Super Lesbian PAC
A new political action committee was announced today: a lesbian "super PAC." Now, some folks might decry this development (for various reasons, which I'll get to in a moment), but personally I think it's a great idea. A super idea, in fact. Until progressives can manage to get a constitutional amendment passed which overturns Citizens United, we're all living in the world it created -- and we'd better realize it and adjust to it rather than just bewail the sad state of modern politics and money's influence therein. So I say: more power to the lesbians! Go LPAC!
In fact, I'd go further and advise other special interest groups dive into the same pond and create your own super PAC. How about a "Populist PAC," for instance? Or even an "Occupy PAC" or a "99% PAC"? Perhaps, a super PAC devoted to passing a "corporations aren't persons" amendment? I see nothing wrong with any of these, to tell the truth.
The influence of money on politics has a long and sordid history, of course. But it's also a fact of life. Certain people get a "seat at the table" and certain people don't. That's the way it is, and the way it has been in living memory, in fact. Oh, sure, politicians pander to much wider groups come election-time, but in both major American parties, more money gets you a better and better seat at that table where things are decided.
This is not to say that supporting efforts to decrease the influence of money in politics isn't a good idea, or pushing for various cures for the problem isn't good politics and good lawmaking. Don't get me wrong -- I usually support such efforts myself. I, along with millions of Americans, would like a better system of politics, one that didn't rely so heavily on generating mountains of campaign cash all the time. But, at the same time, my eyes are open to the fact that we do not live in that world, yet.
Instead, here we all are in the post-Citizens United framework. So what are you going to do: bemoan the fact, or play the game according to the rules that are in place (even while working for better rules)? The lesbians have decided to jump into this game. As I said, more power to them.
The gay and lesbian movement is actually one of the better examples of how to go about effecting political change. While the gay rights movement has made enormous strides in shifting American public opinion about their key agenda issues -- and in a very short time as these things go -- they have also figured out that playing the political game is as important as influencing the general public's hearts and minds.
The gay and lesbian rights people raised a lot of campaign cash for then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008. Since this point, they've gotten more out of the Obama administration than just about any other group on the left you can name. Think about it -- what has Obama specifically done for: unions, African-Americans, Latinos (before his recent announcement, that is), teachers, youth, women's rights (again, before his announcement on birth control), progressives, civil libertarians, or even pot-smokers? One or two things come to mind, but nothing really compares to how gay rights have advanced in the past three years. The Obama White House spent most of their first two years actually fighting most of these groups, because Obama would not produce any of their favorite agenda items.
Obama hasn't always been seen in a good light by the gay rights folks, either. But -- tellingly -- what did they do about it? They started publicly threatening to stop their donations to both Obama's re-election and Democrats in general. Since then, Obama has all but completed his "evolution" on the subject, and will go down in history as the most gay-friendly president of all time.
That is the essence of political influence. You can say it's a bad thing in general, but in this case it certainly worked, didn't it? Gays and lesbians aren't the sole source of Obamas fundraising, but their influence over the rest of the Democratic fundraising universe is strong -- there's a lot of gay-friendly donors, to put it another way, who have their own pet issues but also have a lot of gay and lesbian friends.
Which is why LPAC is such a good idea. In fact, I predict that either a "Gay PAC" will soon be announced for gay men to donate to, or perhaps they'll all merge into a "LGBTPAC" at some point down the road. More power to all of them, no matter how it plays out!
The more PACs the better, from anywhere on the political spectrum. Why shouldn't the ACLU form a "Civil Liberties PAC" (note: they may already have one, I didn't check) to advance their ideals? If your group has an issue you care about, then put together a super PAC and see if there are some well-heeled folks out there who think as you do. Channel the money into your own issue-advocacy ads on television. Get the word out!
"But Chris," you say, "won't that just contribute to the absolute cacophony of political ads which already assail us each and every election year?" You are darn tootin' it would. But what is the alternative? Leave the field wide open to Karl Rove and his PAC?
The beauty of a super PAC is that you get to make your own ads. They can be political as heck, but as long as you don't use the taboo phrase "vote for candidate X," you can say just about anything you want. It's pretty much a free-for-all out there, with very few rules. In the past, the money flow would be through the political parties (or the candidates) themselves -- they'd take your money and then decide what to do with it. They might come out with an ad which you think stinks, but you would have little say over it, even if your money funded the ad. What Citizens United has done is remove the middle man. You can now go out and buy your own ads, and spend as much as you feel like to do so. That means a certain amount of freedom for people who can scrape together that kind of money.
Like, for instance, lesbians. I would love to see an ad campaign from LPAC -- whether it's on gay marriage, or women's rights, or social justice for all. I would love to see ads from a lot of political groups out there, unfettered by party dogma.
The political system we have is far from perfect. Money is too influential in politics. There are many ways to change this for the better. I support most efforts to change this unfair equation. But while we're waiting for a perfect political system, we have what we have. And we should use it. We should play the game as best we can. If lesbians want to band together and use their combined influence to support candidates and run ads, hopefully it will help further their cause. More power to them. Any other group who wants to see their level of influence rise should be emulating LPAC, and not scoffing at them in any way. OK, the whole game is rigged -- tilted overwhelmingly against the little guy -- but when a whole bunch of little guys get together and pool their money in such a fashion, your voices get heard more. Just because the game is rigged doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort to play, to put it another way.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
as long as you don't use the taboo phrase "vote for candidate X,"
They still have to avoid The Phrase? I thought that was thrown out, and the only thing that's forbidden is for the actual candidate to coordinate with their campaign.
dsws -
You know, now that you ask, I'm not so sure. There are a bunch of IRS classifications like "503(c)" and the like, and some you can advocate only issues, and some candidates. But I've never actually dug into the details post-Citizens United. Maybe I should have checked before including that line...
-CW
So, basically what you are saying is EXACTLY what I predicted would happen..
The Left decried SuperPACs as the most evil of evils..
But then it hit them.
"Hay!! We can get money and influence doing it too!!"
And now, SuperPACs are the most goodest of the good... :D
It's tough being right so often.. :D
Don't get me wrong.. I completely understand where ya'all are coming from... It's the 'If you can't beat em, join em" mentality..
But, damn.. I caught a lot of flack for claiming that the Left will do exactly what the Left ended up doing..
It's hard as hell trying to figure out where ya'all's red lines are.. :D
Michale.....
And now, SuperPACs are the most goodest of the good... :D
For the record, I know ya'all aren't saying that, exactly..
But it's undeniable that ya'all ARE advocating embracing SuperPACs, which is a difference only in magnitude..
I know, I know. Ya'alls argument is, "But Michale, what else can we do!??"
I don't know what the Left can do..
But it seems to me that standing by the principles the Left lays down would garner them MUCH more respect and goodwill from the American voters..
I mean, seriously..
When the Citizens United/SuperPACs ruling came down, the Left went apeshit, claiming that the ruling "was a threat to our Democracy!!"
Now, what's an Independent/NPA to think about the Left when the Left embraces SuperPACs??? Embraces this gross and perverse "threat to our Democracy"??
It seems to me that the Independents and NPAs are left with only two possibilities..
1. The Left lied when they claimed that SuperPACs were "a threat to our Democracy"...
or
B. If it will advance their agenda, the Left doesn't mind utilizing this "threat to our Democracy"...
Either option is unpalatable to an American considering voting for Democrats..
What can the Left do???
"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
Michale.....
And, just for a good laugh..
This is for all you CAT people out there.. :D
http://tinyurl.com/6tbctax
Michale.....
The whole money is the name of the game meme is both a red-herring and a perfect example of what's really wrong with our system. Our problem isn't money buying politicians, as in bribes, its money being able to influence voters, as in political extortion.
And the only reason it works is because we have toothless laws regarding libel and slander coupled with an amazingly gullible electorate. As long as this is true candidates have no choice but to play the game. A game enabled by the media, encouraged by the media and which profits only the media.
Looking toward a constitutional amendment is whistling in the wind. It'll never happen. The media won't let it happen. The court won't let it happen. The Constitution is only a piece of paper. It can't protect anyone or anything. Its always been understood that if the people want to maintain any rights they would have to defend them.
But in our hyper-partisan uncompromisingly willful ignorance we'd rather be right than realistic. We'd rather win than be well-governed. We'd rather tear everyone down rather than lift everyone up and let others get ahead of us. And we expect others to solve our problems, without any help or effort from us, because we've no intention of taking personal responsibility ourselves for what our representatives do. Though we're more than willing to try to hurt them even if it hurts us too if we think we're not being catered to.
Its a truism that you can't solve a problem until you can identify it. Money in politics isn't the problem, we are the problem. And an uninformed, unsophisticated, and irrational electorate is the kiss a death for any democracy.
Obama hasn't always been seen in a good light by the gay rights folks, either. But -- tellingly -- what did they do about it? They started publicly threatening to stop their donations to both Obama's re-election and Democrats in general.
that in a nutshell explains why the obama administration has been so awful for teachers and teachers unions. in response to his incredibly harmful support of the privatization agenda, how did teacher unions respond? by their enthusiastic endorsement. *sigh*
Looks like it might be Condi!!! :D
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcm.htm
If Romney chooses Condi for VP, Obama might as well just pack it in and go home...
Michale.....
Michale,
I have it on EXTREMELY powerful authorities that, ah, it ain't gonna be Condi.
Though, that would make for a very interesting vice presidential debate. :)
Liz,
I have it on EXTREMELY powerful authorities that, ah, it ain't gonna be Condi.
This is one of those times when I hope you're wrong.. :D
Though, that would make for a very interesting vice presidential debate. :)
Condi would clean Ol' Joe's clock... :D
Michale.....
I mean, look at things.
A Romney/Rice ticket would blow Team Obama out of the water.
It would be the biggest landslide since Reagan whipped Carter....
Michale.....
LD,
Its a truism that you can't solve a problem until you can identify it. Money in politics isn't the problem, we are the problem. And an uninformed, unsophisticated, and irrational electorate is the kiss a death for any democracy.
Just curious..
Was the electorate this way in 2008???
Joshua,
that in a nutshell explains why the obama administration has been so awful for teachers and teachers unions. in response to his incredibly harmful support of the privatization agenda, how did teacher unions respond? by their enthusiastic endorsement. *sigh*
Romney got a standing ovation from the NAACP (yea, THAT NAACP) for his stance on education...
Something to consider..
"Luke, your destiny is with the Dark Side"
:D
Michale.....
Romney got a standing ovation from the NAACP (yea, THAT NAACP) for his stance on education...
that's not entirely true. romney got applause for criticizing the president's hypocrisy on education. romney's own stance is just as awful, however. he'll shoot education in the face instead of stabbing it in the back like obama has.
he'll shoot education in the face instead of stabbing it in the back like obama has.
Touche' :D
Michale.....
Michale [12]
The electorate has been like that forever. As an example I present your insistence on seeing everything as partisan while claiming to be independent and your attempts to spin everything to validate your irrational hatred of Obama. There was nothing in my comment about either party, Obama, or Bush.
LD,
First off, there is absolutely NOTHING "irrational" in my hatred of Obama..
Just as there would be nothing "irrational" in your hatred of a person who lied to your face and spit on everything you believed in and supported them over.....
As long as your analysis isn't biased to simply the here and now, then I really don't have a problem with it..
Joshua,
From an Educators perspective, what's your take on Condi Rice for VP??
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/13/condoleezza-rice-as-romney-running-mate-would-be-2012-game-changer/
Michale.....
Michale,
Your hatred of Obama may, or may not, be irrational. I don't know, need to know, or want to know the details behind it. But your response is irrational.
You view Obams's every act as further proof of your "victimization" and that's irrational. You think everything he does is wrong and consider yourself objective. You cheerlead for a party that has done nothing and offers nothing simply because you think Obama didn't do what you wanted with no regard whatsoever as to whether it would make things worse for the country. You just want to put-down Obama, effective government is a secondary consideration, if even that, Just like the Republicans.
Petty, partisan, willfully ignorant, and self destructive——irrational with a bullet! I just wish your temper tantrum wasn't also a threat to me. Unfortunately since you've a few million like-minded fellows it is.
Petty, partisan, willfully ignorant, and self destructive——irrational with a bullet! I just wish your temper tantrum wasn't also a threat to me. Unfortunately since you've a few million like-minded fellows it is.
Ironic..
I was just thinking the same thing about you... :D
My point is simple. To you, Liberal/Progressive is a religion... And like a fervent religious believer, anyone who believes differently is an apostate or a demon or, at best, suffering from "temper tantrums"...
I would be willing to wager that you simply cannot see ANYTHING good in ANYTHING coming from the Right...
It's different with me. I am not enslaved by political dogma or ideology. I can freely look at both sides of the aisle and determine what is good and what is bad in each..
Yea, I find a lot of good on the Right. That's because of my life experiences, training and expertise.
But I am enough of a human being to see the good in the Left too. Most of my beef of late with the Left is that they ESPOUSE and PREACH those good things, yet totally ignore them in their actions...
That's where I am coming from.
Michale...
michale,
i have absolutely no idea what the impact of condi rice being elected romney's vp might have on education. probably not much at all. if either she or biden became president, i'd venture to guess that they'd both be substantially better than their respective running mates, but that's really just conjecture. there's so much campaign money and publicity being devoted to policies destructive to public education in the US, it's hard to imagine any politician on the national stage really taking a stand.