Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PACS: Do zillionaires get to call the shots now?

Letter by Jerry Beckendorf, Puyallup on Feb. 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm with 20 Comments »
February 28, 2012 2:41 pm

As a Republican turned Democrat I’ve been aware of the high cost of campaigns but state and national politicians had to adhere to strict campaign donation limits from individuals and organizations.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision last year changed all that. Now companies are people, and unlimited campaign donations are “free speech.” Google the names of the supporters of Republican presidential candidates: Mitt Romney (Frank VanderSloot), Rick Santorum (Foster “aspirin between the knees” Friess and William Dore), Newt Gingrich (Sheldon Adelson, the anti-union casino owner) and Ron Paul (Libertarian Peter Thiel).

All of these men are hiding under the cloak of a super PAC where they are supposed to have minimal direct contact with the candidate and yet seem to appear with them all the time. Millions have come from these five multimillionaires.

Former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we could speed up the process by letting the zillionaires get together, decide who they like for president, Congress, governors and state legislators and avoid all that voting fuss.

If you prefer the pre-super PAC system, help pass disclosure legislation and eventually overturn Citizens United.

Leave a comment Comments → 20
  1. “help pass disclosure legislation and eventually overturn Citizens United.”

    Okay! But, what specific legislation is that? Does anyone know of a proposed bill that will accomplish this?

  2. Any “conservative” who is supportive of billionaire-backed Super PACs and critical of George Soros’ spending for his interests should really re-examine their thought processes.

  3. concernedtacoma7 says:

    And visa versa. But the republicans do not hide it like soros.

    And quoting pelosi? A zillionaire herself, and an insider trader.

  4. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I love it when democrat PCO’s use the ‘ol “I used to be a Republican” ruse… almost as much as I love the irony of a former officer with the Pierce County Labor Council whining about the CU decision.

    What up Jerry? No comment about how the decision equally benefits labor unions?

    Nope, Jerry and his ilk would have super-PAC membership restricted to democrat contributors, only. But then, that’s kinda’ how it was in the “pre-super PAC system”.

    What a hypocrite.

  5. Muck – Here is what I think you are looking for:


  6. Thanks afret! Looks like there are 15 or 16 different amendments being proposed to get the money either out of politics or at least controlled. I will look into these, just as everyone should.

  7. Muckibr – try goggling ‘amendments to overturn citizens united’

    Wrong again. It is the Rpot backing PACS that hide who their donors are?

    To bad you only get your talking points from foxbat spews or you would know the Dems (including Pelosi) back the bills that would outlaw insider trading by Members of Congress and their staffs while the Rpots oppose the bills.

    Unions were allowed to donate to political candidates and parties BEFORE activist lawgivers of the Supreme Court illegally declared corporations were people and money was free speech.

    Most Dems and Progressives would restrict political donations to humans who are registered voters.

  8. “As a Republican turned Democrat…”

    That’s all I need to read. That and everything after is fiction.

  9. But the republicans do not hide it like soros.

    And that’s why they use of Super PACs’ anonymous donors…..

    C’mon now, try to make statements that aren’t so easy to dispute.

  10. Thanks xring!

  11. Political candidates, like race car drivers, should wear uniforms covered in logos advertising their sponsors.

  12. Republicans opposed disclosure law; from Wikipedia:

    “The Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio) opposed the legislation from its introduction. He argued that the DISCLOSE act is a direct violation of the First Amendment and believes the bill is a scheme on the part of the majority to silence their opponents and the legislation has fallen victim to backroom deals and special interest exemptions.”


  13. pantomancer says:

    Jerry, are you one who is supportive of billionaire-backed Super PACs on one hand and critical of those on the other end of the political spectrum ? There seems to be several here.

  14. This could not be a better year to try out the ludicrous concept of SuperPACS, Billionaire Sugar Daddies, and “Corporations are People too my friend!”

    Without such concepts as these, the candidacies of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum surely would have fizzled out already. But, thanks to the Billionaire Daddy Big Bucks, Santorum and Gingrich are still in the race destroying the credibility of each other and Mitt Romney in the process. Thus, making it so much easier for President Obama to win reelection when the general election comes around.

    I really do hope all four of the GOP hopefuls stay in the race for all the remaining primaries, destroying each other all the way through to the bitter end.

    After the real election in November, when President Obama is reelected, I am sure we will see some changes in campaign finance reform before the next presidential election.

  15. The comedy is when the conservatives will try to tell you that a union donation (representing the decision of the majority of members) is the same as one billionaire putting up $5 million, and then $5 million again….and saying he’ll put up $100 million if necessary.

  16. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Such an important issue that when dems controlled both houses and the WH they did nothing.

    If this is about secrets and conspiracy, why do we know what billionaire is supporting which candidate? You dems really only care that the big money is going to Repubs. Don’t dance around your true concern/issue

  17. Such an important issue that when dems controlled both houses and the WH they did nothing.

    Again – the Bush cuts did not sunset until 2010 – I’m sure you remember what happened in the 2010 elections.

  18. Sorry….I confused the 1% tax rate issue with the 1% funded Super PAC issue in the above post.

  19. But then….Citizens United was handed down in January 21, 2010 so the logic is essentially the same.

  20. Panto, – IMO only those eligible to vote in our elections should be allowed to contribute funds, and then only to the party on directly to the candidate’s election committees, and only in the amounts currently allowed by election laws.

    Muckib – considering that Mittens is outspending Ricky and Newt by 450:1, without sugar daddies the three clowns would mostly be closer together in both votes and delegates, and the results would be more indicative of who people really support and less on who has the most attack ads.

    CT7 – put it to rest – campaign reform is just one of the many bills filibustered by the nopots in the senate.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0