Successful "issue" ads are the ones that scare people. They only work against new (usually progressive) policies, not established ones. Imagine the opposing ads:

"Democrat X is going to let those gays marry, and let those Mexicans flood over the border, and the country will go to hell! Dun dun DUNN!"

"Republican Y is going to... keep things the way they've already been for generations! Dun dun... dun?"

Fear is the only certain thing to motivate voters. And only every once in awhile does a conservative candidate provide a "new" policy to be afraid of, like waging a new war, or trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. The rest of the time, the issues are theirs to lose, because they are by definition trying to "conserve" the status quo.

Either way, a successfully advocated fringe issue that wins the popular vote is still not binding on our legislators. They're empowered to act contrary to popular demand (to prevent inequality, corruption, panic changes...etc.); so, it's cost effective to put the big money into backing the right candidates rather than swaying the court of public opinion. There's little consequence for a legislator bucking the trend on a fringe issue.

Rich pot heads???? That made me chuckle a little. The ensuing meeting of said rich potheads should make for a pretty good comedy movie. It could start with Afro Man singing..." I was gonna get involved...but then I got high..."

*chuckles*

Friday PAC.

Smokey: Puff puff, give. Puff puff, give. You fuckin' up the rotation.

The rich smokers who are "out" are all in California where it is de facto legal already.

I think that website has a 'conservative until proven otherwise' approach to labeling Super PACs.

Somebody Koch brothers trying to steal money from the ignorant.
Pretty shrewd move actually. Highly unethical, but ...

No it turns out 25% of the S-PACS were created by some rather random dude who may just be attention whoring.

google cache version

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

That makes sense... I applaud his entrepreneurial spirit, but that's about it.

So, can he accept unlimited money in all of those names from people who might think they're contributing to support the candidate named in the PAC?

I think what it comes down to, is that whether you like it or not, fringe issues will always stay on the fringe because they simply don't affect enough mainstream people to make it worth the time or money to politicise, particularly if you want a positive outcome rather than simply creating awareness.

Thats the way I interpreted the reading on it. SCARY! :eek:

Plus, he can make ads that are tagged with those candidates' names, forcing them to denounce them or be associated with their contents (or both).

It seems to me that SuperPACs shouldn't be allowed to be named after candidates, as the candidates themselves aren't allowed to coordinate with them (wink wink) and nobody but the candidates should be allowed to sign the candidates' name to political ads.