Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

674

I can certainly see disadvantages. A PAC can't be directed by the candidate and therefore can spend the money on anything, even things unrelated to that candidate and the candidate can't even say, um, that's not really helpful, thanks for using my name to raise money, because even uttering those words would be a crime. So that's the disadvantage, but PACs do exist and people do donate to them and so there must also be some advantage.

I can certainly see disadvantages. A PAC can't be directed by the candidate and therefore can spend the money on anything, even things unrelated to that candidate and the candidate can't even say, um, that's not really helpful, thanks for using my name to raise money, because even uttering those words would be a crime. So that's the disadvantage, but PACs do exist and people do donate to them and so there must also be some advantage.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 1 pt

You don't think like a rich person. ;)

Rich people like to influence (buy) elections and don't like pesky election laws that limit individual contributions. Contribution limits are for the little people.

No limits on PAC contributions.

A PAC can't be directed by the candidate and therefore can spend the money on anything,

Don't kid yourself. Mr Candidate: "Gee, it would be really nice if we could someway say these talking points on the evening TV commercials on these days in these counties. I wounder how we could ever do that?" PAC: "Say no more fam." Lots of nodding and winking going on in that game.

Plus the PACs can be more "edgy" and if it backfires, the candidate can disavow the PAC. (Even though, we all know that PAC and the campaign are working closely together.)