Pacs

Sirus · January 2004

<div class="IPBDescription">Legalized Bribery ?</div> When it comes to PACs I'm a bit equivocal. On one side of the spectrum I can see how they can be good, giving candidates a good specialized view of ideas and trying to influence politicians to interest groups, which is essentially democracy. However, at the same time, votes are literally being sold to PACs in Congress. Incumbents can be almost dangerous to democracy when they're accepting money from PACs, reelection is almost a pitfall.

Anyone have any conclusive opinion on PACs ? Interest groups can be good or bad from time to time. I'm concerned with the whole reelection process and campaigning. I'd almost like to see stricter limitations on television media. The whole reelection situation today really irks me and essentially it breaks down to PACs.

Insignus · January 2004

Solution: DESTROY MASS MEDIA
<a href='http://artists.iuma.com/site-bin/streammp3.m3u?267002' target='_blank'>http://artists.iuma.com/site-bin/streammp3.m3u?267002</a>
VIVA LA PSUEDO-GOVERNMENT!!!!

Seriously, in todays age, if you have money, you can do anything!!!!!!!!
Dont believe me? Look at our government todaY!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think autocracy is harsh wait till you see democracy
Socialist Social Studies 101

Sirus · January 2004

Uhh...do you know what PACs are ? And I was talking about campaign funding, mainly to incumbents with an off hand comment that maybe it would be nice to see free minutes allotted to every candidate regulated by the FTC for campaigning.*

I would suggest you read the top sticky before you incur "MonsE's Wrath™".

* TV Limitation so that candidates are less likely to sell out to PACs since TV is the most expensive type of campaigning.

Wheeee · January 2004

er....PACs are hardly "mass media"

Sirus · January 2004

In fact they don't ever attract the media outside news radio. The only other thing that really gets any attention would probably be their origins, interest groups. They are hardly mentioned, as Insignus has demonstrated.

Hida_Tsuzua · January 2004

I'm iffy on PACs. On one hand, it makes it easiler for people to give their support for whatever they want (we could make a NS PAC for example). On the other hand, it can create problems Sirus has mentioned. However PACs are only part of the problem of incumbent's advantage. Even without PACs, incumbents have serious perks making it easier for them to be reelected. In fact, PACs might do the opposite in that while most of the money goes to the incumbent (no matter the party and PAC), it still makes it easier for the other side to get whatever money it can.

Insignus · January 2004

More on topic, its more like legalized prostitution(in essence) than legalized bribery.
Bribery is basically exchanging money for favors.
prostitution is basically selling yourself for money.
So the question is, which applies more to your fav politician.
I think PACs are wrong, id rather see them support the issue on the basis of whether they believe its right, not on the basis of a checkbook.

Sirus · January 2004

Prostitution is selling yourself sexually, not otherwise.

Insignus, I'm glad you want to participate but you really need to know more about what PACs are. PACs are rarely effective when questions of right or wrong occur because it would be devastating to their constituents if they betrayed their campaign platform (IE. You wouldn't see a Conservative sell out to a NOW PAC because they're offering them some campaign money, because he wouldn't get voted in by his supporters back home). The real question comes in more trivial cases without a real definitive stance, in politics it's not always right or wrong, but it's what comes first, many times on the basis of environment or industry for example.

That however, is a different subject. My point is that most of the time it's not on a basis of right or wrong, so is your case Insignus ?

Bosnian_Cowboy · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insignus @ Jan 20 2004, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Solution: DESTROY MASS MEDIA
<a href='http://artists.iuma.com/site-bin/streammp3.m3u?267002' target='_blank'>http://artists.iuma.com/site-bin/streammp3.m3u?267002</a>
VIVA LA PSUEDO-GOVERNMENT!!!!

Seriously, in todays age, if you have money, you can do anything!!!!!!!!
Dont believe me? Look at our government todaY!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think autocracy is harsh wait till you see democracy
Socialist Social Studies 101 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Can my mass riches bribe you to use fewer exclamation marks?

<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'><i>grammatical correction</i></span>

Insignus · January 2004

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Seriously my beef is that i have almost no respect for politicians and their sycophants.

Sirus · January 2004

Then do something. Idle observants produce nothing. And I'm not talking about doing something historic, politicians are swayed by the one number, their popularity.

You can't be a idle pseudo idealogue and expect things to swing in your favor and point the finger when it doesn't.

That_Annoying_Kid · February 2004

the idea of a politcal action committee is a good one, as it lets a group of people come together and get there oppinion voiced to usually hard to talk to senators and house members. However the way that they can fund a canidate does make me hesitant. Even if we block direct contributions, whats going to stop a pac from making contributions to a politician they are lobbying by funding television commericals etc? That is how they would make donations if they couldn't give money directly, and there is no way they won't be let to air commericals becuase telling someone they can't express there views is a big no no with freedom of speech.

Pacs

Comments