Government-controlled companies should not have PACs

That has to be the understatement of the day. Learning General Motors brought their PAC back to life for this election while being owned by the Federal Government is an outrage. Cannot believe the people at GM cannot see how much of an outrage this is, but then they have been deaf to consumer complaints for years.

This is wrong on so many levels and any Republicans who have money from the GM PAC in their campaign coffers need to return them. Would say return them ASAP, but after November 2nd would be fine so they cannot be distributed elsewhere. Actually would recommend sending them to the Federal Treasury as a tiny downpayment on the deficit and then send GM PAC a note.

We are not a huge fan of Campaign Finance Reform but we believe there should be ZERO PACs from any group or company that the Federal Government employs or owns. We have always been against Federal Unions or any organization that their members receive pay from the taxpayers having PACs. Now that the Government owns a few companies like GM, that company should not be having PACs as well.

Government-controlled companies should not have PACs
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
09/29/10 9:50 PM EDT

General Motors is controlled by the federal government, plus the governments of Canada and Ontario own minority shares. So the question becomes should such a corporation be allowed to operate a PAC and contribute to partisan candidates for federal office?

Over at Pajamas Media, Tom Blumer is making a persuasive case that the answer to that question is a decisive no:

"Despite taxpayers’ majority stake, GM has revived its PAC and has collected and distributed money from its employees to advance the company’s interests. Those interests, and the politicians and organizations which have benefited and will benefit, are, according to the company’s 'Political Contributions and Expenditures Policy,' determined 'by a Steering Committee and a separate Campaign Selection Committee appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of GM' — overseen by car czar and Mao admirer Ron Bloom ('We know that the free market is nonsense. &hellip We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun') and his clan.

"There’s nothing wrong with shareholder-owned and truly private companies doing this. Companies have a duty to ethically advance and protect their shareholders’ and owners’ interests, especially when government actions threaten their well-being. The Supreme Court ruled in January that companies, labor unions, and others are free to do this, and that Congress’s past efforts to limit their giving have been unconstitutional."

So, what's the problem? According to Blumer:

"Legalities aside, GM is self-evidently different. First, the policy statement cited earlier also permits 'corporate funds and facilities &hellip (to) be used to provide the administrative support for the operation of GM political action committees.' That gives a whole new meaning to 'your tax dollars at work,' doesn’t it?

"Far more critically, as long as two sovereign governments have combined majority or controlling stakes in the company, political contributions from GM’s PAC are substantively no different than if HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius started taking collections from her employees and then gave the money directly to congressmen, senators, Health Care for America Now, and anyone else who has either said good things about ObamaCare, voted for its creation, or pledged to assist in building its oncoming bureaucratic nightmare. If the president and his apparatchiks had even a passing acquaintance with ethics, they would not have allowed GM to resurrect its PAC."

To which, I can only say Amen! But there is more and Blumer has it here.

Source: Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner