Should PACs be outlawed?

[calteacherguy]

[Hippo_Tron]

1. They should not be allowed to give money to candidates

Which, without that I guess they would just be interest groups.

[calteacherguy]

2. What if only individuals were allowed to donate directly to a campaign?

I say power to the people! (with contribution limits, of course)

[Hippo_Tron]

11. I think only individuals should be allowed to donate and there should be spending limits

However, unfortunately, a much more liberal Supreme Court than the current one declared that unconstitutional. Spending limits are the key. If you can only spend $50,000 on a congressional race, anybody could easily raise that in small contributions and they wouldn't beholden to any big donors when they get elected.

[calteacherguy]

14. I don't think spending limits would be a problem if only individuals were allowed to donate

limited amounts....say $100 a person per candidate. The rest could be some sort of public financing.

[sandnsea]

3. PAC's were created to give the people a voice against corps

I remember when people were excited to be able to join together with like-minded folks and advocate for children or the environment or safe cars. There are many excellent PAC's and 527's out there and I think people need to think about whether we'd lose more than we'd gain if we got rid of all these political groups.

[mrcheerful]

4. Wouldn't it be better to out law all donations

and give canidates an equal amount of air time and war chest money? We the people own the air waves so why can't we demand that Stations provide canidates with prime time 30 second ads? The way it works now is that far to many PAC groups are big business.

[sandnsea]

5. What about legislation?

Even now, who organizes the phone calling and emails and petitions? PAC's, 527's, etc. I think we can improve the election process and get the money out of it, and make these groups more transparent; but keep the ones who are actually responding to a genuine need from the people.

[RC]

7. No "We the People" don't own the air waves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1459354&mesg_id=1459354

[ProudDad]

22. Irrelevant thread (n/t)

[calteacherguy]

15. Yes, but aren't coporaations using their own PACs to buy votes?

If contributions were limited to individuals making limited donations, wouldn't that take away any concern about giving more power to the corporations?

[sandnsea]

19. We have to think of the whole picture

Wouldn't it be better to find a way to get rid of the corporate money, while keeping the ability of individual people to participate?

And, otoh, since we are a capitalist country, do business owners really NOT have a right to tell government what their needs are? Here in Oregon, for instance, there's the water fight between the farmers and the salmon fishing industry. Should they be silenced, and only the environmentalists be allowed to speak?

The problem is actually the ethics of the people in the fights. Misinformation flies from all corners. Everybody is dug in to protect their turf. That's what ultimately needs to change.

[Perry Logan]

6. Here's the bad news on PACs:

"The 1975 SUN-PAC decision...essentially legalized corporate political action committees (PACs) and their donations. In 1974, there were 89 corporate PACs; a decade later, this had exploded to 1,682. The result was an enormous shift in political power. In the late 70s, corporate PACs scored a number of victories -- defeating Ralph Nader's proposal for a Consumer Protection Agency, killing a tax hike -- that galvanized the business community as never before. "Success," journalist Hedrick Smith drily noted, "brought more bees after the honey." Corporate political activism soared; one lobbyist described the atmosphere in 1980 as "a genuine virtual fervor."

In 1992, corporations formed 67 percent of all PACs, and they donated 79 percent of all contributions to political parties. Studies show an exceptionally high correlation between PAC donations and the laws passed in their favor. Although the right to petition Congress is a constitutional one, citizens without donations are never granted access to their representatives. One could argue, therefore, that the corporate special interest system is unconstitutional.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/21More.htm

[Greyhound]

17. There it is.

To paraphrase Bill Moyers, - 'today's campaign financing is nothing more than legalized bribery'.

[MGKrebs]

8. PACs can only give $5000 to candidates (per cycle).

My understanding is that all the other money they handle is gathered from individuals who send it to them to pass on. In that sense, PACs are more about organization than money.

If you look at the contributions to candidates, the vast majority, 99%, come from individual donations, with only 1% or less coming from PACs. If it's true that those PACs have more influence than the overwhelming number of small donations, it is because it is focused money. It is from a source, or at least through a conduit, that has an identifiable agenda.


One might be able to make the case that any money we contribute to a candidate would be more effective if we just channel it through a PAC we like so that the candidate can associate a policy or position with that money.

ActBlue is a little different though, because they don't really advocate a position other than "support Democrats". You can send money to a candidate through them, but it's more of an organizing/fundraising tool than an advocacy position.

http://www.actblue.com/page/du-presidential



I don't see a way to earmark money for a candidate on the DFA site, so maybe they just spread their dollars around enough to not exceed the limits..
https://contribute.democracyforamerica.com/

[Fovea]

9. I won't go as far as outlawry

but I think a lot more regulation as to who can do what with a PAC is in order.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. you'd probably need a constitutional amendment

the rights to free speech and free assembly guarantee people the right to band together for political reasons.

[ProudDad]

23. Nope, no Amendment needed

See my post #20

[depakid]

12. If PACs are outlawed- only outlaws will have PACs.

[baldguy]

13. You can have my PAC when you pry it from my cold, dead...

Bank account?

[Greyhound]

16. Removing all private money from political campaigns is the only solution,

and that would only be partially effective. The biggest problem is that the $$=speech ruling makes it nearly impossible.

[ProudDad]

21. See my Post #20 (n/t)

[DaveinMD]

18. another way of asking the question

do you think labor unions should not be allowed to give money to political candidates that support working people. Because PACs are the only way they can do so.

[ProudDad]

20. The only real solution

is PUBLIC FINANCING OF ALL ELECTIONS to even out the playing field. If any asshole like romney or bloomberg or perot or Clinton self-finances or opts out of public financing ALL of their opponents will be publicly financed up to the SAME AMOUNT as the self-financed candidate(s)...

That really wouldn't cost that much 'cause the greedy self-financers will learn that they don't gain anything and will have to join the public system...

Also, take back OUR AIRWAVES for substantive candidate statements and real debates in prime time -- preempting all other programming. This would have the advantage of giving us more information upon which to base our votes and will remove the MOST EXPENSIVE component of elections from the equation... Our publicly (and privately) financed candidates wouldn't need so much money...

Anything less than this would be pissing into a headwind...