Amazon.com Widgets

A Super PAC not affiliated with Trump has been hawking a chance to win “Dinner with Donald Trump,” but not a dime of the $1 million raised has gone to the real estate mogul’s campaign. Do Super PACs need more regulation?

A Super PAC not affiliated with Trump has been hawking a chance to win “Dinner with Donald Trump,” but not a dime of the $1 million raised has gone to the real estate mogul’s campaign. Do Super PACs need more regulation?
  • Super PACS need regulation but not in this case because there's a part missing from the statement.

    Super PACS do need regulation but the particular PAC being referred to in this had explicitly listed in fine print on their website that they were not serious about it. The people who decided to donate anyway weren't scammed. They were more like walking into a deal without properly figuring out what they were getting themselves into. The PAC owner did nothing wrong. The people were the idiots.

  • Yes, Super PACs need more regulation.

    Political Super PACs need more regulation. Currently, a Super Pac is not required to be a part of any campaign, nor does it have to meet the same fundraising requirements that candidates must follow. Super PACs kind of govern themselves, which is unusual in an era where everything else is so heavily regulated. This has led to a lot of controversial campaign commercials funded by Super PACs.

  • Yes, The Supreme Court says we can't prohibit independent expenditures, so limiting 527s and Super PACs would be ruled unconstitutional.

    I don't think SuperPACs are going away at all. It's entirely possible that they'll scale back, and certainly some of the more shadowy legal constructs will likely fade, but political operatives will always do their damnedest to make sure political money is hard to follow. After all, the folks with the cash to get you elected are rarely the kind of people you want to admit you're sponging off.

  • Super PACs should face more regulation

    Super PACs should face more regulation. Currently, there is very little oversight for super PACs. These organizations can make outrageous about candidates and not face any regulatory backlash since super PACs are not directed by the candidates. Even if a claim is not true, it can still inflict damage on the candidate.

  • Super PACS need regulation but not in this case because there's a part missing from the statement.

    Super PACS do need regulation but the particular PAC being referred to in this had explicitly listed in fine print on their website that they were not serious about it. The people who decided to donate anyway weren't scammed. They were more like walking into a deal without properly figuring out what they were getting themselves into. The PAC owner did nothing wrong. The people were the idiots.

  • They still broke the law

    What they did was illegal, and it isn't the rules around super PACs that caused that behavior. They didn't jump through a loophole, they just flat out committed fraud against people who were vying for a dinner that didn't exist, then didn't even give the money to the campaign. They should be prosecuted under existing law.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.