VaderNinurta
Rookie
- Jun 30, 2011
- 17
- 3
- 1
--The definition of a PAC according to the online encyclopedia, is an organization who receives contributions for the explicit purpose of influencing a federal election.--
-PAC vs. SuperPAC-
-One is limited in how much it can contribute to campaigns and various institutions; And one is not.-
One was created in the 1940’s to help labor unions elect Franklin Roosevelt; The other was created just before, and implemented during the 2010 midterm elections, helping the “Right-Wing” forces gather a majority in government. (Which is important only because of the publics perception of what a majority means, not because it actually gives them more power).
One was designed with rules and regulations, with the people at least partially in mind, granting them with limited but very real power; while at the same time ensuring the system could not easily, or unnoticeably be taken advantage of. The other was created specifically for the purpose of polarizing political elections in an unfair and unbalanced way, and striping down all the regulatory measures allowing those with the capital strength to create, in essence, political monopolies.
-There may be a real fracture in the Government, and not just the illusionary Left v Right charade they perform flawlessly for the media watching public, but real ideological schisms.-
Colbert and company realize they have the ability to create meaningful change, in whatever fashion they deem positive and worthy. They can create collective public inertia just as well as any other institution of information warfare; and now they have the ability to generate as much monetary inertia as well.
Will this mean that, during the 2012 presidential election, The House of Colbert will come to the aid of its post-western messiah; its Prince of Peace, and Redeemer of the Light of the World? And save it from being annihilated by the opposing forces?
I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out.
-PAC vs. SuperPAC-
-One is limited in how much it can contribute to campaigns and various institutions; And one is not.-
One was created in the 1940’s to help labor unions elect Franklin Roosevelt; The other was created just before, and implemented during the 2010 midterm elections, helping the “Right-Wing” forces gather a majority in government. (Which is important only because of the publics perception of what a majority means, not because it actually gives them more power).
One was designed with rules and regulations, with the people at least partially in mind, granting them with limited but very real power; while at the same time ensuring the system could not easily, or unnoticeably be taken advantage of. The other was created specifically for the purpose of polarizing political elections in an unfair and unbalanced way, and striping down all the regulatory measures allowing those with the capital strength to create, in essence, political monopolies.
-There may be a real fracture in the Government, and not just the illusionary Left v Right charade they perform flawlessly for the media watching public, but real ideological schisms.-
Colbert and company realize they have the ability to create meaningful change, in whatever fashion they deem positive and worthy. They can create collective public inertia just as well as any other institution of information warfare; and now they have the ability to generate as much monetary inertia as well.
Will this mean that, during the 2012 presidential election, The House of Colbert will come to the aid of its post-western messiah; its Prince of Peace, and Redeemer of the Light of the World? And save it from being annihilated by the opposing forces?
I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out.
Last edited:
