Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs "SuperPac" a dirty word?
Should it be?
When I hear of "SuperPACs" my immediate thought is billionaires buying candidates.
Your thoughts?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 713 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is "SuperPac" a dirty word? (Original Post)
Aerows
Aug 2015
OP
underpants
(182,834 posts)1. It's a PC turn on FudgePac
The citizens being the recipients
Not a dirty word but I'd rather see them gone.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)3. It is to me.
I guess they could be beneficial. Just no one has convinced me yet, how, other than to battle their superPAC. We managed for more than a hundred years without them. Why now?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)4. CU and the ability
to consolidate and donate large amounts of funds while ostensibly NOT lobbying for a certain candidate on that candidate's behalf while lobbying for a candidate on that candidates behalf?
Journeyman
(15,036 posts)5. No. First person I think of is Stephen Colbert . . .
It's a ridiculous system, and the sooner we can get enough people to recognize this, the quicker we'll be able to do something about it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)6. Of course.
The sole purpose of SuperPACs is to enable the outright purchase of elections.
onecaliberal
(32,864 posts)7. If 100% of the funds would be used for poor and homeless.
Otherwise they should be outlawed.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)8. PAC-Man stated this mess, now it's up tp Super Mario to end it