He's given himself a loan of $25,000 and has spent about $37,000. The article also explains the run off system if necessary.
Kristi has a buttload of money atm and I can see her putting a lot of it towards this process. It’s the worst time for the defense to gather donations as well with it being holiday season.
Maybe the main goal of the crooked cops and Kristi is to file baseless lawsuits and attempt to outspend the defense?
"GM already trades above historical multiples and possibly pricing SoPs. We still struggle to reconcile GM's aggressive 2035 timeline to 100% BEV penetration and the stated determination to grow. The industry would clearly benefit from squeezing out weaker competitors, but we are not convinced that investing early in the "killer" in what is a long and inevitable transition is the wise investment strategy."
https://preview.redd.it/qk6ulusdmu571.png?width=3308&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e26d4283644c8abe7e574d0369d819da0dd87dd
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the resource industry has spent $136.8 Million in 20 years on political payments. These payments are presumably a major factor behind Australia's woefully inadequate climate policy: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/highly-problematic-for-public-trust-australian-political-donations-revealed-20210117-p56up0.html
But an investigation by the ABC concluded that the Australian public would be willing to spend a bare minimum of $4 Billion per year to prevent climate change. (This is an average of $200 per person and takes into account the 21 percent of respondents who were not willing to spend anything): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-17/what-youd-spend-to-halt-climate-change-and-what-you-could-get/11784704
So the bare minimum amount that the Australian public is willing to spend is over 500 X the amount that the resource industry has spent per year for the last 20 years [4 Billion / (136.8 Million / 20) = 584.8]
I accept that this is a very simplified way to look at a complex problem. There are many other factors involved such as dark money, undeclared donations, and the revolving door between politics and consulting/lobbying. I also accept that the resource industry is probably only spending what they need to in order to get the policy they want - their spending capacity could be much higher. But this still raises the question - could a coordinated funding effort from the Australian public actually change Australia's climate policy?
This is a genuine question and I welcome any criticism or comments. I am not an expert in this field. To me, this (potential) spending gap is so large that I feel I must be missing something, and I cannot understand why the resource industry has been allowed to dominate this fight for so long.
