The Triumph of Super PACs

[Kembal]

You mean they will...GASP!...represent you as a citizen?!

Tell you what...try and get a Congressman to do most of that without giving donations to them. Doesn't happen unless it's a normal constituent service. (attacking a witness at a hearing? Reading stuff into the Congressional Record? not normal constituent services)

Did you read the back and forth I had with waywardgs? What exactly is wrong with PACs? I mean, I get what you have a problem with it...but why can't someone spend their money the way they want to? Are we really going to tell people they can no longer speak their mind come election time? Or is it gonna be all the time? Is no one ever gonna be allowed to spend their money to speak out for or against a politician?

A standard PAC is fine. I don't have a problem with those. They have contribution limits to them, and contribution limits on what they can provide a campaign.

A SuperPAC has two different problems:

1. No contribution limits, which allows wealthy individuals to put in millions of dollars that less wealthy individuals cannot. (a wealthy person's speech is not inherently more valuable than a poor person's speech)

2. The ban on coordination with campaigns can be easily evaded. (what Jeb Bush is doing now, for example)

I was fine with the McCain-Feingold setup, except I would force presidential campaigns to take the matching funds and be subject to the spending limits. (I didn't like Obama opting out of that.)

[waywardgs]

More money equals more representation. Simple as that. And it's not ok.

It's funny to me, and sad, that anyone would be ok with that.

[Wrathbringer]

More money equals more representation. Simple as that. And it's not ok.

It's funny to me, and sad, that anyone would be ok with that.

Except for possibly those with more money, you mean.

[Tgo01]

Tell you what...try and get a Congressman to do most of that without giving donations to them. Doesn't happen unless it's a normal constituent service. (attacking a witness at a hearing? Reading stuff into the Congressional Record? not normal constituent services)

So a Congressperson never represents a person unless they receive direct contributions? Ever? Tell me more.

A standard PAC is fine. I don't have a problem with those. They have contribution limits to them, and contribution limits on what they can provide a campaign.

SuperPACs can't contribute to campaigns at all as opposed to regular PACs.

1. No contribution limits, which allows wealthy individuals to put in millions of dollars that less wealthy individuals cannot. (a wealthy person's speech is not inherently more valuable than a poor person's speech)

So if I wanted to spend my money on billboards and TV commercials and radio commercials to let the world know how horrible Obama is you have no problem with that, but as soon as I give the money to a SuperPAC all of a sudden it's a problem? Care to explain the difference to me?

2. The ban on coordination with campaigns can be easily evaded. (what Jeb Bush is doing now, for example)

"Easily evaded"? SuperPACs are barred from coordinating directly with campaigns, unlike PACs. How is it (legally) "easier" for a SuperPAC to coordinate with a campaign compared to a regular PAC?

[Parkbandit]

More money equals more representation. Simple as that. And it's not ok.

It's funny to me, and sad, that anyone would be ok with that.

When we get to the point of Star Trek Universe where money is no longer used... we won't have this issue. But it's always been that way since we have used currency.

People with money always will have a larger voice if they so choose. Same can be said with people who are famous vs. people who are not.

[Tgo01]

People with money always will have a larger voice if they so choose. Same can be said with people who are famous vs. people who are not.

Next we have to start regulating how famous a person is! Al Sharpton owes the government millions of dollars yet he still gets invited to the White House on a regular basis, clearly his "star power" is what grants him a personal audience.

[waywardgs]

When we get to the point of Star Trek Universe where money is no longer used... we won't have this issue. But it's always been that way since we have used currency.

People with money always will have a larger voice if they so choose. Same can be said with people who are famous vs. people who are not.

And we as Americans should strive for better. This country wasn't built by people who shrugged their shoulders and said "oh well, it's not gonna get any better."

[Parkbandit]

And we as Americans should strive for better.

It's like you are disconnected from reality.

Like a Backlash type disconnection.

Until we no longer view people as famous.. or no longer require a currency, it will always be like that.

This country wasn't built by people who shrugged their shoulders and said "oh well, it's not gonna get any better."

It wasn't built by people sitting around, wishing they could change human nature and basic economics either.

[waywardgs]

It's like you are disconnected from reality.

Like a Backlash type disconnection.

Until we no longer view people as famous.. or no longer require a currency, it will always be like that.



It wasn't built by people sitting around, wishing they could change human nature and basic economics either.

Emo PB strikes again.

[Parkbandit]

Emo PB strikes again.

Dude, the only one being emo here is you.

I'm being realistic.. you are on Fantasy Island again.