Reader Poll: What Do You Think of Super PACs?

moneyIt hasn’t exactly been the most exciting campaign season.

One would think the battle to lead the commonwealth’s largest city would enrapture political observers and voters.

Quite the opposite has happened instead. The Philly Mayoral contest has been so lackluster that some are even criticizing the media for calling it “boring”.

There has been one notable aspect of the race, however, that has caught the state’s attention.

The money of course.

The Super PACs have made the most news in this race. Kenney and Williams both have their supporters and they’ve spent more than the campaigns themselves on TV spots.

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the floodgates have opened and hopes for campaign finance laws have been crushed.

Now, some argue that we’ve always had money in the political system and that the influence of Super PACs is overblown. So, on the verge of Election Day we thought it would be best to ask you.

What Do You Think of Super PACs?

  • Super PACs are seriously harming our political system (77%)
  • The influence of Super PACs is small and the media is blowing this out of proportion (20%)
  • I’m not sure (3%)

Total Voters: 471

Loading ... Loading ...

12 Responses

  1. They make little sense,

    your postings on Super PACs

    Double-talk is cheap.

  2. You gain access that you could not buy yourself.

    I’m not saying individuals or groups can’t spend whatever they want. And I do not support the underlying majority decision of Citizens United. The two are not mutually exclusive, or even particularly related. For starters, one is a statement of fact, the other is an opinion.

  3. Considering StevenTodd getting destroyed here by his own words, it appears as though this poll just shows how little people understand about their 1st Amendment.

  4. Additionally, If you’re NOT saying individuals or groups (incorporated groups by definition, if they plan to have a bank account) can’t spend whatever they want, then you support the underlying majority decision of Citizens United.

  5. “They should not, however, gain more sovereign rights by joining a group over an equally sovereign individual WHO OPS NOT TO…”

    What extra right to I have that my neighbor does not have by “opting not to” participate?

  6. @Unsanctioned R – I do exercise my rights. I don’t get more rights by joining a group.

    @Matt Balazik – No, I’m not. Re-read what I said. That is what I am (still) saying.

  7. @steventodd, Just because you don’t exercise your rights, doesn’t mean you have fewer of them.

  8. Steven Todd, You’re saying that individuals/groups should be limited in how much of their own money they can spend in an uncoordinated fashion on political messages to their neighbors? How come?

  9. For-profit money funding the campaigns of our public officials – and our system which requires such as the only absolute pre-requisite for any realistic hope of running much less being seated – is the #1 threat to our democratic republic. The preceding presumes the arguable scenario that we actually have one, which most Americans seem to doubt.

    Two or more individuals have the same right when they speak as a group. They should not, however, gain more sovereign rights by joining a group over an equally sovereign individual who opts not to, or can not, join said group. Currently the #BrokenSystem results in that.

    Steve Todd
    2015 Candidate for Derry Twp (Dauphin County, PA) Supervisor

  10. I would have voted that SuperPACs are good for a healthy political system. Why shouldn’t more than one person be able to pool their resources to speak under a common name? Prior to Citizens United, individuals had the ability to spend unlimited dollars to propagate a message. Citizens United just acknowledged that two or more individuals have this same right when they speak as a group.

  • Reader Poll: Who Should the GOP Nominate for Governor?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen