Listen to following link. What are Super PAC's? How were they created? What is the concern? What does David Bossie claim? What is a counter agrument to his position? What are the potential implications of Super PACs?
11 Comments
Mikhayla Crawford
2/23/2012 12:15:16 pm
Super PACs(political action committees) are organizations that campaign for, and against, political candidates, legislations, etc, but in this context were talking about the support of political candidates such as Mitt Romney, and the tearing down of his opponents. Super PACS were created after the 2010 federal court case called 'Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission', and can raise an unlimited amount of money, and then spend an unlimited amount of money, as long as they report on a monthly or quarterly basis their donors to the Federal Election Commission, and Super PACS may not donate directly to candidates. The concern here is that, as Martin said, "superPACs are tainting America's elections by allowing wealthy individuals or well-funded groups to steer millions of dollars to favored candidates." Also the worry is that this is not allowing the American people aren't getting their say in the elections, just the wealthy and businesses who have enough money to pay to have a say. In the conversation between Bossie and Martin, Bossie claims that its not jus the wealthy people who can participate its everyone, so essentially there shouldn't be a fuss about only the wealthy getting a say, because he thinks everyone is getting a say through the money they donate. Also Bossie thinks that 'money is speech', and that is why Obama won in 2008, because he raised more money than McCain. It's a theory that money makes votes I guess, the more money, the more votes. And now super PACS are leveling the playing field, according to Bossie, so that conservative candidates have more of a chance in the campaign, and it has supposedly been unfair in the past because liberal have ad wealthy donors. The counterargument to his position on this, is that corporations are not a representation of people, so just because they are dumping in massive amounts of money doesn't mean that is what a lot of people think. Also, just because a candidate has money supporting his campaign doesn't mean he's the best candidate out there, super PACS are taking away from the actual character of the candidate and are just putting money out there instead. A possible implication of these superPACS is that they are taking away the American peoples' voices, and they are not being heard, just the wealthy and corporations' voices are.
Reply
Jonathan Cazet
2/23/2012 02:14:57 pm
Super PAC's (Political Action Committees) are organizations that campaign for or against political candidates. Although PACs can be dated back to Theodore Roosevelt's time, in 2010 the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission created the law that PACs can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, thus creating the Super PAC. This case of 2010 is directly connected to the idea Bossie mentions of Mitt Romney. I agree with Mikhayla in that the worry is not allowing the American people in getting their say in the elections, just the wealthy and successful businesses who have enough money to pay to have a say. Bossie claims that not only the wealthy can participate, but rather everyone. "Money is speech" Bossie claims, stating that clearly Obama used this tactic to win his election. It is also believed that with Super PACs, conservative candidates would have more of a chance in a campaign. I again agree with the counter argument that corporations are not a representation of people, just because they are dumping massive amounts of money does not mean the candidate they are supporting is the right one. Clearly the implications of the Super PAC is to take away that of a person voice, agreeing that the wealthy and large corporations would replace them.
Reply
Andrew Abdalla
2/23/2012 02:40:03 pm
Super PAC's or Political Action Committees are a way for political candidates to raise funds to support their campaigns. Super PAC's stem from a 2010 court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The concern regarding Super PAC's, is that it places an unfair advantage on the wealthy voters over the average person. Many feel that the money collected by Super PAC's such as Citizens United tips the scale towards the wealthy. However, it is argued by David Bossie, president of Citizens United, that Super PAC's simply level the playing field for Conservative candidates who have been traditionally outspent by the Left. To counter the assertion that Super PAC's take the political power from the average person, Bossie states that working people such as electricians are spoken for by their unions, essentially replacing the power lost. A counter to Bossie's argument is that the corporations that support many Super PAC's, do not in fact represent the collective voice of their employees or shareholders, but simply the voice of their administration. The potential implication to Super PAC's is that they are not allowing the average American the opportunity to voice their opinions, and are dwarfing their interests.
Reply
Gaby Calderon
2/24/2012 02:36:15 pm
Super Pac's are fund raising groups for political party candidates that aid during the campaigning period. An ongoing issue for Super PAC's is the idea of an 'unfair advantage' for the candidates who are able to have more funds donated towards their political campaign. Concern arose because many felt that the wealthy were significantly benefitting more from the super PAC's. However, David Bossie strongly advocates for Super PAC's arguing that they don't simply benefit only the wealthy but they benefit all. I do not agree with this statement because as both Jonathan and Mikhayla stated "Money is speech" and not everyone has money, that's where the wealthy have the greater advantage over the average folk. The counter argument is one that i agree with stating that corporations do not personify the needs and wants of all people. Super PAC's really limit the voice of the one individual assuming that those who can afford to donate large sums of funds have a larger voice in political campaigns.
Reply
Ian McCaffrey
2/25/2012 02:09:50 am
(Yellow, late from football banquet)
Reply
Dalia Martin del Campo
2/26/2012 06:02:42 am
--- goof (green) ---
Reply
Bryanna Barragan
2/29/2012 01:48:52 pm
[GOOF]
Reply
Samuel Chavez
3/1/2012 03:55:05 am
Super PACs are committees that were created as a result of the court case 'Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission' and allow for candidates to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on their elections without giving contributions directly to the candidates themselves. The concern with this, is that the most wealthy/powerful people in the world, not only the country, are able to support candidates who will be beneficial to their institutions. What I didn't understand was how the amount of money a candidate has to his disposal can determine his election. After all, they aren't paying people to vote for them. Even though it helps them a lot with promoting their election, the money doesn't change the fact that in the end it's the voters who decide if he is suitable to be president.
Reply
Janelle Borges
3/7/2012 03:00:34 pm
--Goof--
Reply
Emily Butler
3/7/2012 03:00:40 pm
(GOOF)
Reply
Irving Barragan
3/27/2012 12:55:15 pm
(GOOF)
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |