2 votes

If Ron Paul were President, what would be of Super PACs?

What are his positions to Super PACs and if he were elected president, what would he do about them?

For those who do not know what a Super PAC is, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:


The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals.

[5] The super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. The first was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) which held that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditures about politics. Soon after, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited.[6] Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. They are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.[7] However many exploit a technicality in the filing requirements in order to postpone disclosure until well after the elections they participate in. [8]

Even absent a formal connection to a campaign, Super PACs openly support particular candidacies. In the primary season before the 2012 presidential campaign, for example, the Restore Our Future Super PAC benefited Republican Mitt Romney while attacking rival Newt Gingrich.[9] In the same election, the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future Super PAC attacked Romney.[10] Each Super PAC was run by former employees of the candidate it supported, and each attracted money from that candidate's associates.[9][10]

Also, from Revolution PAC:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He's been asked this

He's been asked this question. He says he doesn't really care for them, but you can't tell people how to spend their money. He says the solution is to shrink the government to the point where the lobbyists and special interest groups are left with nothing to fight over.

Basically, you can't get blood out of a turnip.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

I think you mixed the two

Lobbying is an attempt to influence those in government, Super PACs influence who gets in government.

I agree with Ron Paul that the solution to lobbying is reducing the size of government to a point where they cannot fight over anything.

But since Super PACs influence who gets in government, they can get people in government who will create an environment under which they can lobby or those candidates could provide them such benefits for helping them win such elections without even the need to lobby.

I'd say the same people

I'd say the same people pumping money to get someone elected are the same ones pumping money in their pockets later...except for those supporting Ron Paul. They just don't want to see the dollar and country collapse.

You're basically saying there is a difference in a 1st baseman and a second baseman...which I agree. Ultimately though, they are both infielders.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

And see that's the problem

Reducing the size of government to a point where lobbyists have no power does not fix the problem.

Ron Paul could strip back 80% of the government and tear down all the corruption as president and leave no room for any lobbyists. But as soon as his term ends, or within the next one or two terms, these same lobbyists could curtail this issue by simply funding a candidate who will give back to them what Ron Paul took away.

And this is why it is a problem that must be addressed. Because we must ask ourselves, what will happen once Ron Paul is no longer president? Corruption will end under a Ron Paul presidency, but what will be of corruption in the president after that? And the one after that?

It's My Money, My Speech

Ron Paul would tell me:

It's my money, and I can do whatever I want with it.

It's my speech, and I can use my money to speak as I choose.

The federal government has no authority to limit speech or spending by individuals whether they form groups or work alone (First Amendment).

BTW, on the whole, campaign spending limits usually squeeze out the challengers, not the status quo candidates. The status quo candidates are funded by the machine. The challengers often need an angel to fund them.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/


Free market capitalism means you are free to do what you want with your capital. In all honesty, in a truly free market, there would be no annual limit to how much you could donate to the candidate himself, much less the Super PAC. In a free market, there would be no need for a superpac becaues you would have the freedom to give all your wealth to the person you choose.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

A candidate isn't a politician..

...subject to term limits, parlimentary procedure, etc. They are just a private citizen trying to get a message out. Other citizens should have the freedom to give that candidate capital if they so choose. If I get on youtube and tell everyone I support the Arizona Cardinals, and I want everyone to donate money to me so I can help spread that message, then everyone should be free to give me as much money as they want. Same thing if I get on youtube and tell everyone I want to run for office and they should give me money to help me spread the word.
If you don't have the freedom to give your money away to those who promote the ideas you agree with, that is a restriction on your free speech, and that is a restriction on your freedom to earn capital and spend capital as you choose.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

So where do you stand

On the laws with respect to the official campaign only being able to receive $2500 from each individual? And where do you stand on those private citizens (candidates) being able to essentially fund their own campaign?

Under your argument, essentially you are saying anyone should be able to donate as much as they would like to the official campaign, including the candidate themselves?

Yes that is exactly what a free country would look like

If you don't like it then I suggest you start reading up on anarchism. I am not saying you have to believe in no government. But intellectually if you are worried about abuse in the election process and the only way to have "pure" democracy is to rig the system (or you might say level the playing field)...maybe we shouldn't be wasting our time and money on these low life scum bags you call candidates. Maybe we need to just cut their jobs and take away their candy?