4 ms·

I think the problem is that when 100 million people contribute $10 to a cause they basically don't get heard but one person contributing the same amount will ha

I think the problem is that when 100 million people contribute $10 to a cause they basically don't get heard but one person contributing the same amount will have all doors opened and be listened to.

rayiner 8y ago
We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  100 million people motivated enough to contribute $10 each to a cause indicates a huge base of support. It's not just the money, it's a signal of engagement.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Don't you think that someone tells the candidates where the PAC money is coming from?
- scoggs 8y ago
  > We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue. Now, I could be 100% wrong because I'm not looking at any data to back up what I'm stating next but from what I remember what you say above is not 100% true. From the time the campaign starts until the campaign ends and the election is complete the PAC's $ can not go directly to a candidate. The problem is what happens to / with that money after the campaign is over? From what I've heard that money can go directly to a candidate (or now official-elect) with no strings attached. Of course, I do not have a citation handy, but I've never heard of leftover PAC $ being reimbursed to those donating nor have I ever heard of candidates or a PAC donating the leftover PAC $ to charity.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    See: https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/what-happens-to-surplus-super-pac-money/ https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/what-happens... > Mostly, it’s up to the super PAC. “Super PACs have fairly broad discretion on what they can do with excess funds,” says Robert Kelner, chair of the Election and Political Law Practice Group at the law firm Covington & Burling. They can transfer them to a charitable organization, use them for wind-down expenses like clearing out offices or filing reports, or pay consulting fees. The main thing they can’t use leftover money for is to make contributions to a candidate for federal office.
tptacek 8y ago
I know you're just using rhetoric and not thinking about those numbers carefully, but I think that if 100 million people contributed $10 to a single cause, that cause would run the table in American politics.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
A logical problem here is that a 100 million people would be far more than enough to decide any and all elections. They could put 'Mr. Cause' into office at every single level of government if there was ever anything like 100 million people willing to agree on something and put forth the modicum of effort required to show up at a polling place. No money necessary.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Maybe I got my numbers wrong. How about 1 million people donating $5 vs one person donating 5 dollars? Don't you think that the one person will get the opportunity to raise their issues to the people in power?
  - harryh 8y ago
    Sure the one person will. But so will the 1 million donating $5 each if they do it through any sort of organization. Have you ever donated to Planned Parenthood? Or the NRA? Or whatever political org you happen to align with? Those organizations get heard because of the money and votes behind them.

I think the problem is that when 100 million people contribute $10 to a cause they basically don't get heard but one person contributing the same amount will have all doors opened and be listened to.

rayiner 8y ago

We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue.

greglindahl 8y ago
100 million people motivated enough to contribute $10 each to a cause indicates a huge base of support. It's not just the money, it's a signal of engagement.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Don't you think that someone tells the candidates where the PAC money is coming from?
scoggs 8y ago
> We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue. Now, I could be 100% wrong because I'm not looking at any data to back up what I'm stating next but from what I remember what you say above is not 100% true. From the time the campaign starts until the campaign ends and the election is complete the PAC's $ can not go directly to a candidate. The problem is what happens to / with that money after the campaign is over? From what I've heard that money can go directly to a candidate (or now official-elect) with no strings attached. Of course, I do not have a citation handy, but I've never heard of leftover PAC $ being reimbursed to those donating nor have I ever heard of candidates or a PAC donating the leftover PAC $ to charity.
- rayiner 8y ago
  See: https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/what-happens-to-surplus-super-pac-money/ https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/what-happens... > Mostly, it’s up to the super PAC. “Super PACs have fairly broad discretion on what they can do with excess funds,” says Robert Kelner, chair of the Election and Political Law Practice Group at the law firm Covington & Burling. They can transfer them to a charitable organization, use them for wind-down expenses like clearing out offices or filing reports, or pay consulting fees. The main thing they can’t use leftover money for is to make contributions to a candidate for federal office.

tptacek 8y ago

I know you're just using rhetoric and not thinking about those numbers carefully, but I think that if 100 million people contributed $10 to a single cause, that cause would run the table in American politics.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

A logical problem here is that a 100 million people would be far more than enough to decide any and all elections. They could put 'Mr. Cause' into office at every single level of government if there was ever anything like 100 million people willing to agree on something and put forth the modicum of effort required to show up at a polling place. No money necessary.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Maybe I got my numbers wrong. How about 1 million people donating $5 vs one person donating 5 dollars? Don't you think that the one person will get the opportunity to raise their issues to the people in power?
- harryh 8y ago
  Sure the one person will. But so will the 1 million donating $5 each if they do it through any sort of organization. Have you ever donated to Planned Parenthood? Or the NRA? Or whatever political org you happen to align with? Those organizations get heard because of the money and votes behind them.