From: millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller)
Subject: United We Stand, America a PAC?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:42:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department


> So, United We Stand America, voice of Ross "I hate Political Action
> Committees (PACs)" Perot, is going to form a lobbying entity -- i.e.,
> a PAC?  How interesting.

Sounds like you're unsure of the difference between an interest group
and a PAC.  There are several forms an interest group can take.  I
believe when Perot was talking about "special interests" he was
talking about interest groups which advocate specific government
support for specific constituencies or specific government programs.
Public interest groups like Common Cause also advocate something, but
what they advocate is more general:  Better government.  These
interest groups, no matter what form they take may, and probably do
lobby.  PACs on the other hand advocate certain goals and priorities,
but they don't necessarily gain influence by lobbying (as a matter of
fact I'm not sure if they are allowed to lobby).  They do it by
consistently giving huge amounts of money to the same people in
office, presumably so they have the money to run a stupendous campaign
year after year, and because of that the people keep re-electing them.
Because of the seniority system in Congress the person in office
gradually gains more influence.  Also, since the PAC keeps giving lots
of money to the same candidate, that PAC gains increasing influence on
that candidate.

I said that the candidate pays attention to the PAC "presumably"
because they help him/her get re-elected.  I have found evidence
through research that clearly shows that PAC contributions should be
outlawed, because they are a form of bribery.  A general example based
in fact is, in the past some candidates for congress have run for
re-election but had no challengers.  They were the only choice on the
ballot.  And yet, they STILL received up to $50,000 in PAC donations
(the typical congressional campaign cost about $350,000 at the time
this survey was done).  Why would this candidate need that money if
there were no challengers???  I believe the answer is the PACs that
donated that money to him definitely believe money talks.

If you want to know my sources, I was looking in a magazine that I
think was called "The Washington Weekly" and a newsletter that I think
was called "Current Speeches" (or something like that.  It contains
transcripts of speeches given by prominant figures).  The reason I'm
not sure is it's been about two months since I last looked at them.

The government is currently set up in such a way that the only way to
have and gain influence, with the exception of voting, and individuals
writing their congressman and senator, is to lobby.  There are no
two ways about it.  The real test is under what rules of ethics
they conduct their lobbying.  Do they knowingly support their own
interest over that of the public good, or do they strive to advocate
the public good whatever that may be?  Do they really try to get input
from the public at large, or their specific constituency, in order
to lobby for the right things in Congress?  Do they make their
activities known, so that they can explain to the public what they
are doing and why?  If they do represent a very specific interest,
do they try not to hurt everyone else in order to support their
specific interest?

I believe United We Stand, America is not a special interest group,
and I cannot see how it is a PAC.  I was involved in an Independent
congressional campaign in the 2nd Congressional District of Colorado.
The candidate's name was Vern Tharp.  It was a similar campaign as
that of Perot's.  Many of the people involved were formerly in the
petition drive of this past summer.  They were a great group of
people.  They were not concerned about their own needs and interests.
They were concerned about the condition of the nation and wanted to do
something about it.  Many of these people are UWSA members.  I became
a member myself recently.  The majority of the people in the campaign
were in the middle-class area financially, but otherwise were average
people, who had not gotten involved in politics at this level before,
including myself.  We were fortunate to have people who had expertise
in running campaigns, but they generally agreed that they had seen
some pretty unethical stuff going on in the past and did not want to
repeat it.  They consistently stuck to the idea of running a
grassroots campaign, on principle.  Mr. Tharp did not accept any PAC
money, on principle.  He did not receive any money from UWSA as far as
I know, although he did receive an endorsement from them.  Everyone
was a volunteer.  No one got paid to do what they did.  They wanted
to do it, that was all that was needed.  This caused some
difficulties with the campaign as people couldn't devote all their
time to it.  They had to hold regular jobs, obviously.

I believe the true spirit of this organization is in the vein of
the public interest group.  All we want is good government, nothing
more, nothing less.  We want the problems almost all of us know
about (whether you're members or not) to be dealt with and resolved
in a constructive manner.  As Perot has said in the past, if we act as
individuals we are not going to have much of a voice (if any), the
only exception being voting.  If we come together as a group, with the
common interest of improving government for the public interest, then
we can have a tremendous voice.

I can understand why people would not be sure about UWSA, because it
is new, and at the top levels at least, the organization has been
funded by Perot.  People who don't know any better can easily say an
interest group is an interest group.  They're all the same.  The only
reason I had enough confidence to join was that practically since UWSA
got started I had some idea what the organization was doing, through
my participation in that congressional campaign.  I felt like they
were doing the right thing, so I joined.  Maybe one of the next steps
UWSA needs to take is to get its name out to more people and make it
understood that anyone can find out what the goals of the organization
are and how they can join.

|Mark Miller, computer science   |"Like a government, the operating system   |
|major at C.S.U.                 |performs no useful function by itself."    |
|millerm@cs.colostate.edu        |   --- Operating System Concepts           |
|mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu           |"Let me ask you something.  Is the         |
|   /                            |government worth preserving when it lies   |
| \/ --- The Mark                |to the people?" --- "JFK"                  |
|        "FATHER!...FATHER!...THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!" --- "Dune"          |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou