FEC Rejects Changes To PAC Rules
Following up on Brad Pilcher’s previous post on the subject, The JTA reports,
The Federal Election Commission rejected rule changes that U.S. Jewish groups said would have restricted their activism.
The FEC voted 4-2 to reject changes that would redefine as a political committee any group that supported or opposed a candidate’s policies. Leading Jewish groups said the change, aimed at restricting the proliferation of “soft-money” advertising, was too broad. Its restrictions on spending and tax exemptions effectively would have shut down many organizations, they said.
“We’re very gratified that the FEC has rejected the proposed rule,” said Sammie Moshenberg, Washington office director of the National Council of Jewish Women — which, along with the Reform movement, had led Jewish opposition to the rule. “We think it’s a victory for freedom of speech.”
Good news for PJPAC!
Hey Mobius — cool graphic. I guess this doesn’t regard me, but if I were American, I’d have two issues:
(1) How is this different from other alternatives to AIPAC — and why not join up with them to form a strong and united voice?
(2) Representing the voices of American Jews “outsidethe mainstream Jewish political establishment”? Um, a PAC is a political lobby group.(*) Even more than for a regular association — although that should go for them too — a PAC doesn’t want to be outside the mainstream. It wants to become the mainstream. If it doesn’t, it should quickly cease to exist, because it is likely neither to be very effective, nor to convince very many politicians to deliver their voters to it.
Summary: I think the idea is good, but I’m dubious as to the execution. If you want to increase the clout of alternative politics on the Hill, you need to think united and think big. Cause, well, it’s the dirty world of politics.
(* Or else it’s just another group, and America is overflowing with non-AIPAC-aligned groupuscules who don’t talk to each other.)
1) pjpac will be different from tikkun because tikkun is michael “ego” lerner’s baby, and no one has any say but him. pjpac will operate under anarchistic, non-hierarchical organizing principles and encourage the direct democratic participation of its members, as opposed to having an autocratic decision-making process that treats members as “the fulfillers of our will.”
the idea of pjpac, in so much as it is to provide an alternative to aipac, is to experiment with the principles of non-hierarchical organizing–to put them to the test. the idea is that the means should be the same as our ends, and if our ends involve radical change of our structure of government, we need to use that same structure to operate our organization–otherwise, how can we prove it works?
2) we hope to become a mainstream voice; we just don’t kid ourselves that we currently “are.”
the idea of pjpac, in so much as it is to provide an alternative to aipac, is to experiment with the principles of non-hierarchical organizing
Then maybe the organisation you are trying to create isn’t so much a PAC, as Yet Another Left-Jewish Group. Hope criticism is permitted, but it seems to me that lobbying for politicians to take one position or another, and fundamentally changing the structure of government itself, are hard things to do at once.
we hope to become a mainstream voice; we just don’t kid ourselves that we currently “are.” Depends on your views, I guess, but I hate the implication that AIPAC is somehow representative of most U.S. Jews — I doubt that that’s true.
(Similarly, if you really want to became a mainstream voice, then I suggest avoiding building an identity around being an alternative to the mainstream, no?)
it is a pac because, the organizational/process structure is merely the structure. the fuction is none too dissimilar from other 527s like moveon.org. essentially, it’s going to be moveon.org for progressive jewish issues.
further, the organization seeks to build a coalition of other organizations so that we unify our strength in numbers. by being non-hierarchical and open–in a talmuid sense–we increase the willingness of other organizations to participate.
as for your point re: the mainstream — the mainstream is manufactured, in all cases. we are outside the mainstream because we aren’t a manufactured entity.
that shoulda said talmudic
the mainstream is manufactured, in all cases. we are outside the mainstream because we aren’t a manufactured entity. Grin … yup: all that other stuff is fake; this is the real deal, the genuine article, the no-fakin-the-funk true-to-life shit.
But, yeah, marketing is important, and if the goal is to motivate people who identify being on the margins of things, or who like railing against a common enemy (the fake/the mainstream/the people we can point at), then that’s as good a line as any. I’d have gone with “towards a new mainstream” or something but, well, that’s just little me.
it is a pac because, the organizational/process structure is merely the structure. the fuction is none too dissimilar from other 527s like moveon.org. essentially, it’s going to be moveon.org for progressive jewish issues.
Interesting: this is all new stuff to me
(If I were nitpicking: Wikipedia seems to distinguish between 527 and PACs: Although political action committees are also created under Section 527 of the IRC, the term is used to refer to political organizations which are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission and not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs. But, well, this is descending into irrelevance. I may not know what you mean by PAC, but presumably Americans will.)
PAC has two uses, public affairs committe and political action committee; one’s a 527 and one’s a PAC, but they’re both PACs.