Yes, we can’t trust anyone who takes huge donations like that.
From the very start, Trump has effectively been getting huge donations from the national media, who essentially have been giving him free ads by broadcasting every lie he says. If anyone can be credited with Trump’s success so far, it’s been the media.
Yep. He didn’t raise dick during the primaries and he’s not going to raise dick in the general election either. Probably the only useful thing he’s accomplished is to demonstrate that the media is more important as kingmaker than rich donors. Rich donors spent hundreds of millions trying to compete with the media and get their guys nominated. Money wasted. The media won. The media will also decide whether Trump or Clinton become President, however unintentionally. If they continue to focus on Trump and turn Clinton into a sideshow, he’ll win the election too.
Oh yes definitely. The press hasn’t covered any of the other candidates. They all volunteered to be interviewed with no prior restrictions but the media told them no and only talked to Trump.
The Kochs don’t seem to be very interested in donating to Trump. While Adelson will, I’m not sure a lot of people would donate to someone who would trash the economy by trying to negotiate on interest rates.
There are massive donor networks - like what the Bushes have. Trump is not going to get access to them.
Voyager, I thought Trump was threatening to offer to repay only 70% of the principal of the national debt. That would be a much bigger kneecapping to America’s financial well-being than renegotiating the interest rate (which is historically pretty low now).
FWIW, your comment about the Kochs reminds me of the similarity of this thread’s title to a fake news bit from around twenty years ago on Comedy Central’s ‘Global Village News’ (Slogan: “If we don’t cover it, it doesn’t matter”):
*"Real estate developer Donald Trump announced plans today to merge with himself…
“Trump decided on the novel strategy as a result of the advice of many people over the years”.*
Sounds like the established Republican donor network might be telling Trump, “Go fu-- yourself”.
The idea of a rational non-hypocrite choosing Trump strikes me as almost non sequitur. Yes, he’s now getting support from, among others, Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and several other ex-Governors, but these are mostly people who put the interest of the Republican Party ahead of America. Any damage a President Trump does will fit their agenda of Help the Sheeple Hate Government.
Trump’s voter base comprises people who hate Hillary or want to send some other message of hatred, and sheeple who will follow GOP leaders. None of these people are interested in boring facts.
We’re lucky that the Bushes and Romney are still holding out. If/when they join in the quackery (and if the sentient white millenials follow through with the threat to waste their votes) the possibility of a President Trump will loom large.
Yes, but really, the bulk of his voters are just responding to his manner of talking. Trump essentially admitted to being a troll, when he recently walked back his Muslim ban in an interview. (He pointed out that the original comment made him go up in the polls, and implied that that justified saying it.) It’s basically entertainment for them. He could be talking about butterflies and unicorns, and still gain their support, as long as he does it in the same manner and tone. For example, he repeats a series of the same propositional statement coordinately with and, intoning it as though it were additional, discrete points. To them, it sounds like he’s actually making a meaningful statement. They’re people who just want to watch a reality TV show, not a presidential election.
It will be interesting to say how he continues to send dog whistles to his base — voters with an IQ in the 80’s — while parroting rational thought to attract voters with IQs in the 90’s. He may be able to pull it off; many Dopers underestimate his intelligence.
Wait! This is a fairly accurate description of what Trump does. That is no way to engage in Trump Derangement Syndrome.
No, he can’t legally take anything more than $2,700 from an individual (actually $5,400, since an individual can donate once for primaries and again for the general election).
PACs are also limited to $5,000, and no corporate donations are allowed.
Donors may be giving more to the GOP to support efforts to elect their candidates, including Trump, or giving to a Super PAC that is independently supporting Trump, but not directly to Trump.
Just FYI.
I wonder what people who oppose Citizens United think of that. Watch out, media - you’re next.
This is the height of naivete and completely at odds with the realities of political donations.
No, it’s 100% correct.
You are free to explain why you think it’s wrong.
I didn’t say it was wrong, just naive to think that billionaires actually obey the law. The reality is that millions are funneled into campaign work via foundations and think tanks, even though the law says that foundations may not use the bulk of that money for that purpose. They get around that law merely by saying that they’re only donating 49% to political ads and candidate support, and by shoveling truckloads of money to other foundations, where it becomes even more vague as to its origins and end-use.
As the story notes, Trump can only accept donations of $2,700.
The $333,400 the limit for donations to national political parties. The Republican party may spend money to help Trump, but the party can’t donate more than $5,000 to Trump, so it won’t help him retire his debt much.
The only donor who can give unlimited amounts to the Trump campaign is Donald Trump.
Those aren’t donations to the campaign though.
I already said that donors can give to Super PACs that support Trump. If you want to add “foundations and think tanks” to that, fine. Doesn’t change what I said. “Campaign work” is independent of the campaign. There’s nothing illegal about campaigning for a candidate you support independent of that campaign. The laws you maintain are being abused by think tanks and foundaitons are tax-exemption laws, not campaign finance laws.