The main idea of this article is that Stephen Colbert, who is a comedian on Comedy Central, runs a super PAC has taken in over $1 million as of Tuesday according to a disclosure given to the F.E.C (Federal Election Commission.) His super PAC is called ‘Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.’ Colbert said in a statement to the FEC, "Yeah! How you like me now, F.E.C? I'm rolling seven digits deep! I got 99 problems but a non-connected independent-expenditure only committee ain't one!" He has raised almost $200,000 in January alone. Expenditure means the act of spending funds. The term "independent expenditure" means “an expenditure by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate”. The non connected part means that they can accept money from anybody and they are usually formed by Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress.
Super PACs are independent political committees in the
- 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called for campaign finance reform.
· 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This Act further defined how a PAC could operate.
· Congress in 1974 set limits on contributions to PACs and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
· 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled PACs may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.
· They helped publicize and demote candidates, depending on their popularity and amount of money.
As a super PAC the organization can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals. Speaking in character, Colbert said the money will be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos.” Colbert's super PAC is doing what other super PACs do: spending unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates, .Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow ran ads in advance to publicize Rick Parry And while Colbert hit the campaign trail in
Question:
Do you agree with Super PACS, in a sense that they should or shouldn't be allowed to fund a specific candidate? Do you agree with people like Colbert, who are using money to put down or make fun of the candidates, rather than promoting one, or do you think it is a waste of money?
I do not agree with the Super PACS, because it is not fair for someone to tell you that you can not fund a specific candidate that you want to support to help them win. It should be your choice and decision on how you plan to support them and how much you want to give them for funding. And I do not agree with Colbert who is using their money to put down or make fun of other candidates because it is a complete wastes of time and money and completely unnecessary to do so. It would be much more beneficially if they were supporting and promoting a candidate.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is might push constitutional rights. Although these PACS are allowed, it is defiantly an abuse of power. These PACS give people with money almost complete control over the government. Funding candidates can defiantly tip the votes and this gives political partys that favor the higher upper-class a huge advantage. It is unfair to have these PACS, but to take them away would violate a persons freedom.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it should be allowed at least when there is so much money involved. There should be a lower limit so that a candidate can't just buy their way to office. I do not agree with Colbert, you should not be allowed to negative campaign against other runners, I find that to be very low and unconstitutional to lower someone else with the money that you are recieving.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that people should be able to fund whoever they believe to be a good candidate for office, at the same time I think that Super PACS allow certain candidates to have too much power. I agree with Anthony that PACS will give people who have a lot of money almost complete control over the government. I think that the money will be used to pursued citizens votes against other candidates and therefore the more money a candidate has, the more beneficial it is for them to run for office. I think that there should be a limit on how much money a candidate can receive through PACS so that way one doesn't have a complete advantage over the other. I agree with Troy in a sense that a candidate shouldn't be able to "Buy their way to office." In addition, I disagree with people like Colbert that are using the money to put down or make fun of the other candidates. Although this will pursued peoples votes against their opponents, I think this is morally unjust. People should decide for themselves who they think is the right candidate without negative comments being put in the media about others running for office. I think that the candidates should work on promoting themselves rather then putting down others.
ReplyDeleteI think that people should be able to fund whoever they want to, however, I do think these PACS are giving candidates too much power and therefore taking control of the government due to the amount of money they would be holding. Personally, I believe that there should be a money cap so they won't be able to take control the government. I agree with Cassandra, in that I feel like the negative comments on the media are not needed and to do that, they should focus more on promoting themselves and how they should be in office, rather than putting others down.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Super PACS. I think that they are causing candidates to have too much power and giving them the ability to buy their way into office. I think that candidates should fund their own money, work to promote themselves rather than others, and should not need to rely on the population to do their dirty work. By relying on PACS there is an increase in money for some candidates then others are given nothing to work with; an unfair advantage. Candidates should be worrying about convincing people that they are the best candidate rather than shutting others down. These people need to work to get to their own success just like any other person who is working to succeed their own goals.
ReplyDeleteI agree that anyone should be able to fund whoever they believe is the right candidate for the Presidency, but the idea of Super PACS is wrong. These PACS give too much power to the candidate. These PACS allow for those with an excess of money to control what happens in our government. This gives certain candidates an unfair advantage in the race that they haven't earned. I agree with Katie in saying that the candidates need to worry about convincing people that they are right for the job of President of the United States. I don't agree with what Colbert is doing. Making PACS that put other candidates down is just wrong. Who is he to affect the race? I know he has a massive celebrity, but to use that to put other candidates down is not right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea of Super PACS. Funding for a candidate should be up to the voter and that's it. The idea that PACS can be used to help a Candidate or humiliate another is very clever. I don't think that the PACS should be used to put another candidate down, but it should be used to help one. I say that they are fine as long as it doesn't ruin the other candidate in a humiliating way. I think that they are not a waste of money as long as they use them the right way. If they decide not to, than i do think it is a waste of money, but it all depends on how they use it.
ReplyDeletei agree with vinny because a candidate should be up to a voter because i think that a right they should have. the fact that a PACS are able to really help someone and make it tough for the other is very helpful. but i don't think that it should humiliate the other that is just wrong. it is definitively not a waste of money and if they don't use it they will lose money so they should find a good use for it.
ReplyDeleteI think that supposedly its a free country that people should be able to sponsor the candidate of their choice. I get that some people are saying that it is a lot of money and could be an abuse of power, but it's not really fair to tell someone what they can and can't do when it comes to their own money. So I agree with super PACS. I think that people should put their money to good use and support the candidates they like rather then spending it on putting down the candidates they don't like. I think using your money to put others down is a waste, but then again we can't really tell people what to do with their money.
ReplyDelete