Is "SuperPac" a dirty word?

[Aerows]

Should it be?

When I hear of "SuperPACs" my immediate thought is billionaires buying candidates.

Your thoughts?

[underpants]

1. It's a PC turn on FudgePac

The citizens being the recipients

[Agschmid]

2. Meh.

Not a dirty word but I'd rather see them gone.

[Cleita]

3. It is to me.

I guess they could be beneficial. Just no one has convinced me yet, how, other than to battle their superPAC. We managed for more than a hundred years without them. Why now?

[Aerows]

4. CU and the ability

to consolidate and donate large amounts of funds while ostensibly NOT lobbying for a certain candidate on that candidate's behalf while lobbying for a candidate on that candidates behalf?

[Journeyman]

5. No. First person I think of is Stephen Colbert . . .

It's a ridiculous system, and the sooner we can get enough people to recognize this, the quicker we'll be able to do something about it.

[Maedhros]

6. Of course.

The sole purpose of SuperPACs is to enable the outright purchase of elections.

[onecaliberal]

7. If 100% of the funds would be used for poor and homeless.

Otherwise they should be outlawed.

[aspirant]

8. PAC-Man stated this mess, now it's up tp Super Mario to end it