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