Talk:Political action committee

Active discussions

2012 list - scratchpadEdit

Group Total Raised
Restore Our Future $142,097,336
American Crossroads $104,746,670
Priorities USA Action $65,166,859
Majority PAC $37,498,257
House Majority PAC $30,470,122
Freedomworks for America $19,636,548
Winning Our Future $17,007,762
Club for Growth Action $16,584,207
Ending Spending Action Fund $13,250,766

Total of Top Nine: $ 446 million


Super PACs spending over $10 million Total Spent through Nov 30, 2012

Restore Our Future $142,655,346
American Crossroads $91,115,447
Priorities USA Action $66,482,084
Winning Our Future $17,008,038

Regular PACs with spending over $10 million Total Spent through Nov 30, 2012

Republican National Committee $42,252,251
Americans for Prosperity $33,542,058
Crossroads GPS $22,146,304
American Future Fund $19,038,220
Americans for Job Security $15,223,067


Proposed merge with Hybrid PACEdit

Given that the more notable topic of "super PACs" is only covered as a section in this article, it seems reasonable that coverage of Hybrid PACs should also be presented here as a section. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I had actually noticed that myself, when I created the article. I do think that "Super PAC" would also merit its own article, as there's an abundance of material available, far more than there is for Hybrid PAC (although Hybrid PACs are a more recent creation). I think this article should have two short sections on each type, with hatnotes pointing to the main articles for each topic. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. I was honestly quite surprised to find that Super PAC wasn't an independent article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Closed the merge, added Hybrid section, proposed the spit, closed the merge. Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I would object to the spit on the basis that all PAC's have a substantially similar function and structure, and splitting the article would make it less usable. Consider changing the Article title and adding redirects instead. --Willthewanderer (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Change to consider re organization of info about specific yearsEdit

My first time to this page and it seems odd/confusing to me that discussion of PACs in general and PACs for specific years are intermixed. It also seems needlessly confusing that the specific year info is in multiple places. i.e. 2012 & 2020 info is under section 3 (3.4.1 & 3.4.2) while 2018 info is under section 4.

As a first step, I suggest that the 2012 (3.4.1) and 2020 (3.4.2) content should be moved under the "Top PACs by election cycle" (4.) section. This change would put all the content about specific years in one section of the article. Additional discussion about whether this content should be moved to a separate article (page) might be worthwhile.

Experience suggests that the data on specific years is difficult to maintain--especially if there isn't a team that has organized itself for this purpose. I note that while 2016 was an important year in US politics, this page does not contain information about PAC activity in this election cycle. While links to sites that contain specifics (FEC, are great, I do wonder if having sections is appropriate in a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, if all Wikipedia articles with similar dynamic content were to move the data under the appropriate year article (e.g. 2020) then it would be much more difficult to find. In the end, I have no specific suggestions on which way to go. Any comments about what other articles do about this OR a link to a Wikipedia standard or "best practice" would be helpful.

Jvasil (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Political action committee" page.