4 ways super PACs are good for democracy

Tune in next week for our editorial: '5 ways botulism improves the food supply'.

This is like saying, " let's look at the wolf and see if there is any good in him before he eats the chickens." This kind of excuse making for an influence peddling, power mongering, minority of people who just happen to have money is plainly, and irrevocably wrong. There is no way ANY select group, 1% or less or more, has the right to buy our constitutional rights and freedom. To do so, these PAC groups are no better than the current dictators that have been falling in the Mideast. It's all about making money, folks, and not about our rights - this minority of comapanies, individuals, and groups hold sway over millions of Americans by the sheer dollars they put into political coffers. That's why these groups will give to both candidates - they want an invitation to demand their way AFTER the election. They really don't care who gets elected as long as their influence will BUY their way after the votes are in. What the supreme court did was an aberration of the rights of Americans who from all levels of our society have the right to elect their leaders. Those rights are gone, and have been put into the hands of these PACs and lobbyists. If you have money to give to the candidates, your chances of getting what you want in the laws that govern us all go WAY UP! Like I have said before, the people elect their leaders in America, but it is the lobbyists, and the PAC's, that our politicians work actually for!

Looking for the little footnote stating "this article was approved by all Super Pacs"

I call shennanigans on this article.

This is how a Fascist gov't works, we are there, no pretense about it. Next will come the Brown Shirts to bully and subdue the people when they finally wake up to what has happened in AmeriKa. McCain said the SCOTUS was naive when they imposed Citizen's United on the land. Naivety inplies ignorance, SCOTUS knew exactly what they were doing, selling off America to the highest bidder.

All the large Corps now have Super PAC's. As if the Insurance and Pharma industries didn't already own the media. This is getting sick !

With the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court which has nothing to do with citizens, it is more than ever all about the money.

#4 is the only one I can buy into. The rest are excuses. #3 claims super pacs inform voters -- they inform them of the opinions of people who have a lot of money, but drowns out any other voices. #1 says super pacs increase transparency, but I'd rather have a candidate raise $100M from 1M anonymous citizens each giving $100 than having two billionaires transparently giving $50M each. #2 claims superpacs level the playing field -- sorry, giving one anecdotal data point, and a speculative one at that, doesn't take away the stink of this argument.

Super PACS don't vote and are a symptom of a corrupt system.

The author got one out of four, number four. Super PAC's do remind us of just how corrupt the system really is. Every politican bemoans the fact that they have to do "so much fund raising". So here is a novel idea - CHANGE THE #$%$ SYSTEM!!! There, that wasn't so hard now was it?

No TV ads. If they want the message out let them come to you & speak.

It looks like they forgot to add a Number 5 reason how the Super PACs are working out:
5. They (Super PACs) reinforce the feeling of the 99% that they have very little control or say on how politics and elections are conducted. In other words, money rules and a person's vote only counts if it is backed up by a fat bank account and how much they contribute to either political cartel.

Get the money out ! The whole system is corrupt.

I cannot believe that authors get paid to write these articles, each point is he/she makes is contradictory, take #2 for instance. How do these numbers prove that this is a more level playing field.
""2. They help level the playing field
This huge influx of campaign money, paradoxically, "ensures a stronger competitive balance in elections," says Josh Kraushaar at National Journal. Take the GOP race: Mitt Romney's campaign has outspent Newt by a 7-2 margin and Rick Santorum's 19-to-1, says Weigel.""
So what if the author is quoting someone else, they do so to make a point and thereby endorsing the contradiction. alx

Here we go again, The Week is following their tried and true formula of 4 theories/talking points/best guesses. I firmly believe that they have a bunch of chimps pounding this stuff out on typewriters somewhere.

Folks, public office's will be bought by the highest bidder until we change the system. All elections must be fully and only federally and state financed.

Written through a media organization funded by a billionaire super PAC !!!!

Ridiculous article. Moronic.

Let's hear it for fox! They're the only major "news" source that has their own GOP SuperPAC! fox's Karl Roves own American Crossroads GOP SuperPAC! And keep watching the fox/GOP Infomercial Channel!

Four ways a broken toilet is a plus: Increased transparency (see what is floating to the top), Level the playing field (see what others have floating to the top), Inform others (look at my ####), Remind us how corrupt the system really (remember when we couldn't see the ####). Yes, this article is complete poo.