3 Reasons Not to Get Worked Up Over Super PACs
Everybody and their brother -- even Stephen Colbert - is freaking out about "super PACs," which are an outgrowth of the Citzens United decision in 2010. Traditional political action committees (PACs) are subject to federal limits on how much money donors can give in specific election cycles. Super PACS allow groups such as nonprofit corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political speech as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the official campaign of a given candidate. But for all the bellyaching, here are three good reasons not to get worked up over super PACS. 1. Billionaires don't need them to influence elections. In the wake of an anti-Mitt Romney documentary from Winning Our Future, a group tied to billionaire Sheldon Adelson, The New York Times fretted that the film -- which has had little or no effect on Romney's candidacay -- "underscores how [Citizens United] has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election." Actually, it's always been legal for rich people to spend what they want as long as they make "independent expenditures" that aren't coordinated with official campaigns. Billionares don't need super Pacs to get their message out. But super PACS may just let the rest of us have our say. 2. Super PACS Go Negative -- and That's a Good Thing! Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose campaign finance legislation was rendered moot by Citizens United, complains that super Pacs not only flood elections with money but flood ...
View Count: 2908 Date: January 26, 2012
MutantBamHammer January 27, 2012
Oh. Yeah. Because any government-imposed limits on what an individual (or a corporation, for that matter) were reasonable to begin with.
1corpoaratekochwhore January 27, 2012
@SKATEyD3STROY All the legitimate candidates are already bought and paid for before we even get into the voting booth. And if we have weak campaign finance disclosure laws and the media fails to report on campaign contributions, how can the public be
1corpoaratekochwhore January 27, 2012
His #1 and #3 arguments are pure garbage, he doesn't even make a legitimate point, all Mr. Gillespie says "rich people don't have to use super pacs to get their message out". So Gillespie thinks everything is fine. No, you're wrong, this makes it much eas
xcdude35 January 27, 2012
+1 for cowboy saloon background music,
TehBANN3D January 27, 2012
@TehBANN3D I should qualify "influence" to mean non-violent influence.
TehBANN3D January 27, 2012
@casualdissent No shit genius. All communication is rhetorical by nature. It is very clear, however, that the comment I was responding to was based on an anti-capitalist premise. Namely that the use of material possession to influence the world around
vts101 January 27, 2012
Great video Reason/Nick, I always trust you to inform the viewers what freedom and reason is all about. Thank you!
mtanousable January 27, 2012
@1stAmendmentChannel What? I merely pointed out that Adelson had the right to spend that money, and would have spent it anyway - in more secretive ways - under the old laws. I never said I supported Gingrich, and I don't know how you got that out of
kingcherub January 27, 2012
The only way to get the money out of politics is to get the politics out of money. -Kyle Bennett
GOPsithlord January 26, 2012
Around 2:00 Reason hits the best mark of the whole argument: Going negative works. It's the one argument no amount of campaign finance "reform" can stop. The tone of campaigns has always been bloody and brutal. Besides, anyone with an internet connecti
splicedenergy January 26, 2012
@RightWingTV Ron Paul can't end the fed. President or not. To ignore the fact that he has said this over and over again somehow you missed that.
RightWingTV January 26, 2012
Congress approval rating is 13 percent, yet 90 percent of these corrupt traitors will be re-elected by YOU, the SHEEPLE. Get Educated, Get Involved. The 2 party system is a farce, both sides stealing for their special interests, and ALL of them in be
hollyhoodjoe123 January 26, 2012
But the Super PACs do coordinate. Stewart and Colbert already pointed out the absurdness of the idea of Super PACs and politicians NOT coordinating.
Pulpgimp January 26, 2012
Hooray for corporations buying politicians!
Shonenut213 January 26, 2012
Why are voters so stupid that they actually rely on political ads to make up their minds? A smart voter reasearches the candidates first before making a dicision on who to vote for. If you rely a political ads to tell you the "truth" about the candidate,
Shonenut213 January 26, 2012
@Transplanar Fuck public financing. Those greedy scumbag politicians don't deserve more shit money.
Transplanar January 26, 2012
@shamgar001 It's not just about the election itself, but how candidates respond to their benefactors. All too often if a candidate receives backing from, say, a corporation, they will push for legislation that favors that corporation over the common go
Shonenut213 January 26, 2012
SuperPACs DO coordinate with candidates. But they do so under the table so as to not get arrested. Romney and Gingrich have already been called out on that too.
aeternusero January 26, 2012
Sorry but PACs based on foreign interests are appearing, and this should not happen. One is one attacking Ron Paul over his supposed "Anti-Israeli" stance. Which I take means they also are gainst Netanyahu, since Paul said the same things. But, then a
Darkwizzrobe January 26, 2012
@BFrammingham Yeah its not like they thought up any classical liberal views on their program themselves its the Koch Brothers who are feeding them all their lines
seeqr9 January 26, 2012
@kwoffy Indeed
kwoffy January 26, 2012
@seeqr9 Good point. I dont see anyone making a rational decision to support Romney or Gingrich, or even Obama. Its only in the absence of understanding that they choose. "I like his face, he looks like a winner. He shook my hand real firm". Hordes o
kwoffy January 26, 2012
But, the citizens united ruling DID change the status of political contributions. Companies can now make unlimited political expenditures when before there were limits. Whats more relevant is how this could be used in the future to pump massive amount
HyperMediaNews January 26, 2012
How does walmart and their chamber of commerce lobby group work in here?
SKATEyD3STROY January 26, 2012
@MrBrevitz RON FUCKIN PAUL. haha