It was during the Greta van Sustern show on MSNBC. It had a woman who worked for the Obama administration, talking about how she supported Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The spot directed viewers to the website www.confirmgorsuch.com.
Is this how we do things now? It keeps changing so fast, I can hardly keep up.
Attorney General is a political position. Not elected, but follows the orders of, supports the agenda of, and serves at the pleasure of, the president.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is… not supposed to be a political position. I know it is, but we’ve held on to this pretense of independence so tightly for such a very long time. Seeing that commercial makes me wonder if we’ve officially abandoned it.
I’m honestly not sure what you are trying to say here, but if your contention is that only conservatives have Super PACs then you are dead wrong. In fact, the largest Super Pac of all in terms of money raised for the 2016 election cycle - by far - is the liberal Priorities USA Action. The top 10 Super Pacs, by the same metric, are evenly split between liberal and conservative. A quick analysis of the overall list indicates it’s pretty even.
Although it is a bit unseemly to see an ad for a justice as if it were an elected position, I would view it more along the lines of other policy type ads that you see from time to time. Such as ads sponsored by oil companies asking people to call their congressman to oppose climate change legislation.
I’m aware of the group, thanks. They are not a Super Pac, they are organized as a 501(c)4 “social welfare” organization, sometimes referred to as a “dark money organization”. The differences are material - 501(c) organizations do not have to disclose their donors, PACs do; 501(c) organizations are under IRS jurisdiction, PACs are not; IRS regs say that 501(c) organizations cannot spend more than 1/2 of their resources on political activities, PACs are under no such restriction; 501(c) orgs cannot contribute directly to a candidate, PACs can. Well known examples of 501(c) organizations that are politically active are The National Rifle Association, The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, US Chamber of Commerce and the Progressive Donor Network.
JCN received, in 2013, less than $5MM in donations, the majority likely coming from Koch affiliated sources. That number wouldn’t even put them in the top 50 Super PACs.
Just to be clear, though, my point was that both sides do this in pretty equal proportion. Your post seemed to indicate that it was somehow a conservative dominated activity.
What is this fascination with size? I don’t care if they’re not in the top 5000 Super PACs. It matters nothing except to accountants and list keepers.
The JCN is what I was commenting on, based on their self-description. Do you think you’re telling me anything new by saying the liberal side does it too? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?