I will only discuss the US situation, but I am sure it is similar in most countries. The numbers may be very different, but the outcomes and expectations are probably the same.
According to CNN (https://tinyurl.com/345ctjtn), spending on presidential and congressional races is projected to hit nearly $16 billion, setting a new record. The Washington Post (https://tinyurl.com/yk8sxkat) reported that the 50 biggest donors this cycle have collectively donated over $2.5 billion to political committees and other groups competing in the election. This staggering figure raises an important question that seems to have been neglected by the mainstream media and much of the public discourse: What exactly are the Top 50 donors, collectively contributing $2.5 billion, expecting in return for their money?
This question is vital because it shows how power and influence operate in modern American democracy. Yet, few journalists, commentators, or political analysts appear willing to ask or investigate this issue deeply. Instead, the focus is often on the mechanics of fundraising or the horse race of elections rather than the broader implications of such enormous financial influence on governance and policy.
At the same time, voter participation paints a stark picture of disengagement and division. Almost one-third of eligible Americans do not participate in elections. Of the remaining two-thirds, many are more concerned with ensuring their side "wins" at all costs rather than critically evaluating what it takes to secure those victories—or the potential consequences. This hyper-partisan environment has created a system where winning has become the ultimate goal, overshadowing values like accountability, transparency, and long-term governance.
Social media has only exacerbated these issues by creating echo chambers where dissenting voices are often silenced or ignored. Platforms that once promised open dialogue have amplified polarization, ensuring that only one side of a story gets discussed within any given circle. The Fourth Estate, which ideally should serve as a check on power, seems increasingly aligned with partisan interests, crushing opposing viewpoints or ignoring them altogether. Even when dissenting voices break through, they are often drowned out by the overwhelming noise of partisan narratives.
This "win-at-all-costs" mentality comes with a price, and the people will ultimately bear it. When democratic systems are governed by money and polarized by ideology, the public's real needs and concerns are sidelined. A system driven by financial influence and hyper-partisanship risks becoming disconnected from its foundational purpose: representing the people's interests.
Reflecting on this troubling state of affairs, I've found guidance in two timeless philosophies. The Royal Society's motto, "Nullius in verba" ("Take nobody's word for it"), emphasizes critical thinking and skepticism, encouraging us to question authority and seek evidence.
Similarly, Gautam Buddha's wisdom reminds us to approach truth with humility and independence: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders."
These principles encourage us to challenge the status quo, ask uncomfortable questions, and demand accountability—values that seem increasingly absent in today's political and media landscapes.
The bigger question is, "Is anyone going to do something about it?" Or the winning side will move on since they won, and the losing side will complain for the next four years, even when the right things are getting done. I believe we all know the answer.
Those are mindboggling numbers and raise all kinds of alarm. You are absolutely right, "What exactly are the Top 50 donors, collectively contributing $2.5 billion, expecting in return for their money?"
It is a vital question, as is the point of low vote turnout - this always gets me - even in former soviet countries, where they fought hard to get freedom of vote, the turnout is low! Insanity, plus people do not really engage in understanding why they are voting for someone. I have read all sorts of research on this. We certainly need a better educated public to understand the importance of what they gain and lose in elections.
Those are two wonderful guiding principles.
"Is anyone going to do something about it?" Fichte said people must stand up for something - it seems that it is the public's moral obligation to do something about this - but you are right, we all know the answer!
The RSA has a long history of 'Coffee House Sessions' for debate - revived with more ooomph a few years ago. Indeed, the RSA was conceived 250+ years ago in a café if I remember correctly.
I will only discuss the US situation, but I am sure it is similar in most countries. The numbers may be very different, but the outcomes and expectations are probably the same.
According to CNN (https://tinyurl.com/345ctjtn), spending on presidential and congressional races is projected to hit nearly $16 billion, setting a new record. The Washington Post (https://tinyurl.com/yk8sxkat) reported that the 50 biggest donors this cycle have collectively donated over $2.5 billion to political committees and other groups competing in the election. This staggering figure raises an important question that seems to have been neglected by the mainstream media and much of the public discourse: What exactly are the Top 50 donors, collectively contributing $2.5 billion, expecting in return for their money?
This question is vital because it shows how power and influence operate in modern American democracy. Yet, few journalists, commentators, or political analysts appear willing to ask or investigate this issue deeply. Instead, the focus is often on the mechanics of fundraising or the horse race of elections rather than the broader implications of such enormous financial influence on governance and policy.
At the same time, voter participation paints a stark picture of disengagement and division. Almost one-third of eligible Americans do not participate in elections. Of the remaining two-thirds, many are more concerned with ensuring their side "wins" at all costs rather than critically evaluating what it takes to secure those victories—or the potential consequences. This hyper-partisan environment has created a system where winning has become the ultimate goal, overshadowing values like accountability, transparency, and long-term governance.
Social media has only exacerbated these issues by creating echo chambers where dissenting voices are often silenced or ignored. Platforms that once promised open dialogue have amplified polarization, ensuring that only one side of a story gets discussed within any given circle. The Fourth Estate, which ideally should serve as a check on power, seems increasingly aligned with partisan interests, crushing opposing viewpoints or ignoring them altogether. Even when dissenting voices break through, they are often drowned out by the overwhelming noise of partisan narratives.
This "win-at-all-costs" mentality comes with a price, and the people will ultimately bear it. When democratic systems are governed by money and polarized by ideology, the public's real needs and concerns are sidelined. A system driven by financial influence and hyper-partisanship risks becoming disconnected from its foundational purpose: representing the people's interests.
Reflecting on this troubling state of affairs, I've found guidance in two timeless philosophies. The Royal Society's motto, "Nullius in verba" ("Take nobody's word for it"), emphasizes critical thinking and skepticism, encouraging us to question authority and seek evidence.
Similarly, Gautam Buddha's wisdom reminds us to approach truth with humility and independence: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders."
These principles encourage us to challenge the status quo, ask uncomfortable questions, and demand accountability—values that seem increasingly absent in today's political and media landscapes.
The bigger question is, "Is anyone going to do something about it?" Or the winning side will move on since they won, and the losing side will complain for the next four years, even when the right things are getting done. I believe we all know the answer.
Those are mindboggling numbers and raise all kinds of alarm. You are absolutely right, "What exactly are the Top 50 donors, collectively contributing $2.5 billion, expecting in return for their money?"
It is a vital question, as is the point of low vote turnout - this always gets me - even in former soviet countries, where they fought hard to get freedom of vote, the turnout is low! Insanity, plus people do not really engage in understanding why they are voting for someone. I have read all sorts of research on this. We certainly need a better educated public to understand the importance of what they gain and lose in elections.
Those are two wonderful guiding principles.
"Is anyone going to do something about it?" Fichte said people must stand up for something - it seems that it is the public's moral obligation to do something about this - but you are right, we all know the answer!
The RSA has a long history of 'Coffee House Sessions' for debate - revived with more ooomph a few years ago. Indeed, the RSA was conceived 250+ years ago in a café if I remember correctly.
That is another great example Joshua, I had in mind the RSA, but did not know about the coffee house sessions.
At least they are asking questions - but little will get done - https://x.com/sama/status/1880303311842341152