On-topic: Super PACs

[luzribeiro]

Yeah, the elephant in the room, as some call it. Depending on whom you ask, many would denounce super PACs as the bane of modern democracy, while some'd argue that they're the only thing keeping some campaigns alive, where those should've deflated a long time before their actual lifespan. According to many researches, most GOP super PACs are funded

Comments

[htpcl]

Two things. If collective bargaining (unions) are now an integral part of democracy, then I'm thinking Super-PACs could serve a similar role by providing a chance to larger groups of people united by common interests to have a more influential voice at the political scene.

And secondly, my problem with Super-PACs is not so much with the big donors having a disproportionately loud voice, but all the intransparency involved. Provide full disclosure which voice belongs to whom exactly, and who stands behind this particular campaign ad or that campaign event or initiative, let the people be informed about who stands where exactly, and allow them to make up their minds on their own based on that information. Why all the secrecy?

[mahnmut]

This super-PAC thingy always reminds me of Colbert. I miss Colbert.

[sandwichwarrior]

Ditto.

[ddstory]

All these months of primaries, preliminary campaigning, candidates acting like circus animals for the sake of scoring points, the polls, media word-vomit, stupid campaign ads... all the money spilled... months after months of endless campaigning - and for what? The candidates are pre-determined in most cases, the presumptive nominee being known for the most part. It's just stupid, time and energy consuming, exhausting, worthless. I've never seen such a circus in any other part of the world.

Bread and circuses has been brought to a whole new level in the US. And I'm not liking it.