Comments on: PAC-to-PAC Prediction http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/ & Home of Lawn Mower Repair Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:07:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Top 10 Most Memorable Moments of Session (Part Two) » Doc’s Political Parlor http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-7282 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:58:19 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-7282 [...] PAC-to-PAC transfer bill dies in Senate - again. A bill to ban PAC-to-PAC transfers has passed the House for five consecutive years. Because both parties declared legislative platforms that supported passage of the bill, surely the sixth time would be the charm. No. [...] […] PAC-to-PAC transfer bill dies in Senate - again. A bill to ban PAC-to-PAC transfers has passed the House for five consecutive years. Because both parties declared legislative platforms that supported passage of the bill, surely the sixth time would be the charm. No. […]

]]> by: Danny http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2260 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:52:50 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2260 I have also heard that the expensive primary campaigns against the so-called dissident Democrats is when some legislators realized that a little more transparency could be a good thing. Nothing like experiencing a problem first-hand to open up someone's eyes... I'm glad that they are also seeing the value of transparency in the process. If you were to say whether PAC-to-PAC transfers worked for or against incumbents, you could make the argument that in that instance the answer would be both - in that they worked for incumbents (Barron, Sanders, et al) and against an incumbent (particularly Dial). I have also heard that the expensive primary campaigns against the so-called dissident Democrats is when some legislators realized that a little more transparency could be a good thing. Nothing like experiencing a problem first-hand to open up someone’s eyes… I’m glad that they are also seeing the value of transparency in the process.

If you were to say whether PAC-to-PAC transfers worked for or against incumbents, you could make the argument that in that instance the answer would be both - in that they worked for incumbents (Barron, Sanders, et al) and against an incumbent (particularly Dial).

]]> by: Don http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2253 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:56:53 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2253 I favor total transparency too, and I doubt there are many incumbents who have been beaten because of large contributions to a challenger, but Senator Dial did bite the bullet at the hands of some of his fellow senators, didn’t he? The former legislator said that is when legislators began to come around to thinking it would be a good idea to do away with contributions that could be hidden. Apparently they don’t trust all of their colleagues. I favor total transparency too, and I doubt there are many incumbents who have been beaten because of large contributions to a challenger, but Senator Dial did bite the bullet at the hands of some of his fellow senators, didn’t he? The former legislator said that is when legislators began to come around to thinking it would be a good idea to do away with contributions that could be hidden. Apparently they don’t trust all of their colleagues.

]]> by: Danny http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2251 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:35:00 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2251 That former legislator might have a case if he/she could point to a challenger that defeated an incumbent because of large contributors that would not have given except for being able to hide their identities. Most money flows to incumbents regardless. That being the case, I think we are all better served by transparency in the process. Plus, I think we are cynical enough to believe that if banning PAC-to-PAC transfers would protect incumbents' seats, it would have passed long ago. That former legislator might have a case if he/she could point to a challenger that defeated an incumbent because of large contributors that would not have given except for being able to hide their identities.

Most money flows to incumbents regardless. That being the case, I think we are all better served by transparency in the process.

Plus, I think we are cynical enough to believe that if banning PAC-to-PAC transfers would protect incumbents’ seats, it would have passed long ago.

]]> by: Don http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2250 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:53:23 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2250 CORRECTION TO LAST POST THAT HAD A TYPO: A former legislator said he thinks a bill will pass because incumbents have come to view it as protection for them in that any challengers will then have to have their sources of funding available for public scrutiny, thus putting a damper on some large contributors who wouldn’t want to be identified. Does that make sense? CORRECTION TO LAST POST THAT HAD A TYPO:
A former legislator said he thinks a bill will pass because incumbents have come to view it as protection for them in that any challengers will then have to have their sources of funding available for public scrutiny, thus putting a damper on some large contributors who wouldn’t want to be identified. Does that make sense?

]]> by: Don http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2249 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:51:02 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/02/15/pac-to-pac-prediction/#comment-2249 A former legislator said he thinks a bill will pass because incumbents have come to view it as protection for them in that it any challengers will then have to have their sources of funding available for public scrutiny, thus putting a damper on some large contributors who wouldn’t want to be identified. Does that make sense? A former legislator said he thinks a bill will pass because incumbents have come to view it as protection for them in that it any challengers will then have to have their sources of funding available for public scrutiny, thus putting a damper on some large contributors who wouldn’t want to be identified. Does that make sense?

]]>