Amazon's $1.5 Million Political Gambit Backfires in Seattle City Council Election (reuters.com) 170
Seattle voters, in a rebuke to heavy corporate campaign spending by Amazon.com, have kept progressives firmly in control of their city council, reviving chances for a tax on big businesses that the tech giant helped fend off last year. From a report: Amazon poured a record $1.5 million into a Super PAC run by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce to back a slate of candidates in the Nov. 5 council elections viewed as pro-business, or at least more corporate friendly than the incumbent council majority. Amazon, the world's leading online retailer whose chief executive is billionaire entrepreneur Jeff Bezos, accounted for more than half of nearly $2.7 million raised by the Super PAC, a group allowed to accept unlimited sums from wealthy donors in support of their favorite candidates. Four years ago, Amazon donated $25,000. By comparison, labor unions spent more than $1 million on the council race.
The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council. The outcome for most of the seven council seats at stake in Tuesday's election was too close to call until Friday night, when a tally of 97 percent of votes cast showed that progressive candidates had won five of the seats, including two incumbents.
The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council. The outcome for most of the seven council seats at stake in Tuesday's election was too close to call until Friday night, when a tally of 97 percent of votes cast showed that progressive candidates had won five of the seats, including two incumbents.
by the time you read this (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon made 1.5 million dollars.
"Pour" is editorialized. However this is a problem of money allowed to go wild in US politics. 1.5 million from a PAC into a local election is insane.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is what will cost amazon more moving and taking away those 50k+ jobs from Seattle or sticking around and just taking it. If the answer is the second one then the counsel did well if it's not then they will loose a lot of jobs for Seattle because Amazon isn't the only company there.
Re:by the time you read this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am with you. I am really not a fan of the transition and 'growth' that is happening to rural Virginia right now. On the flip side my property value is (at least according to Zillow) experience a meteoric rise in value. Well those are gains I can realize when I am ready to retire anyway. I can sell this place and move up into the hills over in Highland County or across the boarder in West Virginia. So its not all bad.
However it really wont be that many years before there is no-place left to go the way t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At least you own property. What if it was just your rent that was skyrocketing?
I bought a home in 2006 and after putting around 35k usd in just materials (probably 80-100k if I hired out the jobs), I am just now breaking even and that's not counting the 35k, nor taxes, nor insurance. I'm down over 100k on it. I remember attempting to refinance in 2012 and being asked to bring 60 thousand to close. I had to many other assets to claim bankruptcy, so being fiscally responsible sure bites you in the ass sometimes. Renting insulates you from risk, it's not the panacea of bad ideas pre 2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets face it there is EXACTLY one thing correlated with environmental impact and that is human population density. If you really care about this country continuing to have a good environmental quality, if you want outdoor spaces for your kids to explore, where you can hunt fish and camp; than you should oppose immigration because that is where all of our real growth is coming from and allowing that to proceed means we won't have open spaces.
I think you are conflating population density with population growth. Dense populations (for example Manhattan) tend to have lower per capita impacts than lower density populations.
Re: (Score:2)
lower percapita impact yes but not lower impact. Manhattan is not exactly a nature preserve so sure 1 more person does not change the landscape much, and 1 more person won't add as much carbon foot print there as it would out here. That isn't the point.
Places urbanize as you increase the number of people. We should be looking at NOT growing the US population in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to move out of the city, but you only end up bringing it with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Dense populations (for example Manhattan) tend to have lower per capita impacts than lower density populations.
They certainly have the effect of isolating the people who live there from the reality of their existence though. All that concrete and steel, oil and increasingly lithium for transport, all the acres of animals and crops for food and the far off sources of water and electricity are in fact extensions of that city whether the people who live there know it or not.
It's easy to complain about strip mining and factory farming, but cities themselves are anything but natural, and their effects extend far outside
Re: (Score:2)
I am with you. I am really not a fan of the transition and 'growth' that is happening to rural Virginia right now. On the flip side my property value is (at least according to Zillow) experience a meteoric rise in value. Well those are gains I can realize when I am ready to retire anyway. I can sell this place and move up into the hills over in Highland County or across the boarder in West Virginia. So its not all bad.
Totally with you on this. Increase in property values is good for retirement, but the change in daily living experiences is not always a good thing
However it really wont be that many years before there is no-place left to go the way things are going. This is why I really can't understand why the environmental wing of the left remains in line with the progressive wing. Lets face it there is EXACTLY one thing correlated with environmental impact and that is human population density. If you really care about this country continuing to have a good environmental quality, if you want outdoor spaces for your kids to explore, where you can hunt fish and camp; than you should oppose immigration because that is where all of our real growth is coming from and allowing that to proceed means we won't have open spaces.
I don't see the connect between corporate growth and left/right-wing ideologies. If anything, I would guess corporate growth is a right-wing priority. Of course, the comment on immigration is mainly incorrect. This type of corporate growth is based mainly on interstate population shifts and has less to do with international immigration. Yes, there are H-1B v
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I noticed the poke at immigration as well.
It was relegated last position where it should never have appeared at all.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side my property value is (at least according to Zillow) experience a meteoric rise in value
But wait - aren't meteors spectacular because they're falling rapidly?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the Senates job was supposed to be "pump the breaks" and respond to issues that are of concern to the states. The people have house, the House those representatives can, should, and do respond to the whim of the day. The Senate should be more isolated and be populated with people that have an interest in limiting rather than expanding federal power.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Senates job was supposed to be "pump the breaks" and respond to issues that are of concern to the states.
It should be noted that the Founders never stated this in any of their writings, and the earliest references to this supposed role of the Senate is decades later.
The people have house, the House
Not anymore. We stopped expanding the size of the House in the 1910s. The result is rural states are over-represented in the House because representatives are whole numbers. For the people to actually "have the House", we'd need to at least double the size of it. To get the level of representation the Founders described (and attempted to includ
Re: (Score:2)
Canada, at about 1/10th the population of America has 308 MPs (representatives) and it increases every 10 or so years. So yes, you should have about 3000 representatives.
Article the 1st could still be ratified, just like Article the 2nd finally got ratified. It's interesting that the very first amendment that was proposed was to make sure of a representative for every 30,000 people or such.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a line on your tax form that you can write a number into.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live that property taxes are near 100%?
Re: (Score:2)
Get a job cretin!
Re: (Score:3)
the problem is communities which participate in the "Race to the bottom" do not have the revenues to educate the next generation of knowledge workers, provide basic city services to those workers and on and on and on.
it's high time that corporations begin paying their share of investment in our future instead of abusing the economic slack.
Re:by the time you read this (Score:4, Informative)
The problem here is that the city isn't interested in providing all those things for 'knowledge workers'. Just more programs for the homeless and opiate addicted. No knowledge workers would qualify to rent any of the proposed affordable housing that the city wants to build. They would be too wealthy. And as to the 'education of knowledge workers', Washington State effectively took school financing out of the hands of local districts with the McCleary decision (state supreme court decision making education funding the responsibility of the state).
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to understand how adding massive revenues to Seattle is equivalent to a "race to the bottom." Most of Seattle's revenue comes from property tax, B&O tax, and retail sales tax. Amazon's presence in Seattle has significantly increased the revenues in all of those areas. There are more housing units - all assessed at a higher value resulting in a significant increase in property tax revenue. There are more purchases in Seattle resulting in higher sales tax revenue. B&O tax is charged on gro
Re: (Score:2)
The crazies want things to go back to the way they were when this city was dying and it was a boring husk of a city. It's pure terrible rightous thinking and if the city was as drab as it was they would move away.
Re: (Score:2)
Most corporations have already raised prices as high as they can, which is why some are insanely profitable with those profits increasing much faster then inflation. Raise their taxes and, for example, Apple might no longer have close to a trillion dollars in reserve and some of the owners might have to settle for only half a dozen yachts.
One thing that high corporate taxes did was encourage them to spend money on their business, including employees, rather then give it to the government.
It does have to be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real question is what will cost amazon more moving and taking away those 50k+ jobs from Seattle or sticking around and just taking it.
Most likely, it will be both. The existing jobs will stick around, and new jobs will more likely be created elsewhere.
The tax is $275 per employee per year. That is a small expense. Amazon is more concerned about the precedent of big corporations being used as a piggy bank to solve social problems that have little to do with them.
This tax is targeted on homelessness. Amazon is not responsible for homelessness, and the money is unlikely to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle already has a massive budget per capita [ballotpedia.org]. that's only low
Re: (Score:2)
$13.7 million extra a year really adds up it's a good reason to move some where else.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always "somebody else's problem"; that attitude is why we have problems that many countries have mostly solved already.
Re: (Score:3)
This tax is targeted on homelessness. Amazon is not responsible for homelessness
Amazon employees have significantly increased the cost of housing in the Seattle area by increasing demand. Increased housing costs increase homelessness.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon employees have significantly increased the cost of housing in the Seattle area by increasing demand. Increased housing costs increase homelessness.
The obvious solution is to increase the supply to meet the demand. Yet most building permit applications in the Seattle area are rejected at the behest of NIMBY voters.
Re: (Score:2)
I though you guys had democracy though... Is local government a corporatocracy or something?
Re: (Score:3)
ALL of America's levels of government are becoming plutocracies thanks to corporations and the rich being allowed to buy elections, when really what these bribes deserve is the death penalty for the offerers and takers...
Re: (Score:3)
not becoming, became... a long time ago as well.
death penalty for bribery is stupid. Removal of all financial assets from that person giving and taking a bribe is good enough.
If murdering people is your first reaction then you have some problems you need to work out.
Also, we are not and never have been a Democracy of any kind and it's a sign of significant ignorance to not understand why the USA is not one. We have all sorts of minority checks against majority will... up and down the spectrum. And I have
Re: (Score:2)
A great example of this would be Prop 8 for California... despite a "Democratic" vote for marriage to be between 1 man and 1 women it was struck down by one person. If you call that Democracy then you don't know the meaning of the word.
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on dinner. Any added checks and balances against tyranny of the majority should be considered a bonus added feature of a civilized society, even if it is not really pure democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the OP. The corporations are throwing money at electors who don't give a shit.
Until business can give money directly to voters, voters will be interested in their own self-interests.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
However this is a problem of money allowed to go wild in US politics.
Why is it a problem? Amazon LOST. Maybe voters aren't as stupid as you think they are.
However, money from billionaires is a big problem at the national level. It is tragic how the Koch brothers were able to just buy the presidency for Jeb Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeb Bush is a mess. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon made 1.5 million dollars.
"Pour" is editorialized. However this is a problem of money allowed to go wild in US politics. 1.5 million from a PAC into a local election is insane.
"$2.7 million raised by the Super PAC, a group allowed to accept unlimited sums from wealthy donors in support of their favorite candidates..."
Well, don't tell anyone, but I think I might have figured out where the fucking problem is.
Forget Amazon. Go after the corrupt asshat who thought this bullshit should be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the Supreme Court. Citizens United v. FEC. However, a more recent case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission and Crossroads GPS, might force such organizations to reveal who their donors are and how much money they give. The case is under appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
> That would be the Supreme Court. Citizens United v. FEC.
Whenever this is brought up I have to ask the question. Can someone release a video critical of a candidate of an election during a campaign? If you answer yes then you have sided with the Supreme Court in Citizens United. That does not change even if you use your own money to release that video.
Citizens United in a nutshell: A non-profit organization uses its money to release a video critical of Hillary Clinton when she was campaigning for federa
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok, seems we've fallen out of love with free speech anyway.
Uh, it's more like we've fallen in love with "hate" speech.
Love is the only accurate word to describe the unending desire to redefine that bullshit every 10 minutes to ensure that no one is offended, which of course is an exercise in stupidity.
Re: by the time you read this (Score:2)
Picture Bezos with his pinky against his mouth saying "1.5 MILLION dollars".
Re:by the time you read this (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet they failed. What conclusion can be drawn from this outcome?
Re: (Score:3)
And yet they failed. What conclusion can be drawn from this outcome?
The conclusion is that the formula for electioneering is outdated.
The Koch brothers went through this in the 2102 election.
Voters are immune bullshit. For example, all of us already know who we're voting for in 2020 and advertising, false narratives, and paid influences isn't going to change that.
The reality is that the voters are still in control.
Those who don't vote are controlled by those of who do.
Re: (Score:2)
" However this is a problem of money allowed to go wild in US politics."
No, it's not. This is just spaghetti blaming shit to see what blame sticks. No amount of money is going to sway a voter that cares. It certainly seems to not be affecting your opinions does it?
O wait... do you mean to imply that the politicians are getting paid off by this? So tell me how would you keep a bunch corrupt people from bribing corrupt people? If you can figure that out you can end the need for government entirely... or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Other Amazon customers who purchased . . . " (Score:5, Funny)
". . . City Councils have also purchased these Senators and Representatives."
"Would you be interested in a subscription to Amazon Politicians Prime . . . ?"
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't the unions getting the same flak? (Score:3, Insightful)
Labour unions poured almost the same amount of money in to the election, and yet nobody is chastising them for it.
I think buying politicians is horrible, but it's no more horrible when one entity does it vs another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the conservative Supreme Court basically ruled that such bribery is "free speech". Barring a Constitutional amendment, we are probably stuck with a bribeocracy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think unions aren't just as big (or often bigger) business than the corporations, you're clearly deluded.
I'm not saying however that corporations should be able to buy politicians, I'm against that. It's just that I'm against ANYONE buying a politician. The people have representation at the polling station, nobody should have representation beyond that.
Re:Why aren't the unions getting the same flak? (Score:5, Informative)
This equating unions with corporations thing is the height of intellectual dishonesty. A corporation exists to maximize unearned income for its shareholders, while a union exists to maximize earned income. Excluding for the moment the problems some unions have had with their leadership this difference is incredibly significant. One can get into the negatives associated with collective bargaining without being intellectually dishonest, but the general impact of unions on workers (the vast majority of constituents in the USA) is a matter of historic record.
That corporations have also been a net positive is clear as well. But without being forced to be responsible, once they go public they essentially never are. That's not a coincidence, either. Public corporations are legally obligated to do whatever they can to maximize profits, including changing the legal landscape to suit their needs. Private corporations are more of a crapshoot, as their general ethics are often dictated by their ownership. But make no mistake, a union is not a corporation in the general sense of the word, even when they meet some of the legal criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Except unions are also not accountable to anyone (least of all their own membership), and are frequently caught lobbying politicians for things that the majority of their membership emphatically do not want. In many places union membership is mandatory with no ability to opt out short of quitting your employment, and in many cases, your entire industry.
Unions are not, and have not been for decades, in it for their membership. They are in it for the unions, and their leaders.
I note you exclude the "problems
Re: (Score:2)
What's most galling however is this false dichotomy that you spout where you state that capitalists should have no influence on politicians, while communists should have unfettered access to them.
Given the current system involves buying off the politician in one way or another, having the majority decide over the single interests of an individual is representative democracy. Communism is the state owning the means of production, learn basic English and your point, however unsubstantiated, will at least look better.
Re: (Score:3)
Actual Communism is not having a State or government, just the people. Some forms of socialism involve the state owning the means of production, others have the workers directly owning the means of production.
Re: (Score:2)
> corporation exists to maximize unearned income for its shareholders
> while a union exists to maximize earned income.
Lol. You clearly understand that Unions can have problems and that Corporations can do good things. But you still insist that when one uses money to push a political agenda it is somehow different when the other does the same thing.
I don't get it. Why such dedication to something that can be just as corrupt as another thing? While having such disdain for that other thing?
> a union
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation exists to maximize unearned income for its shareholders, while a union exists to maximize the union leadership's and their crony's income and political influence & power while sucking dry their worker's pension funds and being one of the largest political money contributors and drivers of government corruption, some of the worst offenders being public-sector unions.
FTFY
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am deluded then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, corporate fascists buying out politicians to fiscally enslave workers is the same as constituents having to buy at least some representation back to actually participate in democracy. Got it.
That would be a swell parting shot except the outcome mentioned in the OP says you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Labour unions poured almost the same amount of money in to the election, and yet nobody is chastising them for it.
I think buying politicians is horrible, but it's no more horrible when one entity does it vs another.
It's because union buying isn't effective, either.
Are people this crazy? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You honestly believe that products get more expensive because of taxes? And that they'd get cheaper if corporations paid less?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corps will raise or lower prices dependent on profit maximization. That's basically it. Cost only factors in as far as it dictates the floor of the asking price. If you had to ask any less than cost means the product will not be produced. Aside of this, price is mostly affected by the question what the market will allow in terms of maximizing profits.
For reference, see iPhones.
Lowering the tax burden of corporations will maybe lower the prices of goods to a much lesser degree because it might (might!) mean
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What percent do you mark up your total costs of the items you sell? And how did you determine that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes taxes do impact product prices. How naive do you really have to be to not understand the most simple of economics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the glorious future we're headed for, when Amazon warehouses are completely robotic, there will be no employees and therefore no employment taxes, and in your world no business taxes either. This all sounds to me like a path to the heat death of the economy.
Assuming this is true, what incentive does any company have to locate their robotic warehouse in a location that taxes them for doing it. Either we're right back to the same situation where the costs get passed on to consumers which you already seem to understand, the company moves to a new location (much easier to relocate 50,000 robots than human) that doesn't have any taxes, or they go out of business because a company located in an area that doesn't have as much tax burden can undercut on price and stea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming this is true, what incentive does any company have to locate their robotic warehouse in a location that taxes them for doing it.
Shipping is not free nor instantaneous.
Either we're right back to the same situation where the costs get passed on to consumers
This isn't actually true. Higher taxes raise the price floor for an item. But nothing is sold at its price floor, because the only perfectly efficient markets are in Econ 101 textbooks.
but because of the very real recognition that if they don't someone else will and at the end of the day customers are only loyal to a point and most will do business with whichever company offers the best value.
People have been using this logic to predict the economic doom of California for about 60 years. Hasn't quite happened yet.
People also have been using this logic to predict that those tech giants will soon relocate to $CHEAP_STATE any day now. Hasn't quite happened yet.
People also us
Re: (Score:2)
Taxing corporations is just passed on to taxayers who buy the products. Why the hell does noone understand this?
We don't understand it because it isn't true.
Higher taxes raise the price floor for an item. There are approximately zero goods that are being sold at their price floor. So whether or not higher taxes increase the sale price for an item is not at all straightforward.
You think this because all the crap you learned in Econ 101 was dependent on a perfectly efficient market, and no perfectly efficient market exists in the real world.
You know what's the real story here? (Score:4, Insightful)
That buying politicians didn't work is actually rare enough that it's newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake Amazon made was not to use fake grass roots organizations for their effort. Whoever worked on this must not have much experience trying to influence elections.
Re: (Score:2)
That buying politicians didn't work is actually rare enough that it's newsworthy.
I think it's more than that (though you are correct).
This same kind of money-throwing didn't work for the Koch brothers in 2012 and it didn't work worth a damn for the NRA in 2016.
The NRA essentially went broke by playing their hidden immunity idol when they didn't have to. Trump won because Clinton had enough baggage to sink her and the Democrats ignored the white Evangelical Christian under-educated white women in the rust belt.
Trump is not a bought politician.
The goddam "geniuses" with money don't know h
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious. Politics these days breeds a strange kind of fanaticism where objective truth and even ethical morality takes a back seat to team loyalty. People are selling their souls left and right for empty promises
Trying to court the righteous... (Score:2, Insightful)
...is a mug's game.
Face it, Jeff, you can't buy your way into being loved by people that hate everything about you. It would be like a black guy trying to buy his way into the KKK.
Even if you dumped $billions into their causes of homelessness, ecomarxism, whatever, even your pockets aren't deep enough to fulfill their every desire, so you'll always come up short.
Pot Calling the Kettle Black (Score:2)
Amazon poured a record $1.5 million into a Super PAC run by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce [...] By comparison, labor unions poured a not-quite record $1 million into the council race.
The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council. Unsurprisingly, Warren and Sanders did not accuse labor unions of the same thing despite employing the exact same tactics of spending ridiculous amounts of money on a local election.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Unsurprisingly, Warren and Sanders did not accuse labor unions of the same thing despite employing the exact same tactics of spending ridiculous amounts of money on a local election.
Obviously this is because a single person buying off politicians is the same as a collective of hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of workers being forced to do the same just to have their interests as constituents recognized. All heil supreme overlord Jeff and begone you plebs with your nagging pathetic representation in government.
Re: (Score:2)
> this is because a single person buying off politicians is the same as a collective of hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of workers being forced to do the same just to have their interests as constituents recognized.
This really belies your ignorance on lobbyists. Every industry has lobbyists as it is easier for a single person to talk to a single politician. Bezo's is speaking on behalf on the Amazon employees to further the interests of Amazon just as the same as Union lobbyists pushing a partic
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon poured a record $1.5 million into a Super PAC run by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce [...] By comparison, labor unions poured a not-quite record $1 million into the council race.
The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council. Unsurprisingly, Warren and Sanders did not accuse labor unions of the same thing despite employing the exact same tactics of spending ridiculous amounts of money on a local election.
FTFY
And neither were successful.
FTFY
Well if you put the council up for sale... (Score:2)
...then someone is bound to buy it.
It's Seattle...And they're not "progressives". (Score:2)
The chances of ejecting the authoritarian Leftists had a snowball's chance in Hell.
You couldn't dislodge these crazies with orbital bombardment.
So enjoy the flushing sound...
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the problem with "feelz" based politics.
Article Totally Misses the Issues in Seattle (Score:2, Interesting)
I have followed the Seattle city council races for the last 6 months closely. I understand why Amazon put money against some of the people they don't support. That's how it works. Fund the representation that you want. But this isn't the point.
Seattle is dying. Great documentary by KOMO news. Look it up and watch it. You will understand what is really going on in the Emerald City.
What I don't understand is why the LEADERSHIP isn't blamed for this mess. The Seattle city council should 100% be strung
Yep (Score:2)
Seattle City Council is basically full of mouth breathing commies that shouldn't be allowed to run a hotdog stand, let alone make decisions for the city of this size. Good on Amazon to try and change that.
I don't know a lot about Seattle, but .... (Score:2, Interesting)
The issues they're facing sound pretty familiar from what I've seen in other places. And the truth is, the answers almost always lie with the government leadership (or lack thereof). The liberal progressives already run quite a few of our major cities, and have a pretty awful track record if you ask me? Baltimore, for example, or Chicago, Memphis or St. Louis?
I'm not saying the Republican contenders have all the solutions either - but you're a bit more likely with them to get people who are business-mind
Re: (Score:3)
If what I've seen over the past decade is the trajectory of a "dying" city, I can only hope to be so lucky as I age.
KOMO is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting [wikipedia.org]. I don't trust their angle. See also the Seattle Times article, "Turmoil inside KOMO News as conservative owner Sinclair mandates talking points" [seattletimes.com].
Cheers,
Not sure who is more stupid (Score:2)
The people who would tax the golden goose to the point of killing it or the people who would run their business in such a caustic environment.
Good (Score:2)
I look forward to Amazon moving large portions of its operations to places like RTP, NC.
Very expensive to buy an election (Score:2)
As a general rule, studies show that you have to double the money to get 1% more voters.
So if your opponent has spent $100k, and you are behind by just 5%, then you have to spend:
200k to get 1%
400k to get 2%
800k to get 3%
1m to get 4%
$2 million dollars (vs their $100k) to get 5% more voters.
It's not impossible to outspend, but it is very expensive.