7055

That's okay, I can see how you got that impression. I do not have much knowledge or any background in politics, I am only just learning I think you're referring to a leadership PAC which is something I don't fully understand because if a politician did start a leadership PAC to support another politicians campaign for office, he can only give him $5,000, no? So it seems kind of fruitless

lol, I am not and never have been in political science class my friend

So do you mean to say that through some loophole, normal PACs have always acted like Super Pacs? Can you explain further? What is the spending that helps campaigns but isn't allocated to their official funds?

I understand that but I was talking about PACs that aren't super PACs. Back before Super PACs came to be, what was the point of PACs? They can only give out $5,000 to a candidate campaign and you can give close to that by just contributing directly so why the need for the PAC? There must be something I'm missing here.

I thought PAC donations could go to a candidates campaign?

Perhaps you have a different and more knowledgeable background than I and what makes sense to you needs to be spelled out for me. That article did not answer the questions for me That seems so odd, there must be something I'm missing. So you can donate $2,900 to a candidate without a PAC, or you can set up a PAC and only be able to donate $2,100 more than that for a total of $5,000?

That definition says it pools campaign donations from members... PACs have members? Are they like special interest groups in that way? Can someone please answer these questions? 1) Even back before the Citizens United supreme court decision, what was the point of a PAC? If you can only raise $5,000 for a candidate that seems so small that its pointless. 2) Can someone not just give a candidate money directly? Does it have to go through a PAC? 3) Now with the introduction of Super PACs, is there even any point to having normal PACs? 4) Lets say I was running for president before the advent of Super PACs and I needed one billion dollars for my campaign. Does that mean I need two hundred thousand PACs to reach that number?

Hello, I am just learning about political science an having trouble understanding these two concepts. On the surface its super straightforward. They are committees for the purpose of raising money for political candidates. One has spending limits and the other doesn't. But I have to admit, this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The first confusing thing is that there exists two different ones, if a Super PAC has less strict rules than a PAC, why does a PAC even need to exist at all? The other thing that doesn't make any sense to me is that the PAC has something like a $5,000 limit on how much money it can spend on a candidate. So let me get this straight, if Bob is running for president and I want to start a PAC to support him, I can only give him $5,000? What is that going to accomplish given that the average presidential candidate has to spend over one billion dollars to win? What even makes a PAC any different then a political candidate just asking people for money directly? The whole idea of PACs is just rife with confusion to me. Can anybody clarify?