Campaign aides said the rules are designed to protect donors who falsely believe they are contributing to Trump's campaign

Donald Trump is trying to bring into politics a phenomenon that’s taking off in college athletics: money for use of the former president’s name, image and likeness in campaign ads.

In a letter this week, the Trump presidential campaign asked all down-ballot GOP campaigns for at least a 5% cut of the money raised from advertising that features the party’s 2024 presumptive White House nominee.

“We ask that all candidates and committees who choose to use President Trump’s name, image, and likeness split a minimum of 5% of all fundraising solicitations to Trump National Committee JFC,” said the April 15 letter signed by campaign co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

  • @givesomefucksEnglish
    -2•7 months ago

    My question was, why is that worse than what Trump is doing?

    …

    Because trump is just demanding a cut.

    Biden’s 2020 campaign are the ones that structured it so billionaires can give 625k, which is much larger than the normal 2.5k you can give to a candidate.

    PACs get around it by not being allowed to “coordinate” with the campaign legally.

    This allows the DNC to essentially be a PAC, except they can legally coordinate with Biden’s campaign…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donors-can-now-give-620600-to-biden-and-dnc-expanding-democratic-big-money-fundraising/2020/05/16/d2bf51cc-978a-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

    It’s all there in one of the links you haven’t read.

    trump is doing a small time grift, Biden significantly expanded how much the wealthy can influence an election far and above citizens united. Which you just said was a problem…

    So I don’t understand how you don’t see how what Biden is doing is worse.

    If the problem is me explaining it, please read those articles and see if that helps. I’m not sure how else to put it that’s simpler, and don’t see the point of me going as in depth as those articles you won’t read.

    • mozz
      6•7 months ago

      I understand perfectly well, you don’t need to keep repeating or pretending that the issue is that I don’t understand.

      Trump is siphoning money that he didn’t raise away from downballot candidates

      Biden is raising money, then you’re saying that he’s probably not giving enough of it to downballot candidates (while admitting you have no idea whether that’s actually happening; you’re just assuming it because of what Hillary did)

      Right? Do I have that summary correct?

      If your main concern is that you’re upset that all this stuff is legal in America, I fully agree. I think directing anger at the system that made it legal and try to make it illegal again sounds like a great idea. Since it’s legal though, it seems weird to say that it’s a huge problem that the better candidate in this election is doing it (to try to raise money and win the election).

      I don’t even understand how Biden’s name came into this and why you’re trying so hard to link this particular type of legalized corruption with his name, specifically under an unrelated story about Trump inventing a whole new type of kneecapping-downballot-candidates to do.

      (I mean, I have a theory for why you’re so eager to bring Biden’s name into it and bring up shady things Hillary Clinton did 8 years ago; I’m just pointing out that it’s an odd thing to be so eager to bring into discussion about this story.)

      • @givesomefucksEnglish
        -5•7 months ago

        I understand perfectly well, you don’t need to keep repeating or pretending that the issue is that I don’t understand

        You literally said:

        My question was, why is that worse than what Trump is doing? Even if we posit without evidence that Biden is guaranteed to do exactly the same thing with it that Hillary did.

        So I took that as meaning I needed to repeat what I already explained because you didn’t understand…

        You keep asking me things that are explained in the articles you’re not reading.

        If the problem is me, take me out of the equation and just read the articles man.

        • mozz
          2•7 months ago

          That comic is actually a really good illustration of how to use propagandistic framing (take a sensible thing and put it in the mouth of a character who’s dislikeable) – in this case, making it seem like “Sounds like you’re talking bollocks about something I care about, can you justify what you said?” is a rude thing to ask.

          (Edit: He edited the comment maybe? This is the comic which was part of the comment before he edited it)