A guest post arguing that ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the original Bill of Rights would expand the House to 6,641 members and fix Congress by reducing gerrymandering, diluting donor influence, and increasing constituent accountability. Longer summary

This guest post by David Speiser argues for ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the only unratified amendment from the original Bill of Rights, which would expand the House of Representatives from 435 to about 6,641 members by setting one representative per 50,000 citizens. The post explains how Congress's current dysfunction stems from gerrymandering, money in politics, and polarization, and argues that a much larger House would ameliorate these problems by making districts smaller and harder to gerrymander, diluting the influence of big donors, and forcing representatives to be more accountable to local constituents. The amendment has already been ratified by 11 states and needs 27 more, avoiding the problem that most Congressional reforms require Congressional approval. The post acknowledges a typo in the amendment's wording that could force an interesting legal battle between textualism and originalism, and ends with a pitch to state legislators explaining why both parties should support ratification. Shorter summary

Marc Andreessen's crypto SuperPAC spent $260 million in 2024 to successfully pressure politicians on crypto regulation, and now he's launching similarly massive AI-focused PACs that could dominate AI policy unless AI safety supporters organize their own political funding. Longer summary

Scott revisits his 2019 question about why there's so little money in politics relative to other industries, and reports that Marc Andreessen has essentially solved this puzzle by spending massively on crypto PACs in 2024 with overwhelming success. His Fairshake PAC raised $260 million (compared to AIPAC's $87 million), successfully pressured politicians into pro-crypto positions, and may have effectively purchased control over crypto regulation. Now Andreessen and others are launching AI-focused SuperPACs with $200+ million in funding, threatening to do the same for AI policy. Scott explains the mechanics of hard vs soft money, why the strategy worked, and ends by calling on AI safety supporters to organize their own political funding efforts to counter this influence. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares reader comments on his California ballot recommendations, updating some of his views and providing additional context on various races and propositions. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's California ballot recommendations. It covers various topics including Prop 31's impact on vaping, the Service Employees International Union's tactics regarding dialysis regulations, Newsom's campaign spending, Oakland mayoral race, and other ballot measures. Scott also updates some of his recommendations based on reader input, particularly for the Attorney General race. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares political spending to the almond industry, revealing surprisingly low amounts in politics due to coordination problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the surprisingly low amount of money in politics compared to other industries, using the almond industry as a benchmark. He notes that all US spending on candidates, PACs, lobbying, think tanks, and advocacy organizations combined is less than the annual revenue of the almond industry. The post examines various sectors of political spending and media properties, highlighting their relatively low monetary value. Scott discusses three reasons why this is surprising: ordinary people's political engagement, wealthy individuals' interests, and corporate influence post-Citizens United. He considers potential explanations, including Ansolabehere's argument about the ineffectiveness of political spending, but ultimately suggests that coordination problems are the main factor preventing more money from entering politics. The post concludes by drawing a parallel between political spending and charitable giving, arguing that the same coordination problems affect both areas. Shorter summary

The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings. Longer summary

This post discusses two seemingly contradictory political science findings: one suggesting that elite opinion strongly influences US policy, and another indicating that money has little impact on politics. The author presents several hypotheses to reconcile these findings, including the possibility that legislators are themselves elites, that elites control cultural institutions, or that money influences politics through lobbying rather than campaign contributions. The post critically examines each hypothesis, considering their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the apparent contradiction. Shorter summary