Super PAC's

 Super PAC's, Not So Super?

 

In 2010, first the courts did away with the laws governing how much an individual could contribute to a political action committee (PAC). Under the guise of "free speech", the courts were also persuaded to do away with laws governing how much organizations and unions could contribute to PAC's, granting organizations and corporations their free speech. Both these changes lead to the SuperPAC. The SuperPAC was designed to keep the cash out of the hands of politicians. Now, where these new laws apply, donations must instead go to a social welfare organization, to be distributed to SuperPAC's. Confused yet? Better yet, when the SuperPAC receives funds from a social welfare organization, it only needs to say it received funds from, "Nichole's Social Welfare Organization". As "Nichole's Social Welfare Organization", I must protect the identities of my donors. Please send cash now! We will make this world a better place!

I should have the proper tax status in a few weeks time

 

Many conservative proponents think individuals should to be able to donate whatever money they want, and have the opinion that corporations and unions should be able to use their vast resources to back whichever candidate they feel is best. They feel that, like individuals, they also deserve a voice, and that it should not matter how much money you donate to your chosen candidate. They just want to help educate the public.
 

Liberal opponents will say that it somehow seems unfair to the rest of the world, as only a small percentage of people have millions of dollars to donate to their chosen candidate. They don't like the idea of giants companies, with vast sums of money, backing a politician in a race. They worry about skewed messages in television ads, and think all this money might lead to corruption.

This confusing shell game of SuperPAC's smells like a farce. Most of the social welfare organizations organizers are closely related to a party or politician, along with the SuperPAC organizers, but with the shelter of all these organizations, politicians can say they have nothing to do with whatever ads these organizations run in the media, making the politician non culpable. Now audiences must carefully watch each ending, in the barrage of messages, to see if they are endorsed by a candidate at all.

Simply due to the headache of so many repetitious commercials, I think they should change this back to the way it worked. However, I'm sure some of these commercials will bite someone in the ass. I think people will try to tune out this barrage, and will perhaps not turn their televisions or radios on. Inevitably, it will make it harder to wade through all the normal election crap. Somehow though, I do look forward to my feelings of schadenfreude.
 

Also, I think that corporations are not people. While a normal citizen might donate some money to a candidate, in the hopes to strengthen that persons campaign, giant corporations only spend vast sums of money if they think it will make them more money. Undoubtedly, unions will back whomever will ensure they get the next contract, because, well, they want more money. If we implemented something along the lines of the DISCLOSE Act, I would happily wager that wealthy individuals should be able gamble tons of money in hopes of securing elections, allowing them to further hedge that their chosen politician will do their bidding, as this will make for more interesting scandal between ridiculous commercials. The incredibly wealthy should also feel free to play in traffic, as this is a free county. We really need to hand out more Jaywalking tickets

 

Action Interview

The Action Interview Assignment

 

 

For the action interview I called my friend Jay. When we first became friends and were talking on the phone, he called out, "Where is Obama? Go get him! Where did he go?" I thought it was rather odd, even a bit scary, but didn't ask. A few days later, I heard, "You want Palin? You want Palin? Go get Palin!"

 

Dog toys, named after politicians....I can admire that.

 

My friend Jay is a hard working, ex-military, tax paying, takes care of his mother kind of guy, that grew up on welfare.

 

For the 2008 election he voted for John McCain, even though we both feared what would happen to the country if Palin were somehow President. His reasoning was McCain had spent longer in a POW camp than Obama had spent in politics. In his opinion Obama was untested, had not engaged in world politics and did not have any military experience.

 

For the 2012 election Jay voted for Obama. He said that he felt that Obama had helped provide much needed jobs and infrastructure, and had started working his way toward what he set out to do. Jay, being a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, had no interest in seeing Mitt as President. The country's fate in the hands of a man that would leave a dog atop a car did not sit well. He also cited that Obamacare was first Romneycare, that the testing ground for it was Massachusetts, and that during the campaign, Romney was bashing Obama for Obamacare.

 

 

 The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.--- Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by Jay.

 

 

Jay called himself an independent voter, hopes for a flat tax, believes in a smaller government, thinks all individuals should enjoy freedom of marriage, the right to bear arms, and decisions of what to do with their own bodies. He feels that we need to help disabled and older Americans, but that younger people should have to take advantage of training opportunities. He is dismayed that people on welfare these days are missing out of the public shame of having to stand in the food-stamp line. He also feels that welfare recipients should have to pass drug tests, and that immigrants need to be better scrutinized. He will continue to vote for whoever represents his ideas best, and hopes that Obamacare works out.

 

I believe that most people vote for who best encompasses their views and values.

 

My own political views are much the same as my friend Jay's, except that I pay politics and politicians much less attention. However, I feel that most of them would make good chew toys for canines. Especially Palin.

 

 

1.  How did you vote in the last election?  Why?

2.  Do you consider yourself a liberal, conservative, or independent?

3.  What life experiences have shaped your political values?

4.  What key issues are most important to you, when it comes to US policy?

5.  Who will you likely vote for in the future?  Are you happy with your party?

6.  Guns?

7.  Abortion?

8.  Welfare?

9.  United Nations?, which somehow lead to FEMA?, which lead to the answer: Not crazy about the UN, they have an overabundance of power where they don't need it, and too little power where they need it. Somehow, this was likened to being the opposite of FEMA.

10. Obamacare?

Introduction

Hello everyone. Welcome to my blog. My name is Nichole.

After a long break from school, I am currently enrolled in Bunker Hill Community College. One of my classes is How Current Events Shape Your World.

For a while now, I have been trying to learn to some German. When I have time, I try to read a bit, listen to some music or watch movies in German.

In my playlist is a good amount of Rammstein. I think the lyrics from a song they covered will fit the theme of this class rather well. The original is by Depeche Mode.

Feel free to check Youtube for a more interesting video to the cover by Rammstein.