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 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

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about billionaire philanthropy. He addresses criticisms and counterarguments, providing further analysis on topics like the scale of billionaire donations compared to political spending, the democratic nature of philanthropy, tax deductibility, and potential downsides. While acknowledging some valid concerns, Scott ultimately defends the net positive impact of billionaire philanthropy, especially highlighting examples like the Gates Foundation's global health work. He argues that even if some billionaire philanthropy is problematic, the most effective charitable efforts are so valuable that they should be protected and encouraged. Shorter summary