[T]he cryptocurrency industry has spent more on 2024 elections than the entire energy sector and the entire health sector. Those industries, both worth hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, are being outspent by an industry that, even by generous estimates, is worth less than $20 billion.
Most of the cryptocurrency industry’s money is going to massive super PACs like Fairshake — that is, single-issue committees focused only on installing crypto-friendly politicians and ousting those the industry views as a threat.
Although these PACs have spent only a fraction of the more than $200 million in their combined war chests, they’re already finding some success. Democratic California Senate candidate Katie Porter lost her primary race after Fairshake spent $10 million on attack ads against her. In New York, Fairshake piled on $2 million to oppose Democratic House Candidate Jamaal Bowman, who ultimately lost his primary race. $1.5 million from the Republican-focused blockchain super PAC, Defend American Jobs, helped Republican Jim Justice win his West Virginia Senate primary. $1.7 million from the Democrat-focused blockchain super PAC, Protect Progress, similarly aided Shomari Figures in winning his Alabama House primary.
...
To help shine a light on this incredible volume of spending, I’ve spent the past two months working on a new website: Follow the Crypto.
Thanks for posting this skybrian. Whenever I get these insights into how the sausage is made politically, I can't help but be reminded of this paper. From the abstract:
Thanks for posting this skybrian.
Whenever I get these insights into how the sausage is made politically, I can't help but be reminded of this paper. From the abstract:
The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
I've seen that paper before and I think I discussed it somewhere? But I can't find it now. With any study, you want to look at what the authors actually did and then think about whether it...
I've seen that paper before and I think I discussed it somewhere? But I can't find it now.
With any study, you want to look at what the authors actually did and then think about whether it actually proves the abstract point that they're making in their summary. Looking at specific examples is a good spot-check.
They looked at 1779 cases. What are some examples of those? It's not in the paper, and when I follow the provided link for, it just goes back to the paper again. I guess it's on the "supplementary materials" tab?
From Molly White's newsletter:
...
Thanks for posting this skybrian.
Whenever I get these insights into how the sausage is made politically, I can't help but be reminded of this paper. From the abstract:
I've seen that paper before and I think I discussed it somewhere? But I can't find it now.
With any study, you want to look at what the authors actually did and then think about whether it actually proves the abstract point that they're making in their summary. Looking at specific examples is a good spot-check.
They looked at 1779 cases. What are some examples of those? It's not in the paper, and when I follow the provided link for, it just goes back to the paper again. I guess it's on the "supplementary materials" tab?