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

politics

30703 readers
1638 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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 89 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Blibly@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago (8 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 18 points 1 month 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?"

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 9 points 1 month ago

Just look at all the special elections earlier in the year that flipped seats. They're definitely scared we're waking up

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

We need a Left version of the Tea Party

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 54 points 1 month 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 24 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] MushuChupacabra@piefed.world 32 points 1 month ago (68 children)

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

load more comments (68 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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)
[–] Bluedragon012@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Kill the rich, save the poor. Taxation, is not enough for the current era. There must be justice for the crimes committed. Once they are dead, then we can figure out how to run the world without capitalism. Untill then, the elimination of the ultra-rich by any means should be the goal. Everything else is noise.

[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would be nice to have a post-conflict plan TBH. But yeah, whatever the plan, that would be step 1

[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

post conflict plan is socialist reconstruction & infrastructure but most liberals aren’t ready to accept that yet, they’d rather have oligarchy because it means they won’t have to give up their gentrified apartment

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago (1 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.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You cant win elections appealing to "both sides".

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Jesus Christ, Maine.

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month 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.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago

I listened to her talk. She’s geriatric AF.

Educated, united, armed populace over billionaires

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yet tankies will still continue to focus their vitriol on Platner...

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He's problematic, maybe? Probably? What he isn't is Susan "he's learned his lesson" Collins.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

Waiting for a perfect candidate with a squeaky clean record is an exercise in futility.

The only way someone gets old enough to run for political office while having enough knowledge and experience to actually be capable of doing the job, without having ever made any mistakes that one's opponents can dig up for their mudslinging campaigns, is to take no risks, be non-controversial, a chameleon, totally performative and insincere. That's how you end up with these robotic-sounding DNC stars.

What's important is whether someone learned from their mistakes and has shown themselves capable of improving. There's this weird essentialist idea floating around in people's heads that once someone has made a mistake, that mistake is fundamentally who they are as a person and they should be judged for it for the rest of their lives. And honestly, if that mentality takes root and grows, it could lead to a very dystopian world. It's just one more part to add to the total surveillance state we're already sliding towards.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 11 points 1 month ago

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

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They are absolutely terrified of Platner taxing them aren't they?

I think that tells us all we need to know.

I wonder if they're feeling what we felt with Trump where no matter how many truths we told about his scandals he kept going. The difference this time is that it's democrats and republicans lying and trying to manufacture scandals, but it's not slowing him down.

Hell yeah Maine, tax those terrorists!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 11 points 1 month 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 4 points 1 month ago

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

[–] garbagehead@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She's been strongly pro-war all along and that is a huge money making venture.

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Her fucking husband is a lobbyist whose job before that was as a lobbyist for weapons manufacturers.

Before all that, he was her mentor in politics, in case you wondered if every goddamn Republican was grooming someone at some point.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

billionaires who made their money in alternative investments, including hedge funds and private equity."

Wut. Since when are hedge funds alternative investments?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NM_Gringo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month 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 6 points 1 month 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 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She must be a very unhappy woman.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We need term limits in Congress.

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

A traitor to the United States of America.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The cost of election campaigns in the US is just ridiculous. How/why does it cost millions/billions of dollars to run for public office?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Cash wasted on liars and traitors. Are the Maine voters dumb enough to keep her in office?

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Let them waste their money. Mainers are not stupid. Can't be said for my home state of CA unfortunately...

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

https://themainemonitor.org/billionaires-backing-collins-list/

The list it sources says 97 for her and 5 for the opponent.

load more comments
view more: next ›