Given the recent rulings by the Supremecourt of the United States in regards to campaign financing, should atheist begin utilizing PACs and any other form of campaign finance to insure secular voices are heard in the body politic of the US? Or should secularist, atheist, agnostics, humanist, etc focus on laws that restrict money in politics? (Just because this topic is sort of focusing on US politics, that doesn't mean any comments from those of other nations would not be valued on the subject)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Definitely we should use PACs. There's at least one out there already:
www.freethoughtequalityfund.net
As for the question of whether we should "focus on laws that restrict money in politics," there may be some secularists who think allowing massive amounts of money into elections is just freedom of speech, so that may not be a particularly secular issue. However, there is at least one law proposed to address this, and several organizations are trying to get support for it:
www.ofby.us
Working on laws may not be successful as long as we have a Supreme Court striking them down. What I think we need is a Constitutional amendment. The amendment process is cumbersome - for good reason - so it is a huge undertaking. There are several organizations working to this end, only some of which are:
Move To Amend - www.movetoamend.org
Democracy is for People - www.democracyisforpeople.org
People for the American Way - www.pfaw.org
Common Cause - www.commoncause.org
The Alliance for Democracy - www.thealliancefordemocracy.org
Thanks for the great info Spewer!
Thanks Spewer.
Thanks Spewer! This info rocks. I will look into them all.
I personally am against the use of PACs in general but yes wherever PACs are allowed to be used I think it becomes imperative that all sides partake in the activity. Without participation your concerns and issues will go for the most part ignored while those of people who are against you and are willing to use PAC money will enjoy fraternization. If this goes on for too long things will tilt greatly out of your favor. Unfortunately, this brings up a version of the Golden Rule my father, another atheist, was fond of quoting: He who has the gold makes the rules."
Agree with you completely Z. PACs, though are what they are and are probably not going away in our lifetimes. So, I guess, we need to just beat them at their own game, eh?
Yeah. Unfortunately, religions for the most part are large congregations of people who have been trained to give money regularly to the people in charge of their faith and it would be hard to compete on a financial level. So in doing so we must choose our battles carefully. If your are out-muscled by your opponent you must be able to out-think your opponent
Touché, my friend! touché...
Zaphod so shouldn't that out thinking of an opponent result in action?
Yes, it should. We have to think carefully about what we do and where we spend our numbers be they money, man power, ect.. it also important to determine common goals and to think far ahead about what we do now when your are greatly outnumbered you have to think carefully about the pursuits and actions you choose to undertake. For example in the US it would be better to approach things on a federal level than a state level. You also need a disciplined approach otherwise you run the risk of coming across to extreme. Like attracts like.
All I am saying is yes, out-thinking of an opponent should result in action but don't charge into the arena like a bull. Its better to approach like a game of chess,calmly observing an moving in accordance with both your's and your opponent's weaknesses and strengths, one wrong move can result in serious damage.