I hope you can help me relieve some of my confusion.

You oppose the influence of special interest groups and then support the creation and influence of political action committes (PACs).

Now, I would think that every PAC supports particular interests and tries to affect policy.  That would, as far as I can tell, mean that PACs are special interest groups.

It is possible, of course, that I am misunderstanding the notion of PAC and the notion of special interest groups.  If so, I would really appreciate clarification.

If PACS are special interest groups, then how can you oppose the influence of special interest groups and then support the influence of PACs?  That would seem to be contradictory.

Perhaps you only oppose the influence of CERTAIN (or a certain kind of) special interest groups.  To what kind do you object?   

Thanks for your consideration.

Hi Andrew.  When I was writing this post, I was thinking about that very topic: am I proposing an increase in PACs?  I guess the short answer is yes. 

The long answer is that I'd like to see the rise of a different kind of PAC - not representing a small group of people but a large group of people.  Not representing special interests but common interests.  I'd like to see grassroot PACs started by concerned citizens and communities with a little more than a cause, a website, and a PayPal account.  (Of course, they'll also need credibility if they are to fundraise successfully.)

Because it is a great way to collect small donations from many people, the internet can aid in the creation of these new types of PACS, PACs that represent the majority, not the minority. 

As I said in my post, I wish for money-free politics, but until then I advocate for grassroot PACs. 

Hello again, Andrew.  This is a very interesting discussion.  In answer to your most recent question, I don't see the PAC issue in terms of percentage of the total US population, but in terms of how many other Americans share their views. 

For example, a PAC that represents the tobacco industry might be backed by 3 corporations that represent 10,000 employees.  Their interest is for Americans to buy as many cigarettes as possible at the highest price possible and be protected from government efforts to change cigarette ingredients or warn consumers about risks.

This to me is special interest PAC because it does not represent the interest of the majority of Americans.  The majority of Americans are more concerned with their health than cigarette company profits and if the government wants to tax or post larger warnings on cigarette packs (as many other countries do), then I think most Americans would be for it.

So if a group of citizens were to start a Smoke-Free America PAC, even if it had only 3,000 members, I would be more in favor of it because I think protecting Americans from the dangers of smoking is more in the common interest than increasing the profits of tobacco companies.

Thanks for your insightful response.  I understand your position better now, and appreciate the time you took to further explain your ideas.  Incidentally, your response also addressed my second question, the question I didn't mention last night and said I would ask today.

Thanks again.

Hi, again.  I've continued thinking about what you wrote.

Please consider the following possible scenario:  Imagine a country in which the majority of the citizens believes in allowing/promoting slavery.  Now imagine, also, that a very small group of people holds a minority viewpoint which suggests that slavery is wrong and should be abolished.  Suppose that some of the anti-slavery folk form a PAC, an interest group that tries to affect who is elected and what policy is enforced.  Suppose that they, contary to majority opinion, give politicans/senators large amounts of money to influence their votes.

According to what you wrote in your post and comments, you should probably respond that this "special" interest group is wrong to exert as much influence and power as it does.  After all, you seem to condemn special interest groups for being very influential and representing too small a % of the population.

But, clearly, this special interest group is in the right!  It should influence the government in whatever way it can.

Here's my hypothesis:   In general, people who don't approve of special interest groups are NOT opposed to them for the reasons you suggest.  Special interest groups are NOT wrong merely because they represent a small percentatge of the population are are very influential.  Rather, people who don't approve of special interest groups merely disagree with what the groups have to say.

If you, who do not, in general, seem to support special interest groups, approve of the anti-slavery group mentioned above, then my hypothesis has some grounding.  After all, the group is clearly very influential and represents only a small percentage of the population.

Anyway, I would be curious to hear what you think.  I apologize if I've mis-stated your views, and I am very open to correction, clarification, and counterargument.

Thanks.

Hi again, Andrew,

Nice job in continuing to parse this.  You bring a subtlty to it that I did not.  There are two ways to look at this, in my view.  The first is rather simplistic: counting the slaves themsleves, your PAC isn't supporting a minority, but actually a rather large group of people (even if it isn't a formal majority).  While the white abolotionists (assuming a US scenario) were a small group, they were representing a large (but voiceless) group: millions of slaves.  So they weren't really a minority.

On a broader level, I go by simple ethics. I would say that what I define as a "minority" is a special interest group which proposes actions that benefit a small group while hurting a large group (cigarette companies, slave owners) while a "majority" special interest group (even if the PAC itself has a small number of members) proposes actions which benefit a large group while hurting a small group or no one (AARP, abolistionists).  

Of course, it's not my decision which PACs should or should not exist, but I personally work toward a future in which more "majority" PACs are possible.  I agree that often I dislike a PAC because I disagree with it on a gut level, but most of the time, upon further analysis, ethics coincides with my gut reaction.

Best,

Mary 

Thank you for continuing the discussion.  I really appreciate it.

A few questions, to start off:

What about a PAC that proposes taking all of a rich-man's wealth and distributing it to poor people.  Is this "majority" PAC in the right, or in the wrong?

What about a PAC that proposes murdering a handful of political opponents (not evil dictators, just people with strong, dissenting oppinions)?  With these opponents out of the way, good policy, policy that will help millions of citizens, will easily go into effect.  The new policy will save numerous lives, and improve the lives of the rest.  Is this "majority" PAC in the right, or in the wrong?

What about a PAC that, in response to a tremendous economic crisis, proposes killing off a tiny minority group and stealing its wealth in order to invigorate the economy for the betterment of millions.  Is this "majority" PAC in the right, or in the wrong?  

---

All of these PACs propose actions that benefit the large group while hurting a small group.  They are all, arguably, "majority" groups.

My point, that I'm trying to pursue, is that we shouldn't approve of an interest group merely because it works towards the benefit of the majority.  And, likewise, we shouldn't condemn a group merely because it benefits only a small group to the detriment of the majority.

We should, instead, consider an issue that is partly separate from how many people a group hurts/helps.  That is, is the group RIGHT?

(By the way, as you might already know, the questions posed above are variations (and not very careful ones) of questions posed to classic utilitarianists like John Stuart Mill.  He and other ethical philosophers believe that one should always act to create the greatest "benefit" for the the greatest number of people. 

Anyway, I'm no ethicist, and so won't be able to do a great job of discussing this position.  I don't know what more to add! 

In any event, thanks for the discussion.  I really look forward to reading your response, and I'm glad you were willing to continue the dialogue over a span of several weeks.)

Not surprisingly, I disagree with the idea of murder PACs.  Of course people must be guided by values, that is true in all things in life, not just politics.  However, I think that deciding what is right and wrong should not be an elite activity (we decide what ethics are so the hoi-palloi won't kill each other).  I think that the hoi-palloi are able to make good decisions and (other than certain cases of mob mentality) will make good decisions about their own welfare and the welfare of their communities.

For example, on the example of your murder PACs, I think the question is not really, "should we kill Bill Gates and redistribute his money?".  The question is,  "Do you want to live in a society where any individual can be selected for death because he is perceived as having goods useful to other members of the community?"  That's been tried before and that way madness lies.  I think people would oppose it.  

Although I certainly agree with you that democracy has its dangers (mobs, ignorance, tyranny of the masses), overall I believe in people, not that they are "basically good" or some such thing, but rather that they are good at looking out for themselves and for those they care about (famly, community) and that this survival skill is a pretty good basis for running a society.  As Churchill said, it's not the best way, but it's better than all the others.