Here are some of the candidates SarahPac has contributed to: http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6348/fecpalin.png
So? i’m trying to figure out what you’re trying to say....if its because she gave to McCain and his friend Grahamnesty you barking up the wrong tree...if not then I stand corrected
Thanks for posting this. Half of these candidates receiving SaraPAC money are RINOs! No different than any other party organ that makes its own decisions on how to spend my money!
This reinforces what others are saying: donate directly to the candidates. And now after seeing your link, it all makes perfect sense to me! Why should I contribute my money to organizations that select which candidates get my money? Why don't I just select the ones I want to contribute to and make the contributions directly to them?
The centralized model probably made some sense in the olden days, prior to every candidate having their own web site in which contributions can be made with a click of a button, and another click to have RoboForm fill in the blanks.
The centralized contribution model makes no sense at all now. For any of us. Each of us can now decide for ourselves who to donate to in elections all across the country, and easily effect the contributions. All we're doing by giving money to any Party organization is to give them our power. Every one of us should retain our power to contribute to ourselves and quit enabling the dysfunctional power brokers.
Directly contributing is something that I've already begun to do instinctively, and have planned to continue to do it even more so as candidate selections settle out. This is something that came naturally to me as I've never been involved in parties before, and am used to making my own purchasing decisions via Internet research and then effecting those decisions by purchasing from Internet businesses that I select myself. Furthermore, I make all of these decisions free from the tsunami of commercial advertising trying to engulf me from all directions. Deciding on contributing directly to candidates just seemed to me to be more of the same thing direct decision making and action taking that I had been doing. That is, directly contributing to House and Senate candidates all over the country, not just in my own neck of the woods.
But tonight, I realize that what I've been doing is actually revolutionary, cutting out the power brokers and exercising my power directly, without it being diluted or perverted by those antithetical to my beliefs and principals. I do not need to delegate my decision making power and my financial power to a power broker of any kind. I am completely capable of making my own decisions on every election I choose to study, and donating my money how I chose, and to whom I choose, and when I choose.
It would indeed be a revolution if each and every one of us quit donating anything to the central party organs, and simply directly contribute to who each of us selects for ourselves. This is true democracy in action, with all power reverting back to the individual contributor, and none usurped by power brokers. Money is power, and no where is this more true than campaign funding. Can you imagine candidates dependent only upon tens of thousands of smallish contributions, because the party organs now have none of our money to use as their own? The party organs lose all influence over the candidates and the candidates become totally dependent only on citizen-contributors. Thus the candidates must appease and please us, and can no longer ignore us like they do now!
I think this direct-contribution model, if fully implemented, is in and of itself a true revolution!
