Talk:Political action committee

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.

Stub?

Should this article be a stub? What about the background of PACs? The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 established the rules that govern PACs. Should that be mentioned?

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)

GOPac

I don't think that GOPAC or GAPAC should be listed under "See Also". That's what the "List of Political Action Committees" article is for. 209.183.241.50 16:14, 13 March 2006 (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 [1]. 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)

"PAC's are a form of the government, and they contol funding. You should listen and obey them, because they are the head of the parties."

Explain to me how there is any validity in this statement whatsoever.

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

• G.O.P. Allies Form House Super PAC October 13, 2011, 3:01 PM by Nicholas Confessore

99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why was this removed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04Callahan.html

99.181.139.130 (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed because it's of questionable reliability, being an Op-Ed column; and adds nothing to the Washington Post reference except contradicting it as to whether donors need to be identified. It could be added only if both references were carefully checked or tagged for a reliability check, and the contradiction noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Writer was David Callahan, per article senior fellow at Demos and the author of “Fortunes of Change: The Rise of the Liberal Rich and the Remaking of America.”. 141.218.36.41 (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly acceptable, then, although WP:SPS does suggest that the Callahan would have to have written peer-reviewed articles on the subject. We would still need to note the contradiction, and probably give the actual Washington Post newspaper article precedence. The Times publishing it only supports Callahan's notability, not his accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you concerned since it relates to the Political activities of the Koch family? 141.218.36.41 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)