may earn a commission if you click through to make a purchase.
📸 Follow us on Instagram for behind the scenes content: @blackforestfam /
✈️ We created our blog to help you learn more about living, studying, working, and traveling abroad! For more information about the content in this video visit ➡️ www.blackforestfamily.com/ ⬅️
📧 Sign up for our Black Forest Family Newsletter email here - www.blackforestfamily.com/fol...
------------------
💳 Here’s our FREE guide to the best southern Black Forest Germany Day Trips: www.blackforestfamily.com/the...
🛵 Our 101 TOP TRAVEL TIPS:
www.blackforestfamily.com/wp-...
------------------
SUPPORT OUR WORK: www.blackforestfamily.com/fol...
FAMILY TRAVEL GEAR: www.blackforestfamily.com/shop/
FACEBOOK: /
------------------
Originally from the Midwest of the USA, we moved to the #blackforest in 2013 and quickly embraced #expatlife. As American expats living in #Germany, things weren't always easy, but we've grown to love our life in Germany. We started this #travelvlog to share our experiences with friends and family, and to help those who are interested in moving overseas! Whether you are interested in moving abroad, working abroad, studying abroad, raising a family abroad, or just want to #traveleurope, we're here to give you a first person look at what lies ahead. 😊🎥🌎
Get an exclusive deal on a 2 year plan here: nordvpn.com/blackforest . It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
Politicians should be forced to wear the names of their sponsors on their clothes like sports teams.
😁👍🏻
Exactly. Great idea!
12:58 Two more reasons why there are fewer attack ads in Germany, or in many European countries, is that the voting is more on parties and less on persons, and that there are more than 2 candidates - even an effective attack on one opponent is at least as likely to push voters to a different opponent than it is to attract them to you.
Unfortunately, some toxic US political culture had recently been important to Germany anyway, namely the "officially unaffiliated" group that exercises their "free speech" by attacking a certain party's opponents while that party itself can deny involvement and also not pay for it out of their own regulated coffers. Before our last federal election supporters of the neo-nazi/capitalist-extremist party AfD ran a billboard campaign attacking the Green Party as "eco terrorists", "climate socialists" and the like. So not really the most sophisticated kind of discourse. >_>
American Voter: ' Maybe we could spend some money on healthcare for all , and help homeless people ?
Politicians : ' We don't have the money to waste on socialist nonsense !'..We have a campaign to finance.
this money wouldn't be enough for US type of healthcare. If US had German type of healthcare, all the current public spending on healthcare would be sufficient to cover everyone and for every healthcare service + sickness leave benefits.
and what? the money ends in the economy again anyway
@@HippasosofMetapontum I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Yes, giving money directly to the poor would inject it back into the economy at a base level. That's a good thing. The economy is an engine and it's fuel is spending. Rich people hoard("invest"), they don't spend most of their money. The poor have to spend to survive. Giving the money to the poor adds fuel to the engine, giving money to the rich takes fuel out of the engine. Or are you trying to argue for trickle down economics? In that case, I got a bridge to sell ya.
@@elvenrights2428 I understand what you mean now. Yes obviously the costs need to be regulated first like in every other country with healthcare for all . But the costs to solve homelessness are relatively low . A few billion would be enough to provide cheap housing for every homeless person in the U.S.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 in my country homelessness could be solved for very low costs too, but those who are in charge of this issue, write that most homeless people are homeless because they chose to live so (narcomans, people with certain mental illnesses due to which they prefer living outside than at home) and so, giving them flat wouldn't solve their issues with illegal drugs or mental health. I don't know what is truth...
German here. I think you delivered one of the most profound analyses of the relationship of elections, money and politics so far. Thanks for pointing out the complexity and caveats in a very comprehensible way.
O yes, all US-citizens are equal - and those who have money are even more equal.
Free speech to everybody, and more free speech for those with more money...
You're one of my new favourite channels; a knowledgeable, self-aware, worldly American producing very well-researched videos. Cheers!
Glad you enjoy our content so much! Thank you!
Being former government employees we've always said follow the money. Politicians are not there for the people. They are there for the special interests that got them elected.
Your video shows the ugly truth about the democracy of the United States. Thank you for doing this.
I think there is another major issue that causes these differences and that's the two party system the US has. The lack of a real alternative is what leads to this influx of money, it not like voter can realistically vote for a candidate that doesn't take that money. US democracy is broken at the core in this respect.
@@foobar8894 It is worse than that. The GOP and Democrats CODIFIED this arrangement so any 3rd party running for federal office has to get certified. For President, that is in all states and territories. That is very burdensome.
Maybe someone needs to take that law to the USSC based on 1st amendment rights to get it overturned.
@@foobar8894 The US party system just has different colors, it is not that different to the German system.
@@schadelharry4048 2 party is 2 party. Because candidates in a party are different doesn’t change that. There are 2 fighting to win, and the loser will do everything to hinder the winner to have a successful administration. In the Netherlands we have 19 different parties. None of them will have 51% of the votes so they have to work in coalitions. Your opponent in the election period could be your partner in your coalition after the election. In this way basing a candidate can harm your own succes.
@@kasper2970 Coalitions are even worse, because they have to prevail, so anything can be implemented just to rule and get governmental money. They only work, if the overall society is fit enough to really know, what they vote for and is very homogenous. Otherwise, coalitions even break societal trust and are inherently aggressive and destroy people. The US system is only designed that way, because the US was automatically not homogenous. Forced "Americanisation" only occured under Democrats, who also implemented Central Authority 120 years ago. Still, both parties have atleast to compete with the best personal to get voted. The US problem is, that it is one party in two since a longer time period, which intermingle. (Similar to Europe's prevailing Statism of the same parties of different colors.) Everytime, the administration works against the "third party". In Europe, you just have more "coalitions" then, even crazy ones, but still the "third party" should pay, because of "Democracy". This is even more ridicilous, because you have multicultularism and Socialist egalitarianism now, no ethnic-racial-cultural homogeneity anymore.
The whole conundrum boils down to one very simple sentence. You said it yourself: "Election spending is free speech and can not be limited". The blanket under which 'free speech' sleeps every night is bigger than the Grand Canyon. A whole lot of bad happens in the name of free speech and 'freedom'.
Very true.
The problem is that the maximum freedom for the individual, limits the freedom for the comunity
@@Lo1wirm 👍 That`a the point.
@@Lo1wirm 👍 That`s the point.
@@Lo1wirm Exactly! There is only so much room for speech to be heard. If that room is dominated by rich people, it takes freedom of speech away from the poor.
In German elections, short-term advertising and promises don't count for me. But the behavior of the politicians in the years before and political convictions. In the last federal election, the reform backlog of the previous government was the reason for me to vote for a change. At least the current government is finally tackling the necessities, but what it is failing to meet is its lofty dreams.
True enough, but not really suprising, if you have to clean up the messes of your predecessors first. And get some catrastrophies added in the process. I would say they don't meet all my expectations, but they do a decent job on it for now. And I didn't even vote for any of the governing parties.
Americans have the memories of Gold Fish trained by Adam Savage....
They seem to be happy forgetting what they have seen and heard their politician's are doing.
Perhaps that 'Fatigued' sensation is a big driving point of it?
@@arnewengertsmann9111 Germany is in difficult times. The government is doing a good job of that.
But the green dreams cannot be implemented in 4 years. The population doesn't follow that quickly.
But building everything on natural gas is no longer possible.
@@jensschroder8214 As said, I don't disagree. I didn't mostly vote for them. as I would find that a more unified Europe would be more important than the other stuff, as it would make attain those dreams more impactful-
I think that should be the general approach for when you choose who to vote for.
Problem is, most people don't even know enough about basic lawmaking (which - at least in Austria - is the fault of how these things are - not - taught in schools). They don't know how politics or the general system "really" work, or anything in that matter. It would be so important though. Even though it is complicated it could be broken down into a bit of information that everyone could understand, however, that's not really something the parties want,.
If people understood a bit about the system, knew how certain parties voted and what that actually means in real life, some parties, especially the populist ones, wouldn't even stand a chance.
Anyways....
Hi Ashton, great video as always. Just as an idea for a future video, it would be interesting to compare SCOTUS to the German Constitutional Court and how its members are seated. I think this is one really important, yet often underestimated factor in how Germany functions as a country.
Take care!
TBH, the system in which members of the BVerfG are being seated in Germany is starting to break down to some degree as well.
I agree.
And again! What a great video! How can you put so much effort in research and editing every week? Congrats to another outstanding performance !! Thank you for poviding this kind of high quality information AND entertainment. Grüße aus der Südpfalz.
Auch von mir Gruß aus der Südpfalz, I can only agree. The quality of your video is more then excellent.
There are still two problems with our politicians: one are the lobbyists : even if they don't bribe you (which they at least try), they are the ones with the true or fake studies. Their task is to inform politicians about economic things. And of course they do it to their own best.
The second problem are side-jobs of politicians. The last one I was searching for on wikipedia had 22 side-jobs as Aufsichtsrat and similar jobs. These jobs are usually well paid. Don't tell me that anybody is able to do 22 side jobs additionally to a full time job as politician. My conclusion is, that either he neglects his side-jobs which means he accepts money for doing nothing which might be bribery, or he is working so much for his 22 side jobs that he has to neglect his job as a politician.
This is the reason why so many of us still don't trust our politicians.
worst of all, they write new law text and lots of lobby drafted paragraphs get 1 to 1 used by politicians, since they are often to lazy or incapable to draft their own ones, specially in complicated regulations sector ...
Agree with you about second jobs, several mps here in the UK have been found to possible been employed by companies trying to affect laws being brought for a vote etc, and an mp whose also a barrister was criticised for seemingly doing more work as a legal professional than a politician, with some commenting his role as a politician was like a part time job or even akin to a volunteer
Your video’s and analyses - compared to those by other Americans living in northwestern Europe - are in a class of their own.
Thank you so much!
An excellent video, like always!
16:07
Regarding this poll, I think it is not unimportant to have a look at a few factors here.
1.Of those countries, Germany is the only one with a strict proportional representation in Parliament. In the UK as well as in the US, seat majorities can be had with a distinct minority of voters. Just take the example of the Lower House in the UK, where the Tories have a whopping 80 seat majority while representing ONLY 43% of the votes with the opposition seats representing 47%(!) of the votes. And let's not even talk about US presidential elections.
2. What sets apart Germany from many other countries, and especially from the USA, is the way the Constitutional Court is filled and how much trust this institution enjoys among the population, and how well respected it is in the world. This court has made many decisions that would be diametrical opposed to the way SCOTUS has ruled, especially when it comes to money in politics, minority rights, children's rights, etc. The court cannot be stacked by a minority. Instead, it takes a two third majority in both chambers for candidates to ascend to the court. Consensus is not an accident, it's a feature of this system.
3. France is somewhat inbetween with its two round majority election system and its presidential system where the role of parliament as a check on presidential power is only gradually stronger than in the USA.
No question, corruption exists in Germany just like everywhere else, and, and sometimes, it goes right up to the top, as Kohl and Schröder have proved in different ways. And there is a lot of room for improvement. But the point is not to have a perfect system which is impossible to achieve. The point is to have a solid press landscape with investigative journalism and to enable voters to have more than just the binary choice between pest and cholera.
The system's self-cleaning features are what keeps it alive. When all power is in the hand of a minority, often controlled by unaccountable, obscure circles of rich men, that self-cleaning power is obviously in danger. If it's sufficient to pump large sums of money into a certain number of districts to turn a whole national election into its opposite, and if it's even possible to gerrymander those districts into a farce of a real democracy, then what's left of democracy?
Actually the amount of billboard space available to parties in Germany is also regulated. (Also roughly proportional to current representation plus a little bonus for upstart parties)
In the Netherlands all parties get the exact same amount of billboard space and the same amount of TV time, regardless their size. The order in which they can broadcast is determined by drawing of lots. But what I love most about elections in the Netherlands (and other European countries) is how short they are. Just a few weeks of parties trying to convince you to vote for them and the rest of the time they just do their jobs. I would be very irritated if the person I voted for would start his reelection campaign only a few months after being elected. Politicians should govern, not spend half their time campaigning.
I don't know, why that is, but when you see the billboards in a city area, then you can see, which party mostly is elected. But are there mostly billboards of that party, because the people, they are aiming for are living there, or do they vote mostly these parties because of the billboards.
Those billboards and other ads just are for people, which aren't very prone to politics and have no clear political opinion, I think.
@@rvdb7363 Interesting, what are the safeguards against troll parties then plastering the city with their particular interest billboards?
Can I just invent the "Ketchup is disgusting party", carry my message everywhere and fold the party next year?
@Tilman Baumann everyone can start a party in the Netherlands. A party that doesn't currently have one or more seats in Parliament, senate or provincial parliament does need to pay a deposit. They only get this money back when they get 75% of the votes needed to get one seat. The deposit is somewhere around 12.000 euros I believe. So not every idiot can start a party, but an idiot with some savings who really wants to make a point can. Last provincial elections we had a party called "Black Pete is black" (in the Netherlands the helpers of St Nicholas used to be white people in blackface. Luckily this has changed in most places in recent years however there are still a few people who insist that we should go back to the racist stereotype). So yeah, they did have a place on the billboards in my province. As one of 20-ish parties. They can't just plaster the entire province though. But they can ask people to place their poster behind their window and they have a spot on the billboards provided by the city/municipality
@@rvdb7363 Belgium would like to have a word with you about the rest of the time... and politicians being supposed to govern....
In Finland we have parlamentary elections in two weeks. The biggest election budget of one party is 2 million euros. When it comes to individual candidates, some of them can be eleted to the parlament with a personal election budget of a few thousand euros.
The way to get to German politicians is through "Nebeneinkünfte", not donations. So for example invite them to your company to give a 30-minute speech on leadership for "howevermanythousand euros", and then, once they retire, give them cushy jobs - most famous example would probably right now be Ex-Chancellor Schröder working for Gazprom.
So in many ways the excess isn't as large as in the US, but the gaps that do exist do get exploited here just as much.
Gaps in laws that can Land money in your pocket (without being directly illegal) are, and probably will always remain, exploited wherever they are possible, by at least some people…
I find many of the paid side jobs of politicians "dubious" (to put in mildly). But in Germany politicians are less dependent on those funds to keep their jobs. That is very different to the US. secondly, giving politician a job afterwards is not the same. I doubt that companies "reward" (in significant numbers) previous deeds. They rather hire the person for the benefit he/she can produce for them in the future, particularly because former politicians are well connected and their advice has still some weight. They pay for access. This is also problematic, but from a different perspective.
@@guyro3373True, but if you at least *try* to close the loopholes and also don't accept it culturally you'll get a lot less of it at least...
@@Luredreier I don't disagree. However, several politicians also have a secondary job (Nebeneinkünfte), e.g., by owning (or being a member/partner in a law firm). They would resist having that forbidden, as they could not easily re-enter or reestablish it after they lose an election.
I agree that a cap would be helpful. but when the people who have to define a cap or limitation on income include the people who get the money, well...
Well, the thing is this - a politician DOES have a rather tight schedule. The rates you cite are perfectly normal for speakers who are in demand. And it likewise wouldn't be particularly ethical for a politician to speak at, say, the association of car makers for free.
The really problematic issue is when they have actual regular income from institutions and companies with vested interests, or, given how many politicians are lawyers, have associations with law offices that represent institutions with vested interests.
Can you buy an election?
Yes you can especially in the so called land of the free it's not no offence.
A great video as always Black Forest Family keep up the great work👍
And greetings from the Netherlands🇳🇱
I am upset to see the way by which that Geert Wilders gets money from ultra-rightwing NGOs, thinktanks and the like from the USA. It is illegal to fund parties from abroad by EU-laws. But they give the money to some foundation in the Netherlands that has only one purpose, refunding Wilders. Wilders is the more or less only person in the overseeing board of that foundation. So he could pay his lawyers from that money when he was accused of inciting hate against people with a migrant background and the like. Our rightwing party AfD seems to have got money (illegally) from a Swiss donor. And when you think why the nazis almost "swam in money" at the height of the big depression in 1932 , so that Hitler was able to charter an airplane during the election campaigns in that year (two major elections for Reichstag and the campaign to elect the president (he competed against the communist Thälmann and president Hindenburg who was then re-elected), plus financing their paramilitary streetfighters from the SA, you will know why we have a bad feeling of political donorship.
This is eye-opening! Thanks for your hard work. Keep up the good job! 👍🏽
Brexit made me interested in UK politics (i'm German) - the amount of illegal money operations in the UK is mind-blowing from my German experience and especially how cheap UK politicians can be bought!
It's hard not to be cynical about anything Brexit, but sometimes i think it would have been better if the EU simply had bought 200 or so UK politicians to prevent the nonsense.
And afterwards deduct it from the EU's agriculture contributions to the UK 🤣
A short time ago I read that more than 50% of the politicians in the USA are millionaires, especially in Congress or Senate. Or as Murdoch said: "It is not about the red or blue, it is about the green". And having judges appointed for life is either stupid or a genial idea, depending on how much money and influence you personally can exercise on them.
Why should people with money be disqualified from politics?
Insider trading is an Ethics Violation... first offence is about $200 fine.
That is if the Senators ever bother to police themselves, they are in charge of the Ethics Board after all!
On, and the Loans to themselves at interest, paid off by donors, is a personal favourite of mine....
@@michaelgoetze2103 the point is that money shouldnt be an incentive for getting in politics
@@MrAronymous In most advanced economies politicians' salaries are far less than what they could earn in the private sector. You don't go into politics to make money - power is the aphrodisiac. Why do so many people want politicians to be poor - you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
@@michaelgoetze2103 Nobody wants to disqualify people with money. Many are just of the strange opinion that not the money has should decide if they come in power, but what they want to do.
I admit for Americans used to families of presidents, senators and congressman, that might be surprising.
I just want to compliment you on how you incorporate adds in the video. Even though adds aren’t the nicest thing to watch, i see you try and make them interesting and not stand out too much from your channel’s content. Also, the time bar is clever and handy for those who just can’t wait for the main story to continue. Nicely done guys!
As for the "not stand out too much", I really appreciate the clear labeling as advertisement.
Thanks for the transparency and kudos for the great work.
In Switzerland there's also much room for improvement. Conservative parties vetoing full disclosure on campaign money, which atm is voluntary, or politicians getting a mandate in a health group even though they have ties to health insurances (which isn't forbidden, even though it clearly should be, for obvious reasons). Also some politicians take their industry ties to new levels by amassing working percentages in the high hundreds as honorary somethings for tons of companies, which again, should be a huge red flag, as they obviously can't work those hours, so it's obviously something else the company gets out of this..
At least they changed the laws that now politicians on all levels have to disclose all their ties.
Thank you for another great episode.
I really like your comparative content. You fish out of water experience moving to Germany offers highly insightful and often very refreshing content. Please keep up the good work.
I often say “America, LLC” when emphasizing how utterly purchasable our government has become. And I simply call Wall Street “The Federal Casino” anymore. 😢
Fantastic video and these are concepts which need to be talked about. Any politician accepting funding from any outside body should be presumed to be offering that body favours and influence. It's corruption basically.
American democracy is the best democracy money can buy!
This is what George Carlin was talking about when he was mentioning the "real Owners" (of the Country).
I find your videos very exciting and interesting, because you rarely get to see such topics from the perspective of an American. As a European I have the feeling that not much will change in the USA with the current generation, the hope lies more with Jack's generation, a generation that is growing up with a sociologically expanded background. If you are looking for ideas for new topics for one of your next videos, you might find a comparison of federalism between the USA and Germany interesting.
Big compliments again!
Very insightful. I really enjoyed this video. There is definitely a lot of dark money involved in the politics of my home state (Ohio). Seems like Germany's way of doing elections is better than America's, plain and simple.
Thank you vor the quality
Thank you again for another well researched video brightening up a gloomy sunday morning!
Just think how much could be done if campaign spending in the US was instead spent on those who are in need - homelessness, health disparities, education and infrastructure. And people think politicians are corrupt?
The capital needed (and connections to those with deep pockets) also means that it perpetuates a system where those who are elected to "represent" the constituents do not reflect the socio-economic status of said community. Which I also think then feeds into a system where there is little movement on the issues you list as well. It doesn't directly affect them or the people they know, so it doesn't feel as pressing.
Thank you for the video!
Great reporting, indeed. Greetings with gratirude from northern Europe!
you are getting good at this misses blackforrest
A well executed video on a complicated and touchy subject. Great job!
Well done again! I’m looking forward to your new videos every Sunday.
such a great video!!!
I am going to use my free speech to boost this channel. I think that is much more valuable than giving to a polititian.😏
Great content as usual. 🥰 I am familiar with both systems...US and EU (in general) ...and don't think you left out anything crucial.
I know I prefer the european one.
Thank you for another great episode. ☕🥐🥚🖥 Sunday Morning👍
Thanks so much! I'm really glad you enjoyed the video again. This subject can be a bit "nerdy" but I find it super interesting!
A high quality video that's really pleasent to listen to. 👏
Interessant - tolle Ausarbeitung und Zusammenfassung! 👍
Thank for your research and info. I love it
great content - THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!
Love how well-researched your videos are!
Glad you like them! Thank you!
Very interesting topic once again, great detail and explanation.
Sunny Greetings from Hessen
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks so much!
Terrific video!
my favorit Sunday break, the BFF video!
Interesting as always. Thanks.
Thanks for tuning in ❤️ We appreciate it.
If funding is unlimited in the US because of free speech, that free speech and funding should be available to ALL candidates. So all funding should be put into one money account and each candidate should get the same amount out of that account. That would level the playing field.
Are you crazy? That would be communism. :D
@@1ch0 No, just democracy as in equal rights. :P
Well, the money should ideally not be involved at all, it shouldn't be about who the best at advertsing/campaining is, there should be an objective way of connecting voters with policies instead of having them represented by random personalities.
I suppose there is something to say to allow individual people to spen money for their preferred candidates,
but it's insane to also allow this for companies.
Well US is just a pretend democracy, so that's not possible.
As always very good and thoughtful coverage of the subject matter. Since you and your husband have been living and working in Germany for many years now and being US citizens, could you maybe make a video explaining how the tax system works. Are your required to file both US and German tax returns, which retirement system do you pay into, if holding dual citizenship US and German, how does that all work. When should you file for retirement and what taxes are paid from your retirement when you receive it. I’m not sure if you have made a video on that topic or not. Thanks again for a great overview of the political systems in various countries. 🤩
Actually, as a US citizen, one can file a foreign income exemption if living and working in Germany. Which means not having to file taxes in the US. And, currently, Germany doesn't allow Dual citizenship to US citizens except for very specific circumstances. If I remember correctly, currently, Germany only allows dual citizenship if you were born to a German citizen and a foreign immigrant in Germany, or, you are from a country that doesn't allow you to renounce your citizenship.
This will actually be the topic of next week's video!
@@timothyclark803 I am one of those exceptions. You can renounce your US citizenship but you have pay the US government big bucks to relinquish it!!!
Another well made and relevant Sunday morning video, and on an really important topic. It‘s actually good journalism, too. But to all of us whose lives are shaped by political decisions … it‘s all a bit depressing, isn‘t it?
So, the more money the more free speech you get, makes sense and is fair for all of society! /s
I believe a key thing that is important about Citizens United is the issue you raised about the length of the campaigns. The FEC rule overturned by Citizens United limited corporate and union contributions in the period immediately before primary and general elections. Because US federal elections last so long, releasing the documentary months before the election to comply with the blackout period would have meant it was swamped in the background noise of the campaigns so most people would have ignored it. If campaigns were shorter, then releasing a documentary immediately prior to the black out period would have allowed it to be visible and the message evaluated by voters. One more thing about the length of the US election process, in the attempt to “democratize” the selection of presidential candidates in the early 1970s the power of party officials was reduced and caucuses and primaries took on new significance which meant campaigns had to start much earlier as the first primaries are held 9 months prior to to the general election. Finally, the election process in the US is about individual candidates while European elections seem to be more about parties which means in the US each election office race is customized which drives up costs.
Hi Ashton,
I think your video was well balanced and informative. Just one nitpick. At timestamp 11:28 you mentioned that there are already 4 Republicans running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. One of the people you listed was Marianne Williamson. Marianne is actually a Democrat who is challenging Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination.
If money means speech, then less money is less speech. So does this not violate the 1st amendment if people are denied speech because they have less money?
Great video, again! And a funny comment out of the Internet: The US are best democracy you can buy...
An Oxford study shows that only about 13% of constituents concerns make it into Congress and the rest is lobbies the study calls the US not a Democracy but an Oligarchy!
Great video once again! I’m not a fan of enabling the wealthy to tilt results in politics. I also believe that once the floodgates are open, they will be close to impossible to close. You didn’t touch on airtime of politicians and/or their message in the media. I believe this is very valuable to politicians and has huge impact in politics. There is an active discussion in The Netherlands on this topic for the elections that took place last week. This could be an interesting topic for another video related to this and even deserves a separate video all in itself (e.g. the almost 10y old ‘Outfoxed’).
In Austria you cant donate more then 2200 euros and at 2000 euros your donation will be public.
And another brilliant video. Looks like you're getting better on a weekly basis, which is incredible by itself.
Well, as for your question, to me it seems politicians over here neither care for their voters nor their donors but for themselves and for those, on whose payrolls they are or will be parallel to or after their political careers. 😉
Yep, America has the best government that money can buy😬! Imagine what good could be done using that money for the people of the country.
So well researched! Thanks!
I do wonder if the primary period adds another layer to US spending where in multi-party systems like Germany the party often decides who its candidate. Seems much more drawn out in the US.
Here in Belgium, exelction speding is also capped, even tv air time is regulated per party. The question is, where do those US billions go to? It seems like it had evolved into how much can we earn, instead of how much can we spend on election.
Great content.
Another difference is the 2 year cycle for Parliament in the USA in comparison to the 4 or 5 years common in Europe. And yes, the US problem is legal corruption in politics, but that's not exclusive for the USA. Actually the USA is already ran by some way too rich guys. Money kills freedom of speech!
Let's put it short: The USA have no corruption in politics - it's all just legal(ized).
As a French i always wondered if that American way of financing politics is acceptable or not. Because in France there was a lot of corruption (with judges calling it corruption) and laws where made to separate money and politics. As a reference state/church separation :) So i don't really know if all this money and opacity is fine or not.
(The Science of Economics) have proven back in the nineties just how dangerous it would be to compare that with the government !
Very insightful, you are a good analyst and cinematographer! I always wondered about how the elections are different in the US, its like the "Gladiator show."
Foremost, the candidates are negative or outright insulting toward their opponents. Of course T* (as Steve Colbert him always denote) set a new sad record in personal insults during the campaign, from which they could not recover ("liitle Rubio", Ted Cruze's wife is ugly, Jeb Bush has "little energy" and the list goes on.) These insults or accusations are extremely common in local elections as well. In state or county elections we are flooded by mail flyers stating some alleged bribery, fraud, incompetence etc. of the local opponents. I think we need a code of conduct to be established and observed.
Another "heavy" topic on a Sunday morning, but interesting notwithstanding. 45 got a lot of airtime for free from FOX in the 2016 cycle, so the 67 Millions are only half true.
Claiming money is FREE speech is just pure irony.
Your perspective on election spending is quite informative--and right on target. However, it's not just elections where such levels of money are spent. We just had the so-called Super Bowl playoffs. The amount of money that was spent by various corporations and businesses on that four-hour event would put election spending to shame. A typical ad cost over $2 million per MINUTE--and was shown only once! Imagine what that amount of money could do for poor areas of our own country (let alone in the world)!
I'm glad you did some comparisons between American spending versus European spending. The ironic part is that many sports teams in Europe spend about as much money on soccer games as the U.S. does on football. And let's not limit that spending to just on-air ads. Think of the amount of dollars (or euros) that are spend just on the tickets as well as all the "refreshments" that are bought during the game itself.
In short, as a human race, we tend to spend more on frivolous pleasures than on purposeful improvements to the human condition. There are millions of children who die annually because of lack of food, shelter, and medical care. In the long run, we should be ashamed of ourselves because of our lack of concern for others.
13:37
While I don't mind the idea of limiting the number of times an add can be shown doing so based on number of votes is deeply unfair and frankly outrageous.
There's countries that does equal amount of ads and/or speaking time for *all* political parties.
That makes a heck of a lot more sense.
This variation of speaking time is part of the legislation in germany, that grants all parties money and space for adverts based in their previous votes.
Considering that there exist around 35 parties in total in germany it is clear that at least some kind of distinction needs to be made for governmental funding. It just seems as if the governing parties at the time included their own little benefits in the exact form of that legislation.
It would for example have been sufficient to just separate them as parties that got into the government and parties that did not.
It's actually in-line with the entire voting system. Due to historical reasons Germans are a bit scared about political fragmentation.
It's all party based. There are benchmarks for parties to be considered 'relevant' enough.
But the main difference is that small paties don't get billboard space to plaster the city.
Just imagine the "Ban on Scary Clowns Party" which has zero participation in public discourse suddenly has political banners every meter in your city. It doesn't make sense.
And you should also know that the billboards are (mostly) paid for by the public.
The representation in ads is proportional to the current political representation with a little bonus for new and small parties
And this is why Congress can't get meaningful.legislation passed that one word called lobbyists 😯 money does the talking in Washington DC 😩
1 billion in the US is 1 Milliarde in Germany.
Once again, a great informative video. Your “storytelling” / educational skills are remarkable. I now understand some issues better, even though I already knew most of the facts you talked about before.
I would appreciate your take on the issue, how the different setup of parties, “platform” or “manifesto” creation and candidate selection contributes to the different way, politics play out in the US and e.g. Germany. From a German perspective the stronger role of party organization and members in the processes, particularly the former “Volksparteien” tend to produce more centrist, generally well qualified politicians (I know that will be put in question) and less negative campaigning.
I really think things have changed dramatically after the Trump era. There's a pretty fascinating documentary done on Roger Stone, and how "shock factor" politics and getting publicity is more important than actual platforms in today's political elections. Since most Americans are entrenched in their "camps" (right or left) - the focus should be on swinging voters that aren't entrenched.... and those voters "typically" aren't going to research political issues that deeply and are more likely to be influenced by salacious news headlines.
@@TypeAshton agree with that. Nonetheless, I think it would be extremely unlikely that someone as divisive as Trump could become the candidate for Chancellor of one of the major, long established parties in Germany due to the strong role of active party members and leaders in the section process. The selection of candidates is done by party conferences that mostly consist of party members and leaders who have got their spot independently from a specific candidate. Additionally, parties generally tend (or at least used to) into focus on team players who promote the party agenda rather than on individualistic monoliths. This might be also a cultural thing. I just learend about discussions, why NBA and NHL Players from Europe become so popular. One major aspect was, that in Europe coaches focus more on team play than individual strength.
@@Lawdwarf Your last sentence says a lot!
@@Lawdwarf I have muscle twitches on my face under my left eye every time I hear "Trump". I can't thank America enough for taking care of his German grandparents
The most difference from the German to the US system for elections is in the parties. In the US every person who will president for US must go through pre-elections. They're very long and expensive. In Germany the candidate is coming through dicousins in the party. So you need less money in Germany than the US. And it needs less time.
It think it needs much more time in Germany to emerge as an candidate. Most do the „ochsentour“ of multiple years of party work and/or elected service on local level.
One off the things maybe and the lobbying mentioned before. But it will not change. For that you also need the media. But from all these elections, midterm,state etc. they make the money from all thes ads. Example presidents elections. 2 yrs before the real elections you have the primaries. And 1 year theteo candidates. And in those year the sitting president or other represantatives need to govern to.
I guess organizations in Germany are also free to make advertisements for politic parties. I don't know if the legislative is actually that different. I could imagine that limiting that might also be difficult in Germany. For some reason, advertisements from third parties just don't seem to play such a big role in Germany. (I think there were some advertisements against the green party during the last election, but probably not as prominent as in the USA.)
EDIT: If I think about it, I could imagine that there are some limitations in Germany, but I am not aware of them.
Where is the line between political donations and what is basically bribery? I live in the UK, and there are, as you mentioned, fairly hard restrictions on what can be spent on election campaigns. But there are also so many instances of MPs having second jobs as "consultants" to companies in industries the MPs know nothing about. The only case I know where this has backfired was Owen Paterson. Ex-PM Johnson is notorious for taking "gifts" from wealthy people. It stinks.
What a great way to spend a little over 30 minutes of a dull monday...I, an anti-politics guy found myself hooked to this video from the get go.... Congrats to you guys....looking forward to seeing next topic!
Once again fantastic video! I personally think there should be a lot less private money in politics, also in terms of lobbying not only in the US but also in Europe. Unfortunately since the current system benefits the ones with the loudest voices (i.e. most money) its unlikely to change any time soon.
One thing about your point that the amount of money spent in a election is not predictive for the outcome. That is true for US presidential elections since there is a lot of free coverage by the media. However, in local elections, i think the trend is much clearer.
Also, the outcome is only ONE aspect here. The other is what the "donors" get in return. Many give money to both candidates. For them, it doesn't really matter who wins, does it? They always have a winner on their ballot, and they do expect some favors. Another weakness of the two-party system where it's much easier to invest in politicians.
Also, have a look at how old politicians are compared to Europe. The House is around one decade older than the Bundestag, the Senate even another four or five years older. Politicians who hold their seats for many decades, what better investment can there be for a brib..., err donor?
To round up this greatly researched video I recommend to watch animated one from primer85 on different voting systems and what pros and cons they represent.
Well, that was interesting (even though in essence, it was not really new to me). Of cause, these facts alone raise the question, if it is legitimate to call such a system a democracy (even though I find it more concerning, that US-politics are not nonly bought by the rich but that the polititians are also filthy rich for the most part).
However, the differences in the outcome are not as big as they might seem. By ownership (and by financing media with favorable agendas via money for comercials) of the media (and the ability to pay for the framing of certain topics) the rich can not only directly influence which politician is presented in a favourable light, but they can also monopolize the topics and "the public opinion" and they cannot only decide, which parties to support, but shape the politics within parties. That mechanism is universal for capitalist "democracies".
The real difference between the US-version and that of most other countries is, that in other countries more or less wealthy people do the government work for the rich and the ultrarich. In the US the rich and some ultrarich do the government work for the ultrarich. Rich and ultrarich politicians are far more expensive to buy and that requires an additional kind of (legal) corruption. That just reflects, how exclusively big money oligopoles are already ruling the economic sphere in the respective countries.
It is not legitimate to call such a system "democracy" that is why the term
"Our democracy" is being used......by politicians of one party only
The media is actually extremely successful in shaping public opinions about politicians.
Not even as much about false reporting, but more so about not reporting factual events.
They form the images of the politicians, and the public takes it as truth.
The USA is an oligarchy sprinkled with some democratic thoughts. The influence of wealthy people is just overwhelming.
Not so much a case of free speech, more a case of ludicrously expensive speech!
wow you guys are positivly insane! another hot topic which you researched well! good job
Great Video, thank you. You said correctly that money alone does not decide elections. But what may be even more important is, how it influences legislation. That could be a good follow up :-)
Since in German parties get reimbursed for each vote in cash, the APPD party (anachistic pogo party [as in partying]) hold a big free alcohol block party after every election ^_^
Thank you for this again. Your research on the topics are always hilorious (butchered the word again). You always give a deep and well researched view into how the "thinks" work. Love your channel for this. Marin
From a UK perspective:
💰 Transparency of funding is essential. We don't do _too_ badly for that, although there are some organisations that are definitely on the shady side. A bigger concern for me recently has been targeted online advertising, which has been bypassing a lot of the rules and they get away with it because it's targeted so that the people who might take action against them won't ever see the adverts...
💰 We definitely have a problem with right-wing politicians being beholden to their donors and not giving a flying foxtrot about the voters. Hard to say that the same is true for the centre/left politicians because they just don't get the same volume so it seems less likely that they would be swayed by relatively small sums.
I ❤ your videos. It would be very interesting for someone like you to have a look at the Swiss system. With the possibility for referendums voted upon by the whole population, it looks at first glance to be more democratic...but again, money can buy adds to influence these referendums. I'm involved in a non-profit (and no salary) movement preparing a VolksInitiative, and I guess we'll have a lot of money spent against us on advertising when we near the voting date.
As a fellow Swiss citizen let me assure you that it doesn't go unnoticed, when somebody tries to kill a Referendum or Volksinitiative using lots of slanted advertising or alarmist messaging. In my group of friends this then kicks of meta discussions about the motivation.
In other words: too much and too hamfistes/obvious advertising is harmful too.
@@alexandergutfeldt1144 Yes I agree, this is how it should work. But since sometimes millions are spent... these must have an impact, if not they would not be spent. I'm still happy to live in switzerland when comparing with the political systems elsewhere.
The greatest democracy money can buy!
Economymafiacracy!
I have used that line too! LOL!
In my country US type of election financing would be seen as corruption.
Just a week ago or so there was a song released named "one dollar, one vote"
When you look at this insane Money and compare it to the Number of Americans who actually go voting wich is only arround 60% you could take all that Money and burn it.
All this spending and people have to wait hours in line to cast there vote,i am 52 now and since 18 voting took me arround 15 to 20 minutes in all those years in Germany.
Yeah absolutely. AOC gave an interview once and she gave some insight into how the parties look at "potential" candidates. She mentioned being asked by the DNC whether or not she thought she could "fundraise at least $300,000 per month" - a good indicator that its not just BEING rich, but also knowing a lot of other rich people who would be willing to donate.
The Stanford study says it all.
Fascinating as ever. I never understood this so called equivalence that money is free speech. It’s not. It’s a megaphone.
25:18
I half expected you to reference the AFD's political donations scandal from 2021, because it happened in a election district in Baden-Württemberg. The AfD were sentenced to pay ~400.000 € because of undisclosed donations of ~132.000 € in 2017.
But great content as always. 👍 Next thing you have to compare the judicial system. 🤭😬😅
Since politics governs who is on the Supreme Court in the US, meaning they have a serious conflict of interest, why would we be surprised at the buying of influence for politicians. But then the partisan nature of the Supreme Court has serious problems in many other situations as well. It is a very bad idea in my opinion. The Supreme Court should be appointed by some way of making sure it is totally devoid of ANY political input. Perhaps by a panel of lawyers and other citizens who are required to reveal their political leanings and who thus can be balanced politically.