Between July and September, it cost the campaign $181 million to raise $235 million through such small contributions. That’s a considerable break from earlier in the year, when it raked in hundreds of millions while spending far less.
It’s a self sustaining grift operation. Grifters take control of the campaign and pay themselves exorbitant amounts of money to coordinate advertising campaigns. The purpose of those campaigns: raise more money. It’s a self-sustaining operation with the veneer of legitimacy because yeah, we spent 181 million on [unclear but doubtless a lot of “consulting fees”] but it raised us 235 million, you gotta spend money to make money baby. Nothing obviously illegal about this and the megadonors are plugged in enough that they don’t get mad because their contributions are wasted:
Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, recently donated $75 million to Preserve America, a new pro-Trump super political action committee that is not controlled by Trump World political operatives.
One of the reasons the group was founded in August is because there is deep distrust among some GOP donors that the existing pro-Trump organizations would spend the money wisely, according to a Republican strategist with direct knowledge of the matter.
If you’re right that it’s better for everyone if Trump loses the election, then that is very bad because in that case we are a stone cold lock for him to win.
BBC news is the most bland unsubstantial news site for US politics. I use it because I don’t want to view breathless CNN\MSNBC web stories that are nothing (I’ll see them here) and I don’t want to bother with the RWNJ at Fox anymore. When a story makes it here, it’s mainstream AF. I wonder if this is what caused the 60 min breakdown?
825% match seems like an insane fabrication. Banner-ad levels of trustworthiness there.
The Trump side must know they’ve squeezed almost every drop out of every legitimate supporter, and have run their currency into the ground. But it’s their grift; they have to keep on squeezing until there’s nothing left.
That‘s the thing. The fundraising emails lack even this minuscule amount specificity. They don‘t state who is matching anything. Is it the mysterious billionaire, Trump himself, the RNC, some SuperPAC, someone else entirely?
That’s smart for legal reasons and let‘s the rubes insert whatever explanation they find most credible.
There was a Wa Post article by Ben Adler on 10/9 on this topic. I’m having trouble moving from tha app to get a link. Here’s a relevant paragraph
In terms of legality, experts generally agree that false statements intended to flatter donors would be deemed harmless rhetoric in court. While lying about a donation match could legally be considered consumer fraud, there isn’t a specific campaign law against it. Christian Hilland, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, said the FEC considers its mandate to be enforcing the limits on donations, restrictions on sources and how the money is spent. “Our regulations wouldn’t cover deception or anything like that,” he said. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether it would investigate false fundraising claims as potential consumer fraud or wire fraud.
It makes him look like an idiot and a liar in the worst way. He could spin the $750 line as him being smart enough to practice tax avoidance, but what’s the angle here? Either he’s incompetent when it comes to facing China, or he decided it’s fine to pay taxes to another country, but America? You get $750.
