A new political action committee was announced today: a lesbian "super PAC." Now, some folks might decry this development (for various reasons, which I'll get to in a moment), but personally I think it's a great idea. A super idea, in fact. Until progressives can manage to get a constitutional amendment passed which overturns Citizens United, we're all living in the world it created -- and we'd better realize it and adjust to it rather than just bewail the sad state of modern politics and money's influence therein. So I say: more power to the lesbians! Go LPAC!
In fact, I'd go further and advise other special interest groups dive into the same pond and create your own super PAC. How about a "Populist PAC," for instance? Or even an "Occupy PAC" or a "99% PAC"? Perhaps, a super PAC devoted to passing a "corporations aren't persons" amendment? I see nothing wrong with any of these, to tell the truth.
The influence of money on politics has a long and sordid history, of course. But it's also a fact of life. Certain people get a "seat at the table" and certain people don't. That's the way it is, and the way it has been in living memory, in fact. Oh, sure, politicians pander to much wider groups come election time, but in both major American parties, more money gets you a better and better seat at that table where things are decided.
This is not to say that supporting efforts to decrease the influence of money in politics isn't a good idea, or pushing for various cures for the problem isn't good politics and good lawmaking. Don't get me wrong -- I usually support such efforts myself. I, along with millions of Americans, would like a better system of politics, one that didn't rely so heavily on generating mountains of campaign cash all the time. But, at the same time, my eyes are open to the fact that we do not live in that world, yet.
Instead, here we all are in the post-Citizens United framework. So what are you going to do: bemoan the fact, or play the game according to the rules that are in place (even while working for better rules)? The lesbians have decided to jump into this game. As I said, more power to them.
The gay and lesbian movement is actually one of the better examples of how to go about effecting political change. While the gay rights movement has made enormous strides in shifting American public opinion about their key agenda issues -- and in a very short time as these things go -- they have also figured out that playing the political game is as important as influencing the general public's hearts and minds.
The gay and lesbian rights people raised a lot of campaign cash for then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008. Since this point, they've gotten more out of the Obama administration than just about any other group on the left you can name. Think about it -- what has Obama specifically done for: unions, African-Americans, Latinos (before his recent announcement, that is), teachers, youth, women's rights (again, before his announcement on birth control), progressives, civil libertarians, or even pot-smokers? One or two things come to mind, but nothing really compares to how gay rights have advanced in the past three years. The Obama White House spent most of their first two years actually fighting most of these groups, because Obama would not produce any of their favorite agenda items.
Obama hasn't always been seen in a good light by the gay rights folks, either. But -- tellingly -- what did they do about it? They started publicly threatening to stop their donations to both Obama's re-election and Democrats in general. Since then, Obama has all but completed his "evolution" on the subject, and will go down in history as the most gay-friendly president of all time.
That is the essence of political influence. You can say it's a bad thing in general, but in this case it certainly worked, didn't it? Gays and lesbians aren't the sole source of Obama's fundraising, but their influence over the rest of the Democratic fundraising universe is strong -- there's a lot of gay-friendly donors, to put it another way, who have their own pet issues but also have a lot of gay and lesbian friends.
Which is why LPAC is such a good idea. In fact, I predict that either a "Gay PAC" will soon be announced for gay men to donate to, or perhaps they'll all merge into a "LGBTPAC" at some point down the road. More power to all of them, no matter how it plays out!
The more PACs the better, from anywhere on the political spectrum. Why shouldn't the ACLU form a "Civil Liberties PAC" (note: they may already have one, I didn't check) to advance their ideals? If your group has an issue you care about, then put together a super PAC and see if there are some well-heeled folks out there who think as you do. Channel the money into your own issue-advocacy ads on television. Get the word out!
"But Chris," you say, "won't that just contribute to the absolute cacophony of political ads that already assail us each and every election year?" You are darn tootin' it would. But what is the alternative? Leave the field wide open to Karl Rove and his PAC?
The beauty of a super PAC is that you get to make your own ads. They can be political as heck, but as long as you don't use the taboo phrase "vote for candidate X," you can say just about anything you want. It's pretty much a free-for-all out there, with very few rules. In the past, the money flow would be through the political parties (or the candidates) themselves -- they'd take your money and then decide what to do with it. They might come out with an ad which you think stinks, but you would have little say over it, even if your money funded the ad. What Citizens United has done is remove the middle man. You can now go out and buy your own ads, and spend as much as you feel like to do so. That means a certain amount of freedom for people who can scrape together that kind of money.
Like, for instance, lesbians. I would love to see an ad campaign from LPAC -- whether it's on gay marriage, or women's rights, or social justice for all. I would love to see ads from a lot of political groups out there, unfettered by party dogma.
The political system we have is far from perfect. Money is too influential in politics. There are many ways to change this for the better. I support most efforts to change this unfair equation. But while we're waiting for a perfect political system, we have what we have. And we should use it. We should play the game as best we can. If lesbians want to band together and use their combined influence to support candidates and run ads, hopefully it will help further their cause. More power to them. Any other group who wants to see their level of influence rise should be emulating LPAC, and not scoffing at them in any way. Okay, the whole game is rigged -- tilted overwhelmingly against the little guy -- but when a whole bunch of little guys get together and pool their money in such a fashion, your voices get heard more. Just because the game is rigged doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort to play, to put it another way.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Robert Reich: Mitt Romney and the New Gilded Age
Dean Obeidallah: Super Tax the Super PACs
Yeah, not having prior restraint to fall back on must really be killing you self-described "liberals".
Meanwhile, the progressive's horse has raised $326M to Romney's $227M through June; has spent $148M to Romney's $104M through May; and the Democrat party has spent $210M to Republican's $180M.
If you want to form a PAC, do it. You have the right to political expression, you have the right to form an association to make that expression, and the government does not have the authority to silence you.
. U.S. citizens cannot compete on a dollar level with corporations using billions on television ads and other media outlets, brandishing polished and sophisticated propaganda put together by costly advertising agencies.
Not even if a large majority pooled their unassigned earnings (paltry in comparison to a major lobby). How many people would have to donate all savings and disposable income in order to come close to the money necessary to oppose the likes of Healthcare Inc, Military Inc., AgriCorp and Energy Inc.?
Pie-in-the-sky.
Comic-Con 2012 starts today, and no mention of Star Trek's "A Private Little War" in reference to the political arms race driven by Super Pacs?
Capt. Kirk: But what would you have suggested? That one side arm its friends with an overpowering weapon? Mankind would never have lived to travel space if they had. No, the only solution is what happened back then: balance of power.
Dr. McCoy: And if the Klingons give their side even more?
Capt. Kirk: Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power - the trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides!
The unintended consequences of so many advertising fire sticks may be hard to live with. Can media markets in swing states absorb all that money without raising ad rates? What will the impact of Super Bowl-like rates be on consumer product sales? Will John and Jane Q. Public develop bad breath for lack of proper mouth wash, bad hair for lack of conditioner ( Mugato?) and drive an old car from ignorance? Frightening, but like Kirk, I see no alternative.
As Nona said, "There's an old custom among my people: When a woman saves a man's life, he is grateful." Karl Rove says exactly the same thing, to so many James T. Kochs!
As Dr. McCoy so aptly noted "She's dead."
I'm hereby awarding you 500 Quatloos for your excellent comment.
Heh.
Your John and Jane Q. Public example got a big laugh out of me...
...but shouldn't that be "She's dead, Jim."?
:-)
-CW
So why are liberals so against the Right running advocacy ads?
Two thoughts CW.
One, with DVRs skipping commercials, downloads, video sharing sites and emailed video, is buying airtime in the old media necessary to get such messages out? Alternatives now exist, fewer people watch commercials these days, the old media choose to decline ads they disagree with, and feeding the middlemen is a waste of resources.
Two, are PACs necessary to produce ads for advocacy? Home production quality is near parity, why spend money on staff and offices?
A thousand amatuers are more likely to come up with something catchy than paid professionals too.
Changing the rules beats playing by theirs.
Passive viewers are probably too numerous to write off for now, but that is changing quickly.
This was more of a "in the meantime..." article, in terms of fighting for the overturn of CU.
One, as I said, the game is rigged, and getting even more rigged as time goes on.
Two, while viral videos are fine and good, plastering ads even on cable TV will reach a lot more people, in most cases, I think.
But I could be wrong. Always an option.
-CW
Well, thank you for the kind words. It would, indeed, be ironic in the extreme.
-CW