Kaine's Super PAC should not obviate his standing with Virginia's voters on Election Day

Kaine loses by stooping to their low (0.00 / 0)

and playing political gamesmanship on this issue. Kaine should not have challenged George Allen on his Super PAC if he intended to create one of his own. It makes it appear as though he was just playing politics to the general public. issue.  Not helpful, IMHO.

---

by: pontoon @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 15:45:16 PM UTC

Can't Win by... (4.00 / 1)

Kaine (and Obama) can't win by disarming and using the fact that he took the high road as somehow able to offset the corrosive effect of endless negative ads by his opponent. Frankly, the average voter won't change his vote because someone refused to set up a super PAC.

There is a proven fact in human psychology that states that if a lie is repeated often enough, a certain percentage of people will believe it, especially if it is not refuted. In a close election, that could make the difference.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 16:11:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No unilateral disarmament! (4.00 / 1)

The bottom line is that the Kaine campaign gave Allen a chance to deal with these SuperPACs in a serious manner, but he chose to blow them off. So, now the choice is either to unilaterally disarm (not!) or to fight fire with fire. I vote for the latter, big time!

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 16:37:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not saying that Kaine should not (0.00 / 0)

have started the Super PAC.  I don't think he should have challenged Allen.  He should have just created the PAC and been done with it.   Kaine gained nothing by appearing to take the high road.....except looking like he was playing politics.

---

by: pontoon @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 16:52:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why does Tim Kaine need a SuperPAC? (0.00 / 0)

Why can't a former DNC Chairman, aka chief Democrat Party fundraiser, and the most visible and vocal supporter of Barack Obama raise all of his own funding?

---

by: ThadHunter @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 16:52:19 PM UTC

Why does George Allen need a SuperPAC? (0.00 / 0)

Why can't a former (and current) dirty energy industry hack, aka the super-rich coal/oil/natural gas companies plus the Koch brothers, who has basically an unlimited source of corporate cash, raise all of his own funding?

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 16:56:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't believe (0.00 / 0)

that SuperPACs have donation limitations. So, while someone can give Kaine's campaign $2,500 per year, they can make unlimited donations to a SuperPAC.

That's my very basic understanding -- I'm certainly no expert on the subject.

---

by: aznew @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 17:04:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct. (0.00 / 0)

Also, SuperPACs legally can NOT coordinate with campaigns. Although, clearly, it's all a big game at this point. Blame Citizens United: Worst. Supreme. Court. Ruling. In. Decades (with the possible exception of Bush vs. Gore, which stole a presidential election and saddled us with the worst president ever).

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 17:08:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh (0.00 / 0)

We could debate some other time, but just for the record, I think Citizens United was correctly decided. Needless to say, I see it as a freedom of speech issue.

Of course, I also favor complete, easy-to-understand, real-time disclosure of all donations. Citizens United, as I understand the decision, would allow for this.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

---

by: aznew @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 17:18:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I tend to agree (0.00 / 0)

Citizens United, in and of itself, is neutral news.  But with no hard Disclose Act - which puts every penny from every corporation, slush fund, tin-foil hat interest group and Daddy Rich donor on paper and seen by the world - the Citizen's United decision creates a pit of slime for the snakes to crawl along in.

Dems tried to pass a hard Disclose Act, and Republicans shot it down.  It should be item number 1 on the hit list the next time Dems have both sides of Congress, really before anything else.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 18:07:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The key to me (4.00 / 1)

is whether the New Virginia PAC is transparent about donations.

Kaine did not suggest to Allen that they forego using PACs. All Kaine suggested was that they require full disclosure of donors.

So, the formation of a PAC on Kaine's behalf is not inconsistent with his challenge to Allen.

But, that said, the proof here will be in the pudding. Kaine obviously has no control over this PAC, and I don't know all the nuances of when a candidate's public statements cross the line into some kind of sub rosa influence over a PAC, but Kaine should make as clear as he legally can that he is completely uninterested in the support of any PAC that does not fully disclose its donors.

In other words, Kaine should comply with his challenge to Allen despite Allen's refusal to sign on.

Then the political contrast is between one candidate who is transparent, and one who is trying to hide something from the voters.

Beyond the political advantage, disclosing donors clearly and honestly is simply the right thing to do.

---

by: aznew @ Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 17:14:58 PM UTC