What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don't blame them for taking it. Ironically, that speaks directly to the imbalance of political power caused by the existence of massively wealthy individuals like him.

But assuming you are OK with promoting a candidate in exchange for $, why not take money from a candidate you believe in, rather than one you plan to vote against? Is it because (just guessing) he's paying more? In which case, it seems a lot like he's just buying the primary.

To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.

He is paying you to leverage your reputation and trust networks, and you are extending your reputation and trust networks to him for a fee.

It doesn't matter that you think you don't subscribe to belief about people you posited above, because if you don't believe in Bloomberg's message, you are effectively deceiving those in your trust network.

Now, perhaps everyone in your trust network is in on your deception, but realistically the vast majority of humans, as social (vs. antisocial) beings rely on trust networks as a strong signal for forming opinions and taking actions.

So maybe it is not all doom and gloom?

I feel like this is often the crux of the argument against any kind of government regulation. "The people are smart enough to not be duped!" And in many cases it's easier to create chaos / scam people than it is to defend yourself against it. Just because some people seem capable of defending themselves / cutting through the fraud doesn't mean everyone who can't are idiots or children.

I'll give you an example. There used to be a ton of "Anti-Virus" apps on the iOS App Store. Due to how iOS is built, these apps literally weren't even able to do anything—they were all pure scams. But... people purchased them, not knowing about it. Many of us on HN would recognize immediately that these were scams, because technology like this is in our wheelhouse, so to speak. But it's likely someone in your family (a non-idiot) who's used antivirus software on computers before, and was comfortable with that arrangement, would easily be duped into buying one of these apps. Your analogy would have you advertise or endorse these products, then turn around and mock any "idiot" who purchased them. That's, to me, classic unethical behavior. I can't fathom how this is defensible to anyone with a modicum of empathy.

US schools do have educational system focused on presenting how US election system is supposed to work under ideal circumstances. By default, citizen should know wtf they are voting for. It may be a system issue, but that is a separate conversation.

Apps, otoh, are relatively new. There is no class out there on avoiding scams ( though there probably should be ).

I also disagree with unethical part. He is spending his own money. How is that unethical?

1. I was referring to your example scenario where you're taking his money and disingenuously working to support his campaign.

2. I'm not sure why you're suggesting "spending your own money" absolves you from unethical behavior. If I bought a bunch of worn-out tires and hired some kids around the neighborhood to start a tire fire in the nearest park, that'd be absolutely unethical (and probably illegal as well), despite the fact that I funded the operation myself.

2. I never claimed to be absolved. Then again I do not believe I committed a sin either. You may be pushing your analogies too far. Lets stick to the facts available to us.

Just because you're able, and many people in your left or right coast region may be, doesn't mean everyone is.

I agree with your sentiment, free will and less protectionism...

but, no - consumers/voters are not educated, or even given the tools they need to become so. Literally more is spent every year on the opposite.

Snap and media conglomerates alone ads so much noise, for no profit, to do just this - distract, and fuzz.

He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative.

If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising, but plenty of people decide for themselves.

(This is the core argument of Democracy for Realists).

So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President?

Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business.

Money shouldn't disqualify you from being a good President, poor judgement, low moral character and lack of relevant experience should.

I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates ran for President and if he did I doubt he'd accept donations.

I don't believe anyone is saying this. Bloomberg, for example, is spending more on TV ads than every other candidate combined. It's not a level playing field at all. Bloomberg has a war chest nobody can compete with. His having it isn't the issue we're talking about here. The fact that he's able to use it in this manner should worry us all.

It's not really relevant to the argument. I have an issue with what Steyer was doing as well, but at least he followed the rules.

Bloomberg got the rules changed to suit him, by spending money with the DNC. He's been blanketing the airwaves and buying endorsements.

It's plutocracy.

There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. Trump is obscenely wealthy.

Almost certainly yes. These people have out of control egos and little relevant experience. Bloomberg would be no different than Trump.

Gates too.

To say anyone with $X shouldn't be President sounds like profiling. Why not just disagree with his policies or actions?

As far as relevant experience, Bloomberg was the Mayor of NYC and has managed a large organization. That's a lot more government and leadership experience than Trump or Obama had.

Plenty of other things to not like about him but being Mayor of NYC or running a successful business shouldn't disqualify him by any means. So now no one who wants to be President should be a Mayor first or start a successful business? Maybe we should throw out senators while we're at it. Pretty soon we'll be left with armchair economists and self described philosophers who truly don't have any relevant experience.

It's flippant, but here's a simple test.

> has managed a large organization

If that's your justification for why you should be president, then you aren't actually qualified to be president. There is no business on earth that would adequately prepare someone to be president.

> Obama

Obama was a US senator for 4 years and a state senator 7 more.

> Trump

Is a disaster. Bloomberg would also be a disaster.

For the record, I hear you. There are times I want to throw my hands in the air. But.. about 4 years I was driving through Ohio and I saw 'Save us Trump' sign on lawn of a delapidated house..Probably one of the saddest things I have seen in my short life.

I guess what I am saying is, it is really easy to dismiss. It is so much harder to try to understand others.

How about subvertive of the democratic process?

In other words, hate the game not the player.

I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades

Bloomberg is buying off people and hasn't been forced to defend his atrocious record, at all.

and plenty of people support aggressively campaign financing reform and public funding of elections.

Wealthy people do 'hoard wealth like a dragon', by definition - otherwise they would not be wealthy.

It's not a dragon hoard if it's two pieces of gold.

No need to get literal.

>money invested in companies

does not equal

>produce value for society

Necessarily. Those two things CAN be the same, but aren't necessarily the same.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/apple-q1-2019-cash-hoard-her...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/microsoft-apple-and-alphabet...

edit: why did i get downvoted?

The naive people are the ones who swallow the line from billionaires.

Being passive about issues like this (let alone turning a blind eye and personally profiting from them...) gets into a scenario where there is no less obnoxious candidate to vote for.

And how is that covert? We are all talking about it. People seem to freak out, because it appears to be working, which is interesting.

Lastly, how am I passive? I said I would take his money if offerred. I placed myself right on the fence..

As for lack of candidates, I do not think we are at culling stage yet.

I find it morally acceptable to take his money if you need it. But let's not forget what that transaction means. It's the powerful forcing your outward attitude towards them. You're not a reputable citizen if your speech is controlled by your lord.

That said, riddle me this as it may yield some interesting answers. Do you believe there is such a thing as too much power in one set of hands? If so, is one Bloomberg too much?

With capitalism the solution was roughly that some things were taken out of money's reach. You can't buy them. Still I say that a guy like Bloomberg has too much power. It's not like the struggle is over.

Sure they benefit from spreading their message much wider, but it doesn’t mean people will vote for him.

Do we have any any hard numbers how much was spend by various nation-states to benefit the Trump campaign?

To be fair, there are so many loopholes in campaign finance laws that it is hard to get accurate numbers of spending, beyond what is self-reported, for any candidate.

You mean investing it in his company?

Are you sure about that? Trump raises massive donations at every rally.

You mean, you'll pocket that $2500, then vote for him for another promised $2500, because your vote is for sale - that much is certain.