Super PAC's and the decline of politics in America

[Twiddly]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46460197...ew_york_times/

although this article is just about republicans, it shows that money in politics, supposedly regulated, except for these super PAC's, is completely out of control.

If you look at who is paying for presidential, or even going as far as senators, or even governors, the same people are paying BOTH ways, forcing politicans to be be beholden to them, and it is making democracy more about money then about intelligent voters deciding issues. How are the same companies that are paying hundreds of millions to the president still having there members be made into high ranking white house positions? Is this some kind of surreal joke?

[Skroe]

Every election since McCain-Feigngold there's been a new monster. A few years ago it was 501-c-something. SuperPACs are basically mutated 501-(c)4s.

Honestly before there is a constitutional amendment that puts hard limits / caps on campaign financing, it needs to get worse. Short term pain, long term gain. Personally I like the French mode - you and your confederates raise above a certain inflation adjusted limit, you get disqualified.

Obama is raising most of his money through small $250 donations and until last week eschewed SuperPACs. Republicans are relying on SuperPACs because their part is in a painful demographic decline and leadership vacuum and they can't raise money like they did under Bush a few years ago (when adjusted for inflation). The fact of the matter is, an entire generation of Republicans worked and made their careers under Reagan and became leading figures in the 90s and 00s. The same didn't happen under Bush because the Bush Administration is "tainted" by the financial crisis and big government expansion (as far as Republicans are concerned). So that hole is filled by what you see: money men like Romney and Trump, Old Faces like Gingrich and Paul, and Religious Conservatives like Santorum.

[Grummgug]

What is the alternative to money in politics? If politicians weren't allowed to raise money, all of them would be beholden to the mainstream media. The mainstream press, entities like the New York Times, ABC, NBC, and CBS would completely control the narrative. They could frame issues however they wanted, and politicians would have absolutely no ability to get their message out, because they have no money to buy ads or hire a staff to promote their ideas. The New York Times could run negative stories against a politician every day, and the politician could do nothing about it because he has no money to buy airtime or printspace to get his story out. The mayor of New York couldn't so much as have leaflets stapled to telephone poles, because that would require money to hire workers and print the leaflets. No money in politics means that's illegal.

Without money in politics, banning 501cs and superPACs, leaves us in a situation where whoever controls the media controls the politicians.

[Twiddly]

I will in no way claim party politics, but saying obama does not use super pacs is a flat out lie. Just last week he enabled his one. Neither side is innocent in this, and trying to claim otherwise is a flat out lie. Skoe, your post was not a lie a month ago, but Obama has, since then, said superpacs are A OK with him. This is not a partisian debate, I would rather obama be elected then over 3/4 the republican canidates: but to lie and say he is not using this is a travesty.

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 01:20 AM ----------

Obama did not completely forget about superpacs, let it be told. his whole "I hate superpacs!" only lasted as long as the other side controlled more then him. Then suddenly, it was "they are ok"!~ when he got more money from them. He is a weasel like all the rest.