Anonymous wrote:We have had bipartisan deals. It's just that Republicans consider those to be losses.
Anonymous wrote:We have had bipartisan deals. It's just that Republicans consider those to be losses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need super pacs devoted to promoting bipartisan cooperation and compromises … but it might not be sexy enough for big donors … even though it is what the country needs …
No. We need an end to super PACs.
I did not like the ruling that allowed them to form. However, since they are reality for the foreseeable future we need to get to serve democracy better.
Dark money isn’t generally interested in bettering democracy.
PACs are not synonymous with dark money
Companies are abandoning anti-democratic politicians, but they shouldn’t abandon their PACs
Much-maligned PACs represent an ideal way to fund our elections. And the American public agrees
What does the public understand that PAC critics don’t? For starters, PACs are the best example of campaign finance reform that works. Contribution ceilings ($5,000) are low, which limits the amount of a PAC’s potential influence. The same limit applies to people who support a PAC, which prevents any individual from having a disproportionate impact on how money is dispersed. PACs may only solicit from certain employees and contributions must be voluntary.
Unlike so-called dark-money funds, PAC contributions are transparent. You can go to FEC.gov or Opensecrets.org and review every contribution of more than $200. While PACs aren’t required to have boards and bylaws, most companies use them to build trust in a PAC’s governance and make tough decisions when funds are limited.
Democratic/Liberal PACs contributions to candidates, 2021-2022 • OpenSecrets
$6,660,471
Total from Democratic/Liberal PACs to candidates, 2021-2022
$6,602,341
To Democrats
$16,620
To Republicans
160
Number of PACs
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One party is working across the aisle and the GOP wants to blow everything up.
My opinion. And should. I would like some accountability first from the Dems for the economy, etc.
Anonymous wrote:What the mid terms show me is that the US is fairly equally divided between Dems and Republicans … Neither party have a mandate to act too rashly with extreme agendas. National bans on Abortion in particular should be off the table. The election deniers back by the former president did not fare well. People want to move on from the unstable unpredictable nuttiness of Trump years but not in the exact opposite direction.
Do you think more politicians will try and find ways to work across the aisle on the economy, immigration and national security threats or will the extreme posturing/ polarized Militarization of politics continue?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need super pacs devoted to promoting bipartisan cooperation and compromises … but it might not be sexy enough for big donors … even though it is what the country needs …
No. We need an end to super PACs.
I did not like the ruling that allowed them to form. However, since they are reality for the foreseeable future we need to get to serve democracy better.
Dark money isn’t generally interested in bettering democracy.
Anonymous wrote:There are party sycophants (blue or red, pick your poison, they share the same DNA) and there is everyone else. We need leaders who aren’t beholden to big parties and can think for themselves.