Interesting move by MayDay PAC, a Super PAC whose main
purpose according to their webpage is “to elect a Congress committed to
fundamental reform in the way political campaigns are funded by 2016.” They
gave $1.5 million to target incumbent Fred Upton this November, thus backing
democratic front-runner Paul Clements. I thought this would be particularly relevant information for those of
you who are local Michiganders, and will (hopefully) be voting to fill the seat soon.
Do you think that campaign finance reform is important to
income inequality?
How/can this PAC reduce regulatory capture?
Other thoughts/comments?
I like how the PAC takes the most effective route to change campaign finance laws, which involves they themselves using large campaign donations. It's funny, it's ironic and it is likely the most effective measure.
ReplyDeleteI think that there may be some connection between inequality and large PAC's. It is possible to imagine that those in the top 1% are able to contribute large sums of money to certain campaigns which favor low tax rates for the rich. However I am not sure the extent to which this relationship exists. Would limiting campaign donations have any real effect on inequality? Are companies who donate looking for more regulatory or tax votes? Even if donations are limited, will this encourage politicians to use tax dollars to create programs to help those in the lower and middle class? I don't think that the relationship between PAC donations and income inequality is so strong that eliminating one would help to solve the other.
I agree with Scott in that it is very ironic that MayDay's move will likely be very effective in achieving their goal of reforming campaign funding policy. I would also say that these kind of donations could do more than effect income tax rates. By that I mean that super PAC's can use money to pressure politicians to favor particular companies that could allow them to gain a competitive advantage in the market. However I don't know to the extent that unfair market structures that come from regulatory capture have an effect on income inequality.
ReplyDeleteI think the best outcome for this PAC would be to get a campaign finance law passed requiring disclosure for all contributions. From what I understand, this would pass constitutional muster and hopefully create a better system to stop instances where campaign contributions lead directly to political favors.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Scott. I think big money could theoretically be keeping income inequality high. I personally am pretty against PAC's and large corporations donating ridiculous amounts of money to political campaign. It reeks of corruption. I'd love to see an America where the average Joe is the main driving force behind political donations. This would give the people a larger voice in politics.
ReplyDeleteI also think that this action is very ironic, but I like the idea that the PAC has. The fact that large corporations can basically pay for a person to get elected is appalling. I truly think that Americans would be better off if corporations are limited in the amount of money that they can donate.
ReplyDeleteEspecially after watching the movie last class, it would seem reasonable to me, that the ability to donate large sums of money to a politician (or as in this case a Super PAC), perpetuates income inequality at least to a statistically significant extent. Looking at the big picture (and at the national level of gov't), wealthy individuals and leaders of large corporations aren't donating any more to the GOP (commonly thought of the business/wealthy individual friendly party) than they are to the Democratic Party. This is because they donating to the candidate who first they think will win and second who will provide their highest donors with access. The more access a group can get with a politician the more influence they can have on policies, and the more money they donate, the more access they will have. Finally, since these donors have extraordinarily large sums of money, it's inferable that at least one thing they would lobby for would be the protection of their wealth, only perpetuating income inequality.
ReplyDelete