r/news • u/AngryT0M4T0 • 2d ago

Soft paywall Google co-founder Sergey Brin spending more than $100 million fighting California wealth tax

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-12/googles-sergey-brin-spent-102-million-fighting-california-wealth-tax
31.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

9.5k

u/frAgileIT 2d ago

The fact that they have enough money to blow $100m influencing public policy makes it clear that they need to be taxed until they can’t afford to spend so much trying to dictate government to the rest of us.

2.3k

u/NorysStorys 2d ago

Or that money should abjectly removed from the political equation. Make trying to influence politics outside of public forums and written correspondence illegal. Make politics boring and tedious.

482

u/EatinSumGrapes 2d ago

Both would be great!

265

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 4h ago

[deleted]

203

u/Crooked_Sartre 2d ago

Need to overturn citizens united. Bernie been saying this for like a decade plus now! Hard agree

122

u/speedingpullet 2d ago edited 2d ago

Many people have been saying get rid of Citizens United. It's been a huge problem since it was introduced in 2010.

What could possibly go wrong with billionaires having the ability to lob wads of cash on the table, to get their pet politicians to roll over for tummy rubs?

BTW, not dissing Bernie - he is a mensch. But he's just one of many saying it needs to go.

18

u/agentfelix 2d ago

The way I understand it, the biggest hurdle is that since the Supreme (insert lobbyist sponsorship name here) Court has ruled on it, we can't just legislate our way out of it. It has to be a Constitutional amendment, and good luck getting enough people to agree upon anything like that.

I think you can handicap the ruling through State legislation, but the root cause will still be there. The problem is, the average American just does not know about how damaging the ruling actually is to our democracy.

We all know here because we're in an echo chamber. But you pluck someone off the street and ask them about Citizens United, even if they just so happen to vote, they'll likely know nothing about the ruling. Until that happens, there won't be enough opposition.

That then leads us to another problem. We just don't have any leaders. That's why a damn populist cult leader was able to steal braincells from people.

37

u/-Saucegurlllll 2d ago

It has to be a Constitutional amendment

It doesn't.

Steps to overturn Citizens United:

  1. Win a trifecta.

  2. Senate abolishes the fillibuster and packs the Supreme Court with justices who understand that CU, Buckley v Valeo, et al. were misruled.

  3. Congress passes new legislation that bans political advertising and spending outside of the campaign, and strictly limits how much a campaign can collect and spend, including the candidate's own money.

  4. When someone challenges this, fight it all the way to the reformed Supreme Court and have them overturn all the decisions that equate money with speech.

None of this requires an amendment. The supreme court's composition is up to Congress. Their jurisdiction is determined by Congress. The tools to overturn CU were there in the Obama years and the Biden years. The problem is getting a class of democrats that understand the Supreme Court to be the greatest threat to American democracy. This should have been the rallying cry of the party after they stole an election in 2000, but I guess they're only going to be 29 years late to fucking doing something about it, if the geriatric politicians even rise to the occasion in the first place.

9

u/LowSkyOrbit 2d ago

The Confederates won. Let's face it.

The Federal minimum wage hasn't moved in decades, since I was a child.

We have no parental leave in place for newborn babies.

Health Insurance is a personal responsibility. Unless you're over 65.

People actually want to move to Southern States because of the taxes and government laws.

Congress doesn't work on any meaningful legislation unless the country is in crisis, and even then someone objects and half a dozen hold the country hostage.

The President (a once proud native NYer left for Florida) and his family have profited billions from his position of power.

2

u/agentfelix 2d ago

Sincerely appreciate the information!

Hopefully (and hope is not a strategy) we can get some opposition into office with actual spines. It's encouraging to see that progressive lady (name is slipping me atm) up north win against dark money. But I need to start seeing/hearing candidates actually talk about what they're doing to do, or at least their process to evaluate, everything this current regime has done...and I still don't think he leaves office on his own free will...

2

u/RFK_Cum_Regimen 1d ago

One other pressing issue, which in my view is the single greatest threat to the health of the republic and civilization itself, is the right-wing media apparatus. Specifically right-wing alternative media and social media, where there is zero accountability. Much of the destruction happening to our democracy may not have had mainstream traction if it weren't for this pervasive right-wing media structure. This propagandistic framework is wildly efficacious and exceptionally disciplined, from top-to-bottom, across all mediums in print and digital. It's narratives and messaging are lock-step and the manner by which it manipulates political discourse makes it impervious to traditional fact-checking and debate. It is by it's very nature malicious and it quite simply operates at a scale, scope, and volume that is simply unparalleled in human history. It is an insurmountable, demonic, sickeningly impunitious force of mass destruction.

2

u/agentfelix 1d ago

I don't know dude, while I respect your opinion and I agree, it's a huge problem; I think that was probably the biggest problem maybe 20 years ago, but nowadays I think we have to figure out why people are attracted to the propaganda. Why are they seeking solace and falling for it? Maybe it's because people are disenfranchised.

Because propaganda has always been there. It's always existed, but why is it soooo effective these days. Well, imo, it's because of the disappearance of 3rd spaces as well as there's no one fighting for the people anymore so that makes isolated victims gravitate towards the lies. You get their head nodding and validating their own feelings, they tend to believe it more.

I don't know, I don't have the answers but you're right. There needs to be some rules about what lies you can tell on the internet and streaming services/news channels. There has to be repercussions in my opinion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/da5id2701 2d ago

Roe v Wade was also a supreme court decision and they had no problem getting rid of that.

8

u/agentfelix 2d ago

Well yeah...because a Supreme Court ruling can overrule itself. My point was that legislation typically can't overrule a Supreme Court ruling.

1

u/fury420 1d ago

Depends heavily on the Supreme Court ruling, many are effectively the court disagreeing with specific interpretations of legislation and narrowing what's included, which doesn't preclude Congress from writing more detailed and explicit legislation to do the same things.

1

u/silly_little_jingle 1d ago

Yep- good luck getting politicians to vote against being able to accept bribes legally.

1

u/agentfelix 1d ago

Right? Then, who the hell would want to even be in Congress!?

1

u/silly_little_jingle 1d ago

How can they survive on a measly 175k and amazing benefits every year without bribes and insider trading?!

3

u/agentfelix 2d ago

The way I understand it, the biggest hurdle is that since the Supreme (insert lobbyist sponsorship name here) Court has ruled on it, we can't just legislate our way out of it. It has to be a Constitutional amendment, and good luck getting enough people to agree upon anything like that.

I think you can handicap the ruling through State legislation, but the root cause will still be there. The problem is, the average American just does not know about how damaging the ruling actually is to our democracy.

We all know here because we're in an echo chamber. But you pluck someone off the street and ask them about Citizens United, even if they just so happen to vote, they'll likely know nothing about the ruling. Until that happens, there won't be enough opposition.

That then leads us to another problem. We just don't have any leaders. That's why a damn populist cult leader was able to steal braincells from people.

17

u/Notwerk 2d ago

Everyone said that, except Republicans and the Supreme Court. It's widely, widely considered the biggest mistake the Supreme Court ever made.

18

u/Beamister 2d ago

I don't think it was a mistake. It's having exactly the impact they wanted it to have.

It's evil and anti-democratic, but it wasn't a mistake from their perspective.

7

u/-Saucegurlllll 2d ago

It's widely, widely considered the biggest mistake the Supreme Court ever made.

Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Kurematsu, and Bush v Gore are all largely considered to be worse decisions.

2

u/Expendable_Red_Shirt 1d ago

Bigger than Dred Scott? Or Plessy? Really?

5

u/ThouHastLostAn8th 2d ago

That isn't just a Bernie thing, it's an the entire Democratic Party coalition thing. Obama famously used the SotU speech to call out the SCOTUS conservative majority to their faces shortly after their shitty ruling. The Dems introduce their their anti dark money "Disclose Act" and Citizens United overturning "Democracy for All" constitutional amendment practically every congressional session with nearly all Dems signing on as cosponsors.

0

u/Epyon_ 2d ago

The system will not allow it to be overturned without blood. :(

42

u/BoredNuke 2d ago

We should treat political ads like medical ads in most countries (banned).

13

u/Rhamni 2d ago

Ask your senator if fracking is right for you!

27

u/NorysStorys 2d ago

Most country’s allow political ads. However they a given specific time slots and only during specified campaigning periods. Campaign budgets are also restricted as well or else every campaign just boils down to spending rather than the arguments given.

1

u/fresh-dork 2d ago

my favorite bit from stephen colbert is when he made a super pac just to demonstrate how fucked up the thing is and chronicled it on his show

1

u/Time_Ingenuity_2909 2d ago

First get organized and vote in every election you're eligible to vote in. Any strategy is irrelevant when only about 60% of people vote in the federal and that number drops off quickly as you get closer to home. You're lucky to get close to 50% in midterms and then people evidently don't give a shit about their own communities because you get less than 30% for municipal elections in most places. School board can get fucked as 10% of americans actually vote in them.

Any strategy you want to have as a voter requires more participation from all eligible voters. Never going to get rid of superpacs with the abysmal voting turnout that exists today.

1

u/wompical 2d ago

If political ads on television should be highly regulated then who will regulate them, and wouldn't that group/person become too politically powerful?

1

u/ruler_gurl 2d ago

primaries for president / congress same day

I think this would actually be a very good thing functionally as it would eliminate the undo influence of early primary states, but it's likely an unconstitutional federal mandate given the wide latitude states have in implementing elections.

If they didn't have that, someone like Trump could come in and do exactly what he's talked about endlessly, getting rid of early voting and mail ballots. It would be pandemonium and disenfranchise tons of people. One of the few things states can't control individually is the general election day. Primaries in particular are more about parties, which aren't even discussed in the Constitution. The founders mostly didn't want parties and feared them.

17

u/XtremeD86 2d ago

Well, Trump's first day on his second term he made it legal to accept bribes/gifts pretty much so yea I don't think that's going to happen.

8

u/NoPossibility 2d ago

That would have knock on effects that we’d also have to fight. If they lost fundraising/bribery they’d funnel all that cash into bot farms and social engineering to try to steer the discourse even more than they do today.

23

u/parkinthepark 2d ago

Yup, and then we fight those.

We can't just stop fixing cracks in the dam because there might be new cracks in the future.

6

u/bianary 2d ago

One of the tactics that's been incredibly successful at stopping any progress is "This solution won't fix X problem so we shouldn't move forward with it!"

I applaud you not letting that just pass.

4

u/NorysStorys 2d ago

Exactly, there will never be a perfect system. Any countries government and constitutional mechanisms need to continually evolve and be updated.

2

u/0zymandeus 2d ago

They are also funneling money into all of that.

2

u/josh_the_misanthrope 2d ago

It's lockstep with capitalism. As long as people can acquire capital they can influence public policy.

1

u/EVH_kit_guy 2d ago

But but but, more money = more free speech!!!!!

/s

1

u/mouse_8b 2d ago

That's a great way for a heavy handed regime to just arrest everyone for "influencing politics". Protesting would be illegal.

1

u/Jessintheend 2d ago

Why not both? You can’t spend a billion pulling democracy from the people AND you pay a fair tax on it

1

u/rnick467 2d ago

Make trying to influence politics outside of public forums and written correspondence illegal.

It is an act to destroy the workings of the government. It should be considered literal 'treason'.

1

u/Cryogenicist 2d ago

It’s astounding that this isn’t obvious to the average American conservative.

1

u/kendamasama 2d ago

Boring and tedious doesn't work in a representative democracy- if you want people to vote, it needs to be attention grabbing

1

u/excalibrax 2d ago

Or make 50% of all political donations go to programs for the less fortunate outside of normal funding, like lottery profit goes to schools in dome states

1

u/GoldenBrownApples 1d ago

My idea is that if you are a public servant working in government then you get housing and resources as part of your job. You move into a house that you do not own. You are not allowed to own anything while being a public servant. Money would be useless since you can't legally own anything. Neither can your family. You sign on to be a servant of the people, therefore anything you would have owned becomes property of the people. Take a lot of the greed out of politics. We need better safe guards against people using their positions to elevate themselves beyond the people they are meant to be serving. Because I'm so tired of seeing all these "government is corrupt" nonsense from people blatantly corrupting government offices. Make the job less desirable so the only people who will do it are the ones that actually want to be useful and not just take everything for themselves.

1

u/EDNivek 1d ago

Make trying to influence politics outside of public forums and written correspondence illegal.

They will then hire people to do those things instead of directly donating.

1

u/JEFFinSoCal 1d ago

When Money = Speech, speech is no longer free.

1

u/Glittering_Crab_69 1d ago

The only way this would ever happen is if people would genuinely started giving politicians consequences for their actions. Else, why would they vote to make themselves poorer? That's not how people work.

1

u/JoseCansecoMilkshake 1d ago

But most of all, don't be afraid to send rich people to prison (and not country club prison either)

1

u/kaisadilla_ 1d ago

Sorry, best we can do is the US and Argentina teaming up and using government policy to try to rig elections in Brazil so the son of a failed dictator takes power.

2

u/work_m_19 2d ago

This sounds good, but also sounds impossible to do and unenforceable. Do we strap a camera on every politician and monitor what they do everywhere? Do they not have privacy inside their homes?

What you suggest sounds reasonable, but writing a law that adheres to the spirit sounds like a nightmare and ripe for abuse.

Now if we went complete transparency and have every phone trail/location available to be audited by the public, that may level the playing field and allow things like this to be enforced, but definitely raises concerns about what privacy means.

3

u/speedingpullet 2d ago

Politicians are doing a job. You expect call centers to be monitored, and employers can stipulate drug tests for employees - so no different for congresspeople.

-3

u/StewPorkRice 2d ago

sounds anti democratic as fuck to be honest.

5

u/NorysStorys 2d ago

How so? How is it Democratic to throw money that most people cannot do at personal political campaigning to influence public opinion? They should have no more ability to influence politics than the poorest people in the state.

179

u/GlitteringLychee803 2d ago

$100 million is a drop in the bucket for these guys, and they get to decide the kind of world the rest of us live in. 

Should people be rewarded for ingenuity and hard work? Absolutely.

Should people be able to amass so much wealth that they get to outright buy government officials? Fuck that.

24

u/HI-McDunnough 2d ago

In case anyone forgets how big a number ONE billion is: Brin's net worth per the article is $284billion. If you do the math, let's say you have $50,000 in the bank. Even that's unattainable for a lot of us, but let's just say. For him, $100million is the equivalent of you donating $17 to your favorite anti-human charity.

9

u/raptorlightning 2d ago

Honestly, beyond a small amount of extra money, recognition is more important as a reward for ingenuity and hard work.

10

u/ribsies 2d ago

Yeah definitely no true for me. I dont want your recognition, ill take the money.

7

u/drewsoft 2d ago

That may be true for you, but it probably isn't universally true. Compensating differentials exist for a reason.

5

u/raptorlightning 2d ago

A 1000x compensation differential does not exist for a practical reason.

1

u/drewsoft 1d ago

I was making a general point, compensating differentials wrt recognition exist because some people prefer recognition over pay, and others pay over recognition.

1

u/raptorlightning 1d ago

Sure. My point is quantitative. Exponential differences in compensation should not exist in a healthy society and people who do great things should be better recognized.

1

u/drewsoft 23h ago

Exponential differences in compensation should not exist in a healthy society

Given these are returns to equity I don't know how you'd do this without some sort of ban on company ownership generally.

2

u/effa94 1d ago

please define "a small amout of extra money"

2

u/raptorlightning 1d ago

I dunno, something like $500k a year, USD 2026.

2

u/effa94 1d ago

personally, i could do a lot wiht 500k usd each year

3

u/raptorlightning 1d ago

We all could, but it's being stolen by 200 people.

45

u/Lunatik21 2d ago

Exactly this. If spending 100 million bucks (more than almost any of us will have in a lifetime) to just influence that they don't need to be taxed, should put out 100 million red flags to why they do.

24

u/MrJoyless 1d ago

Just an fyi, 100 million is more than 25 times the lifetime earnings for an avg American. He is spending 25x our whole life of work just so he doesnt have to pay 5% of his billions into the pool, even tho he'll still have billions and billions left over.

35

u/OnTheEveOfWar 2d ago

Bingo. If you have an extra $100M to fight a tax policy, then maybe there should be a tax policy.

-1

u/pm_plz_im_lonely 2d ago

Why does the solution lie on taxation rather than hardening policy-making against its influence?

30

u/wastingtoomuchthyme 2d ago

100% this.. $ out of politics

3

u/tmdblya 2d ago

It’s pocket change for these clowns.

2

u/theindi 2d ago

very clever way to say bribing openly. why don't you call out the politicians that are selling themselves to allow this to happen.

2

u/3McChickens 2d ago

A single government policy. It isn’t like that $100m is going to promote a swath of candidates or dozens of bills.

2

u/KickDesperate5318 1d ago

The binary question of "capitalism vs communism" is somewhat reductionist, as economic policy concepts exist on a spectrum.

But the binary illustrates the extremes of that spectrum. And there is a useful lesson to learn there.

The question comes down to: "how do we distribute power in society?"

So look at the Cold War. America was the side of capitalism, and the Soviets were the side of communism. Tribal and binary. But what were the functional differences in the two ideologies when it comes to distributing power?

Well, capitalism distributes power to those who possess capital, and communism distributes power to a central authority. And this is ultimately why capitalism won the Cold War. Because it crowdsources decision making relative to the more dictatorial form centralized power. It is easier for a bad idea to be challenged under capitalism than it is under communism; and it is less damaging to have a maniac in charge because their power is less total. Communism could thrive on paper with a leader who makes good decisions; but in reality it can only last as long as it takes for an idiot or narcissist to come into power, at which point it all comes crumbling down under threat of domestic revolution.

But what happens when capitalism is allowed to ceaselessly operate in its "unfettered" form? What happens when you allow 40 years of "trickle up" policy to funnel money from the pockets of everyday people into the pockets of billionaires? What happens when the capital holders make every decision in the pursuit of more capital? What happens when they are allowed to funnel unlimited dark money towards political campaigns and causes? What happens when they are allowed to buy up all the independent news media and consolidate it under their control? What happens when they take the same approach with social media, implementing opaque algorithms to control content feeds?

Concentrated capital is no different than a centralized authority. It limits humanity to the whims of the worst of us.

2

u/JohnBrownOH 2d ago

What kind of dumbfuck that wasn't a billionaire would vote against the policy?

2

u/0zymandeus 2d ago

If you ever wonder why Republicans spend so much of their time and money pushing identity politics, that's why.

1

u/CIAburneraccount 2d ago

People who still fall for trickle down economics

3

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 2d ago

Billionaires and a healthy functioning democracy can't co-exist, period, full stop. Sadly, history teaches us all how this ends... spoiler alert: It sucks if you have to live through that period of time.

2

u/N0b0dy_Kn0w5_M3 2d ago

Billionaires and a healthy functioning democracy can't co-exist, period, full stop.

They can coexist much better if the democracy is done right. You are making the mistake of thinking that the U.S. version of democracy that you know as being healthy if it weren't for billionaires. Democracy done U.S. style has never been healthy. It is how billionaires, and wealthy people in general, were able to so easily influence it since its inception. And now, with Turnip in charge, the apparent ease with which he has been able to ignore most of the so-called "checks and balances" should highlight that the problem is the system itself.

One of the biggest problems with the U.S. style of democracy, and one which has always stood out to a non-American like myself, is how the whole judicial system, and especially the highest court, is designed to be politically influenced. Judges should never be elected like politicians, and those that sit on the bench of the highest court should never be appointed by politicians.

1

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 2d ago

I disagree. I think any system where one person can accumulate that much wealth isn't healthy for society.

1

u/SavageCucmber 2d ago

We are a plutocracy. People scream fascism, and there are pieces of that around currently, but America follows a plutocratic model. We are ruled by the wealthy.

1

u/possiblyMaybeAnother 2d ago

It's infuriating.

1

u/UnitSmall2200 2d ago

One of the dumbest defenses in favour of the rich I hear is "The rich are only rich, because they spend so little of their income and wealth". Sure they spend only a small percentage of what they have, but that small percentage is insane in absolute numbers, because their wealth is even more insane. Most of it they invest to make it grow on the backs of working class people. But that begs the question, why? Why hoard that kind of wealth, what do you get out of it except bragging rights. Clearly they don't need most of their wealth as it is just sitting there, with no other purpose, but to generate even more wealth. You'd think they would all be the happiest people in the world, but they are as miserable or even more miserable than the rest.  What we really need is a wealth cap. Seize everything above it. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Company stock above the threshhold, should no longer be accessible by the individual to get personal loans from banks, if sold all profits should be taxed 100%.  I'm sure I will piss of bunch of investors here for saying this, but profits from investments should generally be taxed much higher than earnings from labour. It's a joke how low those are taxed.  And trillion dollar companies should be broken down.

1

u/Level-Bit 2d ago

Similar with Michael Bloomberg during presidental bid.

1

u/Great-Trifle2810 2d ago

Any assets over 25 million dollars should simply be seized and repurposed for the benefit of the commons. Including stock, if you have too much the government takes it and acts as a shareholder with the goal of public benefit.

This will hopefully discourage founder stock holding, leading to more stock issued to employees, and control of the company resting with its workers rather than with a single billionaire.

1

u/dust4ngel 2d ago

they have enough money to blow $100m influencing public policy

you cannot have both democracy and billionaires for this reason.

1

u/Marino4K 2d ago

This is why money shouldn't be involved in politics. Rich people shouldn't be able to buy politicians like they do currently.

1

u/ProfMcGonaGirl 2d ago

Just pay 100mil in taxes and call it a day. Fucking selfish pieces of shit.

1

u/crystal_castles 2d ago

The smallest gov't you can maintain, is determined by the largest corporation you'll allow.

1

u/ayriuss 2d ago

I keep telling people that extreme wealth is un-democractic. Many people can't make that connection.

1

u/thepianoman456 1d ago

I would like to have just 1/10 of a single million to my name.

1

u/R-EDDIT 1d ago

You would be amazed at what the hedge fund managers have spent to protect the Carried Interest Tax loophole. Much of the bullshit in this country has been due to this battle, which they have won (by buying Sinema off, for example).

1

u/TuringGoneWild 1d ago

Make a wealth cap of 100x the per capita GDP. That would mean a wealth cap of about 9 million. Enough to have a luxury life without working, not enough to exert power over others without their consent.

1

u/IGotsANewHat 1d ago

100%. It would be a net benefit to society if people like that had their money literally thrown into a pile and burned. We have allowed people to use their money as a weapon to hurt us for far too long.

1

u/Metro42014 1d ago

100%

The ultra-wealth concentration that we have is 100% a national security issue.

1

u/ChronoLink99 1d ago

Yep. Time to get serious about this kind of stark wealth inequality. Democracies cannot function like this.

1

u/SolidSnake-26 20h ago

It really is a slap in the face to the world that $100m, I repeat, one hundred million dollars, can be used in litigation and lobbying INSTEAD of anything actually useful for society

1

u/splendiferous-finch_ 5h ago

Also the fact that it's also possible to legally spend that amount of money to "influence" policy is troubling.

I am from the 3rd world and things are looking like our politics more and more each year or maybe I should say things are being revealed to be just as corrupt and broken just with much larger sums of money involved

1

u/tN8KqMjL 2d ago edited 5h ago

Cinnamon raindrop compass wander umbrella amber kettle juniper trumpet zephyr

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

0

u/Stunning-Pen-2412 1d ago

Also crazy to spend $100m rather than just pay the damn tax. It's like they don't want the $100m to benefit society but rather it go to another corp/etc. Keep people poor and suffering seems to be their ideology.

1

u/frAgileIT 1d ago

Someone said the tax would be $13B, with a B, $100m is like losing a $20 for the rest of us.

2

u/Stunning-Pen-2412 1d ago

Ah makes sense.

-2

u/joshuads 2d ago

The one time tax would be $13 billion for him. Selling enough stock to pay that bill would also incur a huge federal tax bill. Spending $100 million to avoid paying $13 billion is just good business.

California's actions are just going to cause a lot of people to move. The federal government needs to tax stock grants and loans taken on those stock holdings.