|
I've been trying to learn more about politics (and other things I probably should have learned in high school) recently, and I'm pretty confused by the campaign finance laws here in the US. Specifically, I don't think I really get some of the finer points of PACS and campaign donations. 1. I think I understand that there are solid caps on how much hard money can be given to a single candidate.(That's right, isn't it?) Are there similar specific caps on how much a PAC or Super PAC can donate to a party? 2. I was under the impression that 527 groups can't specifically endorse any candidate. It seems like that would really lessen the effectiveness of PACS and Super PACS. I know that they can run ads that are pretty clearly against a particular candidate, but are PACS and Super-PACS actually banned from doing anything that specifically endorses a candidate? 3. I understand why the Citizens United decision was a big deal, but why don't we ever hear anything about Speechnow.org v. FEC? It seems like the decision stating that PACS can accept unlimited contributions for making "independent expenditures" is equally or even more important than deciding that corporations and unions can donate to PACs straight out of their treasuries. Am I way off base there? 4. Is it true that the FEC is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats? If so, doesn't this make it basically impossible for the organization to do its job? Wouldn't almost all votes end in a 3-3 tie?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 21:06 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:42 |
|
PACS are transdimensional mind conglomerates composed of eldritch beings beyond the reach of space and time. Super PACS are the same only more so.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 22:47 |
|
7c Nickel posted:PACS are transdimensional mind conglomerates composed of eldritch beings beyond the reach of space and time. Super PACS are the same only more so. These being also can't and won't coordinate with the official candidate's campaign. No, not at all, nuh-uh. They especially won't do this when they're staffed by colleagues, friends, former campaign managers , acquaintances, neighbours and others who have no connection to either the candidate or his or her top staff. Never. Ever. Don't think it.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 22:58 |
|
You get to swim around in all the cash like it's a moneybin. Quite the perk for aspirational presidential candidate.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 22:59 |
|
Bip Roberts posted:You get to swim around in all the cash like it's a moneybin. Quite the perk for aspirational presidential candidate. Hell, it helped solidify Richard Nixon as Vice President...
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 23:04 |
|
Junior G-man posted:These being also can't and won't coordinate with the official candidate's campaign. No, not at all, nuh-uh. Yeah, it kind of blew my mind that literally being business partners with someone running a PAC doesn't count as coordination. Also, I was obviously pretty wrong about the whole "PACS can't endorse candidates" thing. Isn't there some other kind of organization that can run ads conveniently trashing the other candidate in a two-person race but can't endorse anyone?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 23:41 |
|
Giant Squid posted:Yeah, it kind of blew my mind that literally being business partners with someone running a PAC doesn't count as coordination. I was going to say that's 527s but I looked it up, and... they're not allowed to "expressly advocate" for or against a candidate or party. But groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are/were 527s and apparently what happens in reality is they can do whatever they want and maybe the FEC will fine them two or three years after the fact. There's also the 501(c)s but really nothing loving matters anymore. edit: I'm not sure but there may not even be any legal designation for the "trash but not endorse" thing other than as a fig leaf re: coordination. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Feb 7, 2016 |
# ? Feb 7, 2016 01:06 |
|
But aren't PACS a type of 527?
|
# ? Feb 7, 2016 01:15 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:42 |
|
Poking around wikipedia, I don't think so. Not necessarily anyway? 527 (and 501(c)3/4) are from the tax code, while PAC seems to just be a general designation or more explicitly regarding election law: "At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.[3] At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws." edit: On the other hand, from the 527 article: quote:Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees, "Super PACs", and political parties are "527s." However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not "expressly advocate" for the election or defeat of a candidate or party. ...and goes on to mention basically point 3 in your OP re: Speechnow.org v. FEC. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Feb 7, 2016 |
# ? Feb 7, 2016 01:41 |