There is some talk about Donald Trump speaking to acquaintances about a SuperPAC while he was deciding his run for President. The argument is that Donald Trump's brand is self-funded.
He is self funded. He has an election organization that accepts donors because people like to contribute to candidates. It is all a very smart strategy to win. As far as a conversation about a SuperPAC before his announcement, what else is new? He would be a fool not to discuss the issue with people important to him. But, I think his reasoning as I understand it was to allow an official PAC to exist to allow people a channel for monies rather than allowing free lancing organizations to taint his political image.
It is reasonable to believe every candidate at some point in their announcement process will be talking to people that want to form a SuperPAC in their name. I think it was Bush this time that was called out on his fundraising while not yet announced. Donald Trump didn't do any of that.
PACs are very nice businesses. They have lots of money for lots of fun. I think they are among the worst aspects of politics and provide no benefit to the truth. Basically, the message I think political PACs carry is ruthlessness. They'll do anything to get their point or political leanings across. They do this without the benefit of a candidates' input while holding a degree of dignity, ie: the Swift Boaters which somehow "W" could not bring himself to rein in for the lies they told.
So, when it comes to saying Donald Trump is a phony and isn't financing his own run or is pure in seeking to protect the loyalty to his constituents; perhaps the word isn't purity, but, legal and untarnished. Donald Trump has run a legal campaign for the nomination and has primarily sponsored himself in that run. I don't think the jet donates it's own fuel, does it?
April 15, 2014
By Julie Patel
...Fewer than one in seven of the roughly 300 super PACs (click here) and “hybrid” PACs that spent money in 2013 put funds toward calling for the election or defeat of a federal candidate, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of recent FEC filings.
That was one in seven appropriated their funds for the election or defeat of.
Given that 2013 was not a regular election year, it's not surprising that super PACs weren't out buying ads. But critics say the groups could have used 2013 to stockpile cash ahead of midterm elections this November. Instead, they collectively burned through more than half of the $143 million they raised last year. Nearly two-thirds of super PACs and hybrid PACs spent more than they saved.
Many of these committees operated as piggy banks for golf expenses and steakhouse soirees or vehicles for filling the bank accounts of consulting firms and super PAC executives. Others have grown so big and sophisticated that they operate more like political party committees than independent outfits....
He is self funded. He has an election organization that accepts donors because people like to contribute to candidates. It is all a very smart strategy to win. As far as a conversation about a SuperPAC before his announcement, what else is new? He would be a fool not to discuss the issue with people important to him. But, I think his reasoning as I understand it was to allow an official PAC to exist to allow people a channel for monies rather than allowing free lancing organizations to taint his political image.
It is reasonable to believe every candidate at some point in their announcement process will be talking to people that want to form a SuperPAC in their name. I think it was Bush this time that was called out on his fundraising while not yet announced. Donald Trump didn't do any of that.
PACs are very nice businesses. They have lots of money for lots of fun. I think they are among the worst aspects of politics and provide no benefit to the truth. Basically, the message I think political PACs carry is ruthlessness. They'll do anything to get their point or political leanings across. They do this without the benefit of a candidates' input while holding a degree of dignity, ie: the Swift Boaters which somehow "W" could not bring himself to rein in for the lies they told.
So, when it comes to saying Donald Trump is a phony and isn't financing his own run or is pure in seeking to protect the loyalty to his constituents; perhaps the word isn't purity, but, legal and untarnished. Donald Trump has run a legal campaign for the nomination and has primarily sponsored himself in that run. I don't think the jet donates it's own fuel, does it?
April 15, 2014
By Julie Patel
...Fewer than one in seven of the roughly 300 super PACs (click here) and “hybrid” PACs that spent money in 2013 put funds toward calling for the election or defeat of a federal candidate, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of recent FEC filings.
That was one in seven appropriated their funds for the election or defeat of.
Given that 2013 was not a regular election year, it's not surprising that super PACs weren't out buying ads. But critics say the groups could have used 2013 to stockpile cash ahead of midterm elections this November. Instead, they collectively burned through more than half of the $143 million they raised last year. Nearly two-thirds of super PACs and hybrid PACs spent more than they saved.
Many of these committees operated as piggy banks for golf expenses and steakhouse soirees or vehicles for filling the bank accounts of consulting firms and super PAC executives. Others have grown so big and sophisticated that they operate more like political party committees than independent outfits....
