PAC's of People

Some wordings of this amendment could be construed to limit ANY organization of people; notably Political Action Committees, such as Wolf-PAC. Please advise.

Do you like this post?

Showing 2 reactions


commented 2011-10-25 01:31:45 -0400 · Flag
In the sense that the proposed amendment is vague as to what “indirect” donations would be construed as, I agree. This could interfere in the ability for PACs to handle their intended role as support organizations (not money laundering for campaign contributions). However for the most part, this restriction is kind of the point of why we’re doing this. The amendment makes it very clear that no organization should be any more powerful (with respect to campaign financing) than any other. Currently, PACs can gain unlimited donations (often through shell groups that keep their sponsors anonymous), but this amendment would say, essentially, “you want to raise as much money as you want? Have at it, Hoss. Just bear in mind that only $100 of that money can be used to support your politician”.

If you’re worried about the sustainability of Wolf-PAC, specifically, I don’t really see the problem. In a perfect world, Wolf-PAC (or any PAC, for that matter) shouldn’t need to exist. So long as the issue of corporate hegemony over the United States government exists, so will Wolf-PAC.
published this page in Blog 2011-10-24 20:59:15 -0400

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition
signed home_dev
signed Petition
signed Petition

View All