Talk:Political action committee/Archive 1

PAC giving
The article currently (29 Aug, 2005) states that PACs are allowed to give up to $5,000 to other PACs. This looks like a free pass to violate the other funding limits in the list (via a network of like-minded PACs). Do rules exist to prevent this or is it really a loophole? It would be nice if the article addressed the issue.


 * This is, to my knowledge, possible. However, PACs can better use their money to fund political                        advertisements that have a larger impact on the electorate than perhaps all the campaign stops a  candidate makes.  I’m not aware of any group creating a number of “shell PACs” for the purpose of donating monies in excess of established limits.


 * It is legal for a single group to sponsor multiple PACs, but all of them are counted under a combined $5,000 limit. Like-minded PACs sponsored by different organizations can give $5,000 each. This isn't really violating the funding limits, though it does have a similar effect. I'll make a note of the combined limit.

History
The establishment of PACs should definately be mentioned. I'll put it on my personal to-do list. (Although anyone should feel free to prempt me on this) SanDiegoPolitico 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like no one has ever gotten around to creating a history of PACs. I believe the law establishing the use of PACs came out as a result of Watergate, but there needs to be some verification or explanation. 64.85.240.22 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

PAC and 501(c)3
Does a pac have to register in a state? Can they be a 501(c)3? What alternatives are there to forming a PAC? Does a PAC have to be a corporation or LLC? Who controls the money a PAC collects? If a PAC disolves then who gets the money? If I form a PAC do I count any money I collect as income?


 * My advice--talk to a lawyer before doing anything. Meelar (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Campaign Guides in External Links explain all this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigger (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Errors in Open Secrets Citation & Re: AIPAC
The page says that "Open Secrets, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics, categorizes PACs, large and small, as follows:"

First, the categorization does not appear to match that actually used by Open Secrets, which breaks it down primarily by economic sector:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

(See the drop-down menu at the center top of the page).

Secondly, I see no evidence that OD lists AIPAC as a PAC, even on their "Pro-Israel" page: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q05&cycle=2006

... and the Wiki on AIPAC doesn't suggest it's a PAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

AFAIK AIPAC is a *lobby group*, not a PAC. I wonder if someone got confused by the appearance of "PAC" in the initials of their name; it stands for "Public Affairs Committee".


 * I found the list used -- it is this one . It is the breakdown of just the Ideology/Single-Issue sector -- it is not a breakdown of the whole lobbying world.  That needs to be addressed.  --Deodar 05:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging Leadership PAC
A Leadership PAC is a specific type of political action committee and at its current length, it doesn't merit its own article. I propose to merge it into this page. - PoliticalJunkie 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

--from an uninformed reader trying to understand the all of the different definitions it would be helpful to include a Leadership PAC definition

top PACs
according to opensecrets.org, the PACs listed aren't accurate. what's the source on this data? http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level=C&format=&cycle=2004

Categorization of PACs
I don't find this section relevant to PACs. It simply establishes that different organizations categorize types of PACs differently on their websites. I think a better use of this section would be to describe the legal PAC categories, "connected" and "unconnected" and the rules for each. Njsamizdat (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Retirement and use of leadership PAC money
It is my understanding that when a politician decides to retire some or all of the PAC funds that have been donated for that politician's use become property of that politician. Is this understanding correct? 66.133.225.22 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is still the case. According to this article (from NPR's Marketplace program) it was as of '08. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All Time Top Donors
I don't see the need for this as a chart. Or the ones above it, really. I would suggest a narrative section on the biggest donors which would be updates every couple years to keep it fresh. Any thoughts? Njsamizdat (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

NYT SuperPAC resource
99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * G.O.P. Allies Form House Super PAC October 13, 2011, 3:01 PM by Nicholas Confessore


 * Blog, not subject to editorial control. Only possibly usable if Confessore is a recognized expert, and probably not even then, if the usage names names, per WP:BLP.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Super PACs resource, John McCain
John McCain: SuperPACs Will ‘Destroy Political Process,’ Predicts ‘Scandal’ Because of Them Jan 13, 2012 12:37pm by David Muir; excerpt ... See The Colbert Report and the Colbert Super PAC 99.181.140.39 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/stephen-colberts-super-pac-starts-buying-up-south-carolina-airtime/ Jan 13, 2012 9:37am
 * http://palmettopublicrecord.org/2012/01/12/colbert-super-pac-making-media-buys-in-sc/

Super Pac deletions
Regarding the deletion of two items from the super pac section: But there may be other defensible opinions. M.boli (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence about super pacs dancing around the disclosure deadlines. The previous sentence notes that they are subject to disclosing contributers. Failing to mention that the super pacs play games with the disclosure rules thus seemed potentially deceptive to me. So I reverted this sentence back into the article.
 * The Western-whatever v. Montana paragraph. Earlier, I chose to shorten and rewrite this paragraph (as opposed to remove it). My thinking was that super pacs are the spawn of Citizens United and Speechnow, quite possibly the most prominent channel for unlimited corporate contributions. Since the MT decision is a challenge to Citizens United, it seemed relevant to a section on super pacs. But I agree the MT decision is about campaign finance in general, the relevance to super pacs less direct. So I did not put this paragraph back.
 * "My thinking was that super pacs are the spawn of Citizens United and Speechnow" That is incorrect.  Super PACs are actually only tangentially related to Citizens United.  If corporate independent expenditures were still prohibited, Super PACs would still exist, but it would be pretty much only individuals and other PACs that donated to them ... which is basically what's happening now, anyway.  Citizens United may or may not impact the amounts given to Super PACs in the long run, but Citizens United is absolutely not a progenitor of the Super PAC. I know it's popular to hate Citizens United, but the facts are clear. Pudge (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

New section 2012 estimates
In this section I intentionally didn't state which candidate had already raised more money via a Super Pac than all 9 Super Pacs of 2008 combined. My reasoning was to keep the article balanced without introducing partisan debate. Pbmaise (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Help needed on references to "soft-money"
I have pulled out of the article the following paragraph.....

''Super PACs use "soft money", meaning they do not have a limit to how much money they may donate. On the other hand, traditional PACs use "hard money", meaning that they are required under the 503(c)(3) tax to pay a basic tax and a reduction on what they donate to.''

If anyone out there wishes to contribute to this page please first see Types of Advocacy Groups The definitions used on the page need to be brought in line with that page..alternately..they need to be sourced for better definition. Thanks and happy democracy in action. Pbmaise (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. That sentence is both incorrect and unsourced.  (503(c)(3) seems to be a misinterpretation and typo for 501(c)(3).)  The usual definition of "soft money" in politics is contributions not in the form of money; for example, labor union members campaigning for candidates the union supports.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

no names
There is no name for most active (let say six) PAC in 2011. The article seem to be long protected. Is it intententional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was protected because IP users with a juvenile sensibility kept vandalizing it. M.boli (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many press reports already regarding which PACs in 2012 are leading and keeping up with figures would not be useful in my opinion. On historical basis after the final 2012 figures are in they may serve a useful purpose here. However, my view is the current newspaper accounts are a better source during the election itself.Pbmaise (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please help monitor page for vandalism
Thanks to all that monitor page for things like frothy or even wholesale deletesPbmaise (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested additions
Minnesota has another case in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which may deserve mention..however I have not read this case in full..anyone want to include in the article what that case added/subtracted please take a crack at it. Only reason I had so much time today to work on article is it rained and I can't work topside during the rain. See...and make sure you back track this to a primary source as that google site isn't as good as Court site http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18060490258844067404&q=related:8N-KguB0D1cJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1Pbmaise (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need secondary (Wikipedia meaning) sources as to the meaning of the ruling of the primary (legal and Wikipedia) sources. It's all right to include the court cases on the talk page.  As for your comment on google, the google scholar reference is a primary source for Wikipedia purposes, so cannot be used without a relevant secondary source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

International response and evolving subject
This morning I wanted to incorporate more international opinion regarding PACs and found some very interesting material. PACs are likened in the press as part of an over-all Christian movement. Further, in India I found almost word for word comments regarding Islam.

It may seem odd to reference Jamaica's newspaper account of what is going on globally let alone in the US, however, it is an outstanding well written piece.

In light of this I added two new paragraphs as follows:

In Jamaica, Professor Martin Henry, in apparent reference to the funding of PACs via religious organizations, that: "Islamic extremists are mounting struggles in a number of countries to impose Islamic law. Christian extremists are doing the same in some of the bastions of Western democracy." However, this will have "severe unintended consequences" since "law will not be, and cannot be, Everyman's Law, but will be Strong Man's Law, that is law imposed by the powerful, with no checks upon them."

In India, where the tenants of Islamic law are interwoven with  Civil law, mirrored the arguments made by PACs like the National Organization for Marriage. "Muslim leaders have said any attempt to" repeal laws criminalizing a "minuscule minority" "is an attack on religious and moral values" and the "government should not test the patience of the silent vast majority".

Guatemala paragraph
The paragraphs quoted regarding Guatemala sounded almost word for work like the US system in 2012 and I have incorporated this from an organization that helps to promote democracy around the world. Owing to the type of quote, and fact the source came from an organization founded to promote democracy by former president Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, I have quoted 1.5 paragraphs from a report that is a total of 8 pages long.Pbmaise (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I see someone deleted the direct comparison between US elections and Guatemala. I guess you are right comparing Guatemala may be upset that their system was compared to what goes on in the US.Pbmaise (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

527 organization and 501 c Help!
We need to clear this up. After spending nearly a week on this page I'm still not exactly sure where the line is between 527 organization and PAC.

According to *[http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php open secrets page 527 is umbrella that group for both PACs and political parties themselves...yet how can something be called a 527 organization unless further differentiation into lower classification. I see much of the 527 organization page is right out of the page open secrets and think we may have to dig right into IRS code book to confirm what is what. Any takers?Pbmaise (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A PAC is merely a type of 527. They're all 527s. Political parties, candidate committees, state candidate committees, PACs, Super PACs. A 527 is simply the section of the tax code under which political organizations are formed. When people talk politically about a "527" what they usually mean is a 527 that is not a candidate committee, party committee, or PAC as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act. That means it does not contribute to candidates or specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates. It can do "issue ads," that may attack or praise a candidate but don't specifically urge people to vote one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EABSE (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Legality of super PACs and article neutrality
If you have been following this page you may have noticed that my research into updating the pages on Wikipedia eventually led to the conclusion that big donations exceeding individual limits are not legal. For this reason I personally launched a U.S. Federal suit that sought to prove it. I firmly believe most of what is claimed in Washington DC will not stand up in Court. The FEC is not a Court of Law and while it may issue advisories and change rules they can still be challenged in the Court. Further, someone may claim they are following the letter of the law but the reasonable person test is what the U.S. legal system is based upon. If you want to read the entire document here are links.  

What I am asking for at this point is to avoid making claims on the page like "big donations to super PACs are perfectly legal" It is fine to say most believe they are legal. Until a 3-Judge panel agrees with my Complaint, my beliefs are exactly that beliefs and not findings of fact. I apologize I have not been updating pages lately I have two supplemental filings to the 105 page complaint.Pbmaise (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Super PACs
I am expanding the Super PAC section with an eye to forking it off as a separate article as these committees are playing a very important roll this election. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC) I concur. They have their own history, and etymology. The history involving EMILY's List is also missing. I'm currently traveling in Brunei but can check in. I deleted also an odd comment about the Colbert Report. Pbmaise (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Debate on legal nature of super PACs
There are those that believe super PACs are legal....and those that don't..and a recent poll showing 70% of all U.S. citizens believe they should be illegal.

I fall into the second group and after educating myself on super PACs and helping to write Wikipedia pages and doing research to write these pages conclude they are illegal. There is a strong incentive to prevent people from seeing my view point. However, I feel it strong enough that I have launched a lawsuit in federal court.

I view actions taken to remove files from wikipedia about the case, deleting the image of the Court document filed, to be a form of political action by those that believe in parties or causes that benefit from super PACs. I obviously can be accused of using wikipedia to try and inform people of the lawsuit and legal basis of the suit for my own political purpose.

I seem to be only one adding information that they are illegal and one editor is removing suggestions that they are. That is why it is up to other wiki editors to step in and make comments.

, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons

I strongly believe wikipedia is in the interest of educating the public...and if there is education on either side of the coin it should be presented to the public for their viewing. The trial is very real and next court date set for June 18th, 2012 at 10 a.m. It is a defendant class action against all those that received, made, or benefited from excessive or prohibited campaign contributions. This obviously includes super PACS, those that work for them, and persons that received their monies.

Your comments regarding the files requested for deletion are greatly appreciated.

Philip B. Maise Plaintiff

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant Pbmaise (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Donald Trump declares his PAC
FYI: Trump wants to "defeat Obama" via his Super PAC. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

FEC announces it is revisiting laws that enabled super PACs
I have not incorporated the following into the article since it is original source. The FEC is reconsidering super PACs.

On May 24, 2012 the FEC announced it has placed the following item on its 2012 agenda.

Political Committees That Engage in Independent Spending

Pbmaise (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Several cases, including two cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - SpeechNow.org v. FEC and EMILY's List v. FEC affect portions of the Commission's regulations regarding contributions to, and disbursements by, certain committees not authorized by candidates. The proposed rulemaking would provide guidance to these committees on how to establish and maintain a separate account for their independent spending, how to allocate their administrative and fundraising expenses, and how to report their receipts and disbursements.

Organization
This article has issues with organization and readability that should be addressed. For example, there are redundancies with the description of Super PACs, there are NPOV issues, and the lead does not accurately describe article content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

2008 list of major PACs fundraising
It's 2015, seven years later. Can we find a more up to date list? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Trump proposes PAC contributions to underwrite inauguration activities . . .illegal???
I'm neither a lawyer nor an American. Is this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-inaugural-donors.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2FThe%20Trump%20White%20House a legal use of PAC funds? "the decision to limit donations from certain [unidentified] groups was 'in line with the president-elect’s thoughts on ethics reform.' " that just makes one laugh. If the use of PAC funds is legal it presumably would be so for everyone - or vice versa. . .?142.114.162.141 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Political action committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607160220/http://www.sos.ky.gov/kids/civics/glossary.htm to http://www.sos.ky.gov/kids/civics/glossary.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308125806/http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/who-funds-super-pac-fec-looks-powerful-influence to http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/who-funds-super-pac-fec-looks-powerful-influence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Is it weird that the article keeps switching between "Super PAC" and "super PAC"? Shouldn't it be consistent? Theotherchairduck (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hybrid PAC
Given that the more notable topic of "super PACs" is only covered as a section in this article, it seems reasonable that coverage of Hybrid PACs should also be presented here as a section. signed,Rosguill talk 22:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had actually noticed that myself, when I created the article. I do think that "Super PAC" would also merit its own article, as there's an abundance of material available, far more than there is for Hybrid PAC (although Hybrid PACs are a more recent creation). I think this article should have two short sections on each type, with hatnotes pointing to the main articles for each topic. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. I was honestly quite surprised to find that Super PAC wasn't an independent article. signed,Rosguill talk 23:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed the merge, added Hybrid section, proposed the spit, closed the merge. Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would object to the spit on the basis that all PAC's have a substantially similar function and structure, and splitting the article would make it less usable. Consider changing the Article title and adding redirects instead. --Willthewanderer (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Change to consider re organization of info about specific years
My first time to this page and it seems odd/confusing to me that discussion of PACs in general and PACs for specific years are intermixed. It also seems needlessly confusing that the specific year info is in multiple places. i.e. 2012 & 2020 info is under section 3 (3.4.1 & 3.4.2) while 2018 info is under section 4.

As a first step, I suggest that the 2012 (3.4.1) and 2020 (3.4.2) content should be moved under the "Top PACs by election cycle" (4.) section. This change would put all the content about specific years in one section of the article. Additional discussion about whether this content should be moved to a separate article (page) might be worthwhile.

Experience suggests that the data on specific years is difficult to maintain--especially if there isn't a team that has organized itself for this purpose. I note that while 2016 was an important year in US politics, this page does not contain information about PAC activity in this election cycle. While links to sites that contain specifics (FEC, OpenSecrets.org) are great, I do wonder if having sections is appropriate in a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, if all Wikipedia articles with similar dynamic content were to move the data under the appropriate year article (e.g. 2020) then it would be much more difficult to find. In the end, I have no specific suggestions on which way to go. Any comments about what other articles do about this OR a link to a Wikipedia standard or "best practice" would be helpful.

Jvasil (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We should try to maintain this as one article
The variants of PACs could result in multiplication of pages if we are not careful. Keeping Super PACs, for example, in the same article is beneficial, as it should force logical organization, as Jvasil is discussing. Fairedit (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)