4 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Well I don't think we have them at all if that helps.

[Frizzle]

I studied a bit of them on my US politics course so I'll add a bit of input tomorow when it's not 2am..

[redlion]

Easy.

I'm in favor. They offer a way for special interests to get their message heard. It is unfortunate that most of the time PACs are just lobbies that want to get around the 1000$ limit on corporate contributions to campaigns, but some interests don't have corporations to represent them.

Further, its simple for a candidate to take money from a PAC and then ignore their ideas when they get elected

[alybo]

I think PACs are essential, however I am very opposed. We actually just watched a video on PACs in my Poli Sci class. I'll use in example to where they are a negative aspect of American society:

The McCain Bill -
John McCain wanted to pass a bill which would increase taxes on tobacco products. This would therefore fund anti-smoking campaigns and discourage people (particularly young people) from buying tobacco products. Obviously, this is a good idea. Who wouldn't want a bill that would help kids and other people stay away from cigarettes? Well, it was actually highly supported, even by President Bill Clinton, but it lost the Republican Party support before even reaching the Senate. This is due to PACs. Tobacco companies spent billions on TV commercials and other campaigns that used false advertisement and fallacies to display this bill in poor light. They ran commercials which gave the impression that ALL Americans would be taxed, the government would make more bureaucracies, and other bad things that I can't really remember. Essentially, the bill didn't get passed because the Tobacco companies rallied together and gave the American citizens a false view of what the bill would really do.

I've seen other examples of PACs causing bad things to happen, or unfairly make things happen. I just don't think they're fair. Like, PACs can run Ad campaigns that don't have to follow governmental regulations simply because they do not say "vote for" or "vote against" a person - even when the ad is very clear in showing their opinions on a candidate.

I don't like them for the simple fact that they are unfair and basically a way to cheat the system.

[Ives]

I have to write a huge paper for government on PACs and am in need of some opposing views. I'm supposed to document and describe the two views (PACs are good versus PACs are bad) and then come to a conclusion.

Anyways, I decided a good way to get some input on the matter is through debate.

Do you think PACs are necessary and and do good for the people?

I'm really aiming for PACs based in the U.S, however anyone's input is welcome.

To start:

I believe that PACs in the U.S perpetuate the idea of the rich, upper-class people getting their political agenda won via their assets. Really all a PAC does is exploits a nominee's need for money (for campaigning) and basically blackmails them into including some entity's will in their policies. It completely undermines the people and the reason the people choose that candidate in the first place. I see them as simply being anti-democratic.

While it's great to use vague analysis on occasion, simply making it a case of "the people" and "the bourgeoise" would be to over simplify it. I think where it is flawed is the system of bureaucracy involved in even create PACs. It often keeps grassroots movements out of the loop and big ones in and makes finances more of a hassle.