this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
793 points (99.7% liked)

politics

30064 readers
2365 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“While Susan Collins’ campaign is backed by billionaire donors, our campaign is built on a movement funded by the people, with an average donation of $26,” said Graham Platner’s campaign manager.

A new analysis of campaign finance data shows that nearly 100 billionaires and their spouses have contributed to Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ reelection bid so far, funneling nearly $10 million to the incumbent’s campaign committee and PACs supporting her effort to fend off progressive challenger Graham Platner.

The Maine Monitor on Thursday published a list of billionaires who have donated to Collins and Platner, who has called his Republican opponent a “corrupt” protector and beneficiary of an oligarchic political system.

The outlet noted that Collins’ billionaire donation total “stands in stark contrast with the fundraising of her opponent... whose campaign has mostly attracted smaller amounts of funds but from many more people.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

BUT these Billionaires CARE about Us! THATS why they're FORCING us to Invest ALL OUR RETIREMENT into Their Companies so they can be Trillionaires!

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

But you can't shop lift! Think about the employees and small business people who will suffer!

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We need term limits in Congress.

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No. 40 years ago we needed term limits in congress. An ounce of prevention on time is worth a shipping container of 7.68 when the problem has gotten stupid.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

The best time to plant a tree, and all that...

[–] 5wim@infosec.pub 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I could swear that's what I typed. Or I've been playing a video game with different numbers? Who's to say.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jestho@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You need a lot more than that, American

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

And probably needed more than one little law 40 years ago. I stand by my approximate ratio.

[–] NM_Gringo@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey, now. Susan Collins is very concerned about all the billionaire money in politics. Very concerned. Almost very, very concerned. Right on the edge.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

She's not happy about it, but in the end, after wrestling with her conscience, she will take their money, but she's not happy about it, and she'll do whatever they tell her to do, but she's not happy about it.

[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

She must be a very unhappy woman.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Those pearls don't clutch themselves.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 118 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To them, losing the "progressives can't win purple states" narrative would be a catastrophe.

[–] Blibly@lemmy.world 77 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Not only can progressives win in purple states, I bet they can win in these supposedly "red" states that have been abandoned by the Dems in recent years. Progressive takeover of the Democratic Party needs to happen ASAP.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago

I agree. I don't think the actual silent majority thinks "that guy's too far right" or "that lady's too far left," they ask "which one's gonna help with my problems?"

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

People in those red states will never vote for anyone with a 'D' next to their name, no matter how much they agree with them.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] robocall@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

Let's interview everyone that has a grudge with Susan Collins.

No? We can only interview every ex girlfriend, guy that's willing to say something negative, and Republican friend of a friend that knows the grassroots guy. Huh, I wonder why.

[–] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 64 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In 1936, Roosevelt was elected despite millionaires pouring money into Hoover's campaign.

Voting is important.

https://www.americanheritage.com/1936-fifty-years-ago-2

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If it wasn't, they wouldn't make it so hard to vote or try to stop you. It unfortunately isn't very effective when people are complacent. But when people are pissed, even stacked decks and rigging won't hold ultimately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MushuChupacabra@piefed.world 48 points 2 days ago (69 children)

The algorithm is simple. Watch who the billionaires back, then vote for the other option.

load more comments (69 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When that health care CEO was executed, his company, and all the other health care companies temporarily eased up on their denials, and thousands of people got treatment who were previously denied. I've read of people who were going to die, until they suddenly got approved following the murder.

Of course, they've gone back to business as usual, but that only demonstrates that we have to execute another CEO every few months. Maybe be strategic about it, and spread it around in different industries until they get their shit together.

First handle a few health care guys until they clean it up, and stay there. Then maybe oil companies CEOs are next. Maybe pharmaceutical companies.

Eventually, maybe we execute enough, that the business world decides to adopt a more moral stance towards money, one where they can still get rich, without being such shitheads that they eventually get set on fire in front of their families.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago (5 children)

"But we need someone electable, someone both sides like!"

Yeah no, the "both sides" these people are referring to is the defensive and offensive wing of the same group.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 16 points 2 days ago

Planter was the only candidate whose website had the word "genocide" so he got my vote

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago

Jesus Christ, Maine.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›