SuperPAC Activism?
 

Why are there so few SuperPACs supporting activist positions on "fringe" issues? That is to say, why havent four or five rich potheads gotten together with a couple mil each to blast the airwaves with "legalize it"? why haven't the Rich-White-Gay elite just dumped millions into gay rights issues? As much as I hate the Citizens United decision (and support Sanders' Saving American Democracy amendment), I think this is a great chance for, well, basically, liberal Hollywood to put their money into issues, not candidates.

Of course, the same argument applies on the other side, but on social issues, the hyper-wealthy tend to be less conservative in general.

Jeffrey Katzenberg (CEO of DreamWorks Animation) He has contributed $2 million to Obama-affiliated Priorities USA Action PAC.

Ibs (is it still ok to call you that?)

Here is a good list of all the Super PAC's and their info. You can sort the list by a few different options as well.

Right. And those are almost all candidate or party-oriented PACs. I'm asking, WHY aren't there more issues-PACs being started by wealthy people? And I ask it of course in the context of being a pinko, so, why haven't enough rich liberals used the new looser rules to start a PAC and run commercials for their issues? If Snoop Dogg put even half as much money into legalization PACs as he spends on weed, the national conversation could be substantively changed on drug issues, for instance.

Politics is like movie making. An extremely expensive and risky game.
You can spend millions and not even be heard.

I give you Sir Elton John:
Rich - tick.
Gay - tick.
Out - tick.
Outspoken - tick.

He puts time and money into charities publicly and privately. He wields considerable influence. He has a well known AIDs foundation and throws must-go-to parties which celebs abase themselves to attend. He is in a civil partnership and has a baby, and he's so accepted that anything he does is a big FUCK YOU to homophobes.

Why should he get involved in politics?
His world is music.

Why should Snoop throw money into drug legislation? It will bring him nothing but grief. At least if he spends said money on weed, he'll get some pleasure out of it. I know almost nothing about him, but my guess is if he supports any charities they will be music based and/ or getting children out of gang danger. My apols if it turns out he is Ivy League educated (in which case he may have set up scholarships).

You can't affect politics by throwing money at it.
Money helps. Money diverts some issues and clouds others.
But people outside of political life have their own choices and preferences. And unlike politicians this is not their career, not their way to power and not the way they want to change the world. So why would they compromise, get into bed with enemies, put out propaganda, play dirty tricks..? Why not instead act, sing, write, give interviews, go on chat shows and make fun of opposing views, ENTERTAIN us until their POV seems normal and natural.

When I am a multi-millionaire I will support organised causes. I will not go into politics.

Wai .. What?

I guess my point is that the advent of the SuperPAC CHANGES all that. Have you heard much about Citizens United and SuperPACs? Basically anyone with money can donate an infinite amount to a SuperPAC with very little oversight, and very little disclosure, which can then run commercials, buy airtime, etc. So I would argue, the SuperPAC gives the wealthy an (entirely unfair, but nonetheless exploitable by either side) opportunity to take positions, to argue for political causes, in a way that keeps them shielded and separate from Politics-with-a-capital-P.

Ibs - I think if you look closer at some of the PACs, you'll find they are about some specific issue/talking point that is important for them.

They don't have to go under the PAC system just to advocate for an issue.

I have heard about SuperPAC. But funding comes out. It is leaked. There are accountants, lawyers, advisors. There is a paper trail.

And I repeat - money spent on politics is exremely high risk.
Millions disappear and society is its same obstreperous self. Think of the (haha) bottomless pit of money available to the Govt. Do they always get their way? Or are policies guided and reformed by public opinion. They certainly are in this country.

Business is more often in bed with politics than the arts.
Extremely wealthy gay businessmen may well be closeted.
And if they are open, then why should they put their sexuality ahead of monetary gain - straight businessmen are not required to. Grab, grab, grab, regardless of wht you like in the bedroom. Now that's equality.

I'm not disagreeing with you per se.
Just offering an alternative view.

Not really, THAT is the whole point. That changed with the Super PACs.

No.
There is always a paper trail. Legally accessed or otherwise.

Not true - That is the whole point.

Fair enough.
Given the recent phone hacking "scandal" here I am understandably cynical of any guarantee of privacy.

Basically, SuperPACs have to disclose their donors, but they can accept unlimited money from organizations that don't. So they set up an organization that has no accountability, and accept money from them.

But I agree that the anonymity is only as strong as that organization makes it.

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.