speckxMar 20

90% of crypto's Illinois primary spending failed to achieve its objective

https://www.mollywhite.net/micro/entry/202603172318

90% of crypto's Illinois primary spending failed to achieve its objective

The cryptocurrency industry super PACs dumped $14.2 million into the Illinois primaries. 90% of that – $12.8 million – was wasted, in that it went to opposing Democratic candidates who won their primaries (Stratton in the Senate race, Ford in H-07) or supporting their opponents. The PACs' only victories in the state were where they contributed money towards outcomes that were already highly likely. They opposed Robert Peters (H-02), who had been polling in third place and ultimately received 12% of the vote. They supported Bean (who was leading the polls in H-08) and incumbent Budzinski (H-13). Sadly this early spending in Illinois used up less than 6% of what the super PACs have on hand, so buckle up for a looong eight months.

Molly White
Show threadjmyeetMar 20

You can't talk about what happened in the Illinois primaries without talking about the other PACs who spent big, specifically AIPAC and other dark-money Israel-affiliated PACs that spent to defeat pro-Palestinian candidates (eg Kat Abugazaleh) without ever once mentioning Israel [1].

It's far more accurate to say that pro-Zionist groups spent big in the Illinois primary and got mixed results. Crypto just went along for the ride.

There is a war in the Democratic Party between anti-genocide candidates, who enjoy 90% support in the base, and the establishment who is doing everything to defeat them, up to and including intentionally losing the 2024 presidential election [3].

Nobody cares about crypto.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/aipac-israel-illino...

[2]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead...

[3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-autopsy-gaza-...

AIPAC faces calls to reassess strategy after split results in Illinois

In its first midterms test, the powerful pro-Israel group backed two victors but failed to secure its preferred outcome in the two districts where it spent the most.

Politico
Show threadthuridasMar 20
I Will never understand why US allows this kind of political intervention.
Show threadtptacek
Pesky thing called the First Amendment.
Mar 20 at 5:33pmWeb
Show threadwyreMar 20
Citizens United cough
Show threadtptacekMar 20

A case where the opposition claimed that under a correct reading of the Constitution they had the authority to ban books.

I don't like lobbying and campaign finance either, but people shouldn't pretend these are simple or absurd arguments.

Show threadvkouMar 20
Money is speech, and is sacred, but books with gay people in them aren't speech, and need to be carefully controlled.
Show threadkubbMar 20

They really interpret the First to protect lobbying and campaign donations?

I mean the Second as written also isn’t primarily about the right to pack heat, so it’s not that surprising.

Show threadchimeracoderMar 20

The First Amendment does not explicitly mention campaign spending (or political campaigns at all), and until 2010, the First Amendment was not considered to apply to monetary spending in political campaigns.

The right to petition the government is explicitly protected, but that doesn't apply in the case of IL-9, which was an open race and therefore none of the candidates were actually elected representatives.

Show thread8noteMar 20

Even still, this is money on how a private entity decides who its going to support for a future election.

None of these people are even running for government yet.

If the democratic party wanted to so something about it, they could, but the freedom of expression and association guarantees that a party that wants to have lots of money spent on ads an such can do it

Show threadHenchman21Mar 20
Citizens United is an abomination. Its the reason we're in dire straits at present. It "legalized" bribery.
Show threadculiMar 20

If Mongolia pays a bunch of US citizens to vote for some candidate that promises to push the US towards militarily supporting Mongolia, do you think the First Amendment supports that?

Or more accurately, imagine if the US had special rules and exceptions for dual citizens of Mongolia and the US that don't exist for any other country and then it allowed those dual citizens to push for certain candidates without having to be registered as a foreign lobby.

Now try substituting Mongolia with Russia or China.