Hacker News Reader

"Then we got the $1 Million matched by a group of donors who, unlike most political donors, would like to level the playing field, even if it means seeing their influence decreased."

... and with that I lose my trust in this PAC. Human nature has a pull towards being self-serving and this nature is amplified when large sums of wealth are on the line.

View on HN

So what? They're not shareholders, they're donors.

Once money is donated to a Super PAC, it's the PAC's money to do with as they see fit. "PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party." Short of the agreement to match funds having extra stipulations (or Lessig putting those wealthy benefactors in charge of the PAC) there is nothing they can do about how the money gets spent.

Couldn't the donors agree to donate more if the PAC spends the already donated money in a certain way?

They could, but this PAC has only one goal, so the money either gets spend towards that goal or not. The donors would have to spend so much that everyone in the PAC organisation switches sides and goes for political ambition instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com