As I said before, I don't think that PACs ought to be able to contribute directly to politicians either. If we keep the existing prohibition against campaigns coordinating campaigns with PACs and allow PACs to only make independent expenditures, I'm fine with that.
You want to run ads saying that Obama is a gay communist kenyan manchurian candidate, fine. Do so with money from individuals who believe in that. I'm a stock holder in the corporation I work for. I like my CEO. He and I don't see eye to eye politically. We were butting heads yesterday about tax reform in Oregon as a matter of fact. I support his right to back one side of the current ballot measure fight while I support the other. I do not support him getting to make a decision that our company's money can back the side that he believes in, even if the ballot measure effects the tax rate our company might pay. Judah On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would not be against completely restricting corps., unions, etc from > being able to donate to a campaign directly - but would be satisfied > in limiting donations to a level that more people would be able to > reach - even if its as little as $500 per person/corp/etc... > > However, if we did have those restrictions, I fear that PACs might > become a loophole. > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I should actually make a distinction between a PAC and a Union or a >> Corporation. A PAC is specifically created to advocate for a specific >> set of issues, so I'm ok with an individual donating money to a PAC >> who then pools the money to run issue/candidate related ads. Unions >> and Corporations aren't created for the express purpose of running >> issue and candidate ads. >> >> I still don't think that PACs should be able to donate directly to >> candidates. I'm ok with them pooling money to do issue and candidate >> advocacy though. >> >> Judah >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Would you agree, then, that unions, PACs and interest groups are not >>>> 'people' and therefore should nto be allowed to donate to political >>>> campaigns? >>> >>> Yes, I agree. >>> >>> I also don't think that money is speech. Speech is speech. You can pay >>> money to people to speak for you, money directly is not speech. Which >>> is why donating to a campaign is not a speech issue in the first >>> place, let alone the fact that corporations are not people. >>> >>> Judah >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311041 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
