What is the best PAC to donate to in support of Liberty candidates?

Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
198
I have some extra money I'm looking to donate but for some of my favorite candidates, have reached the maximum donation limit. What do you think is the best PAC out there in support of liberty candidates and why? Is it better to just support other candidates directly instead of through a PAC?
 
Personally, I view PAC's to be the antithesis of Individual representation and historic processes for representation that were derived from the vision of our founders. PAC's are simply a slick kind of way to repatriate our political processes in favor of the corporate model. That's all PAC's really are. Corporations. And we still refer to the merge of corporation and state as Fascism. Because that's what it is.

Why not donate directly to the candidate the old fashioned way?
 
I have some extra money I'm looking to donate but for some of my favorite candidates, have reached the maximum donation limit. What do you think is the best PAC out there in support of liberty candidates and why? Is it better to just support other candidates directly instead of through a PAC?

FreedomWorks For America is the most overtly libertarian Super PAC ... you can make unlimited donations.

http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org/
 
FreedomWorks is probably the most efficient, but I would recommend donating directly to the candidates you like. You'll never agree 100% of the time with any one PAC, so direct donations work the best.
 
Personally, I view PAC's to be the antithesis of Individual representation and historic processes for representation that were derived from the vision of our founders. PAC's are simply a slick kind of way to repatriate our political processes in favor of the corporate model. That's all PAC's really are. Corporations. And we still refer to the merge of corporation and state as Fascism. Because that's what it is.

Why not donate directly to the candidate the old fashioned way?

PACs came around because of campaign donation limits. If you max out to a candidate and know of a PAC that is supporting that same candidate, you can get around the donation cap laws. That's their only purpose. Remove the campaign donation limits and PACs will disappear.
 
I say the more pro-liberty PACs, the merrier. What is most needed, having reviewed the urls above, is a state or federal level liberty candidate PAC that provides early money or soft money support for candidates pursuing a pro-liberty agenda (precisely defined on Paulist terms, as anti-war, Anti-Fed, pro-civil liberties restoration, and truly pro-Constitution) in winning open-seat primary races of either major party. Whether the district/region historically votes Republican or Democrat, if an incumbent is leaving the seat, the grassroots should be able to field and provide early money to support a pro-liberty contender winning the nomination of the dominant party in the area.

Call this the "B.O.S.S." (Bi-partisan Open Seat Strategy) approach to getting more liberty people in office, as it focuses on high-probability opportunities to win, rather than the "we really don't like that statist, but strong incumbent who always wins by 20 points or more, but let's waste a lot of money and effort anyway, swimming uphill to try to defeat him" approach. The other liberty PACs seem to be based on the "reform the GOP" model, which I think is insufficient to correct a two-party problem, and neglects 50% of the most promising openings to elect liberty people (i.e., open Democrat seats, as well as open Republican seats).
 
Last edited:
PACs came around because of campaign donation limits. If you max out to a candidate and know of a PAC that is supporting that same candidate, you can get around the donation cap laws.

Hey, what about this foreign entity that influenced the election processes of the American people through the convenience of PACS? It sure is dandy that the foreign entity had a workaround in the form of those PAC's alright.

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections


WASHINGTON -- In a first of its kind case, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell companies. The alleged financial scheme is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to influence U.S. elections. If proven, the campaign finance scandal could reshape the public debate over the high court's landmark decision.

Until now, allegations surrounding Jose Susumo Azano Matsura, the owner of multiple construction companies in Mexico, have not spread beyond local news outlets in San Diego, where he's accused of bankrolling a handful of southern California candidates. But the scandal is beginning to attract national interest as it ensnares a U.S. congressman, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm and the legacy of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in a generation.

Under longstanding federal law, foreign nationals are prohibited from donating to political campaigns at the state, local and federal level. On Jan. 21, the U.S. Attorney's Office accused Ravneet Singh, proprietor of the Washington campaign firm ElectionMall, and Ernesto Encinas, a former San Diego police detective, of using Azano's money to support three Democratic politicians and the city's Republican district attorney. Azano wanted to turn the San Diego bayfront into a West Coast version of Miami's bustling waterfront, but lacked the political clout to do so, according to prosecutors. To buy support for the project, he's accused of doling out illegal contributions to politicians
What's unique about the allegations is that Azano's money was funneled through a "Super PAC," a political fundraising vehicle born out of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. The ruling paved the way for Super PACs to spend unlimited sums of money for candidates with only limited reporting requirements. Although Super PACs have been linked to other campaign finance abuses, a foreign national has never been accused of using one to hide his idenity. "We are not aware of another example of a similar case," Peter Carr, a public relations officer at the Justice Department, told FP. "Super PACs are a new vehicle for political spending."

For some critics of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the San Diego case validates warnings about foreign contributions previously dismissed by supporters of the landmark court case.

The controversy dates back to 2010, when President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to lament that Citizens United would "open the floodgates" for foreigners and special interest groups to "spend without limit in our elections."

Heh. First case of it's kind, they say. Riiiiiight.....:rolleyes:


There was a discussion on what really is one of the most important bits of news on the entire board since it is a direct attack on the will of the American people and the historic processes in which they have to produce electees representative of themselves here but...you know...crickets chirping.:cool:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...luence-U-S-Elections&highlight=mexican+tycoon
 
Last edited:
Hey, what about this foreign entity that influenced the election processes of the American people through the convenience of PACS? It sure is dandy that the foreign entity had a workaround in the form of those PAC's alright.

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections




Heh. First case of it's kind, they say. Riiiiiight.....:rolleyes:


There was a discussion on what really is one of the most important bits of news on the entire board since it is a direct attack on the will of the American people and the historic processes in which they have to produce electees representative of themselves here but...you know...crickets chirping.:cool:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...luence-U-S-Elections&highlight=mexican+tycoon

I honestly don't care to whom people give their money, foreign or not. I don't think there should be campaign donation limits or disclosure requirements.

Money doesn't actually buy political victories. Money follows the political leader in order to gain favor after the election. That's why, when there's no clear leader, the same people will donate to both candidates. Or they may donate to one candidate early, and if that candidate falls out of favor, they'll donate to another. It's not ideological and it's absolutely impossible to stop without severe encroachments on free speech.

Better to remove all restrictions on campaign donations and focus on restricting what politicians can do once in office.
 
Back
Top