If Dean becomes chair, what should he do about corporate PAC

[greenohio]

donations to the party and to candidates? Should he work to implement a phased in ban? Should he do nothing? Should he just make statements against them and do nothing? Should he place requirements on candidates receiving funding from the DNC?

[mzmolly]

1. If you look at the amount of PAC money in the past election it's not

much of an issue:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

For example here is what Kerry received in contributions:

Individual contributions
$224,852,303
70%

PAC contributions
$141,918
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$74,620,000
23%

Other
$22,960,746
7%

Though Bush got much more if you'll note:

Individual contributions
$271,634,244
74%

PAC contributions
$2,903,767
1%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$74,620,000
20%

Other
$17,396,524
5%

Still only 1% of his donations.

:shrug:

[greenohio]

2. So we shouldn't work to eliminate them?

...Because percentage wise they are small?

[mzmolly]

4. We have bigger fish to fry right now. Often times these PAC donations

are actual donations from 'PEOPLE' who work for certain corporations and POOL their money together.

It's a facination of Mr. Nader for some reason, but he's got lots of interesting facinations. He'd rather take money from Bush donors apparently. Can you tell me if he plans to do that again in 08?

I'm open to finding out the havoc the PACS are wreaking if you have some information.

[greenohio]

5. So candidates who rely on corporate money are OK?

What about their orgs?

[mzmolly]

6. The Democrats took very little corporate money, again this is a Nader

talking point.

Again, check out open secrets.

I think Nader taking money from corporate owners, Republican fat cats, swift boat liars is much more of a problem.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008163.html

[greenohio]

7. Yes, but the DLC is bashed constantly for receiving corporate money.

Now I'm told that receiving corporate money isn't that big a problem. We have bigger fish to fry.

[mzmolly]

8. Quite honestly, I think Dean made corporate money irrelevant with

his run for office. There isn't a corporation that can compete with the millions raised from small donors on the internet.

There was a time when Democrats needed corporate money to compete with "church" money raised by the Republicans, that time has come and gone. Thus the DLC has become irrelevant as well.

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/12/9/143724/624

This is all the more reason Dean is needed to head the DNC, he's the perfect segway to a real party for the people.

Because of that, I imagine he scares those to the so called left as much as he scares those to the right.

[NoPasaran]

9. Yes, we have bigger fish to fry

Your sole fish though seems to be attacking Dean from whatever angle seems convenient.

Frankly, I wish you'd take up a different (and perhaps healthier) hobby.

Fishing, perhaps.

[greenohio]

10. I'm not attacking Dean. Paranoid.

That appears to be the standard line thrown at anyone who doesn't think he is god. I think he should be chair. I hear over and over its because he will wrest the party from control of the DLC and their corporate money interest. I make a post asking how he can do that. I get essentially nothing...except that corporate money is not the problem.

[mzmolly]

11. No what you got was "Dean has already made major headway in this area"

I'm out.

Peace

[NoPasaran]

12. Not attacking Dean?

Well, it's early in this thread.

[Zenlitened]

3. Keep on taking their money and spending it on progressive causes.

Eventually, the corporations will either realize they're being used.

Or... they'll see that a progressive society is a prosperous society, and that their money was well-spent no matter what their actual reasons for donating were. :)