pacs

Are the 23% from PACs money given directly to campaigns or does it also include independent expenditures?

Additionally, Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from corporations as long as they use the money for independent expenditures.

But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.

Why didn't you follow the money more directly and create a product aimed at politicians or PACs?

People donate to PACs because they want to do more than cast their one vote on a particular issue.

Here's another interesting thought: QV might reduce the influence of PACs by solving the principal-agent problem.

Even more responsible PACs will probably not spend the money exactly the way the donor would.

Lobbying isn't a great thing, and it interacts very badly with PACs, but it certainly isn't millions of dollars in strippers.

Slight correction: lobbying spending numbers do not include donations to candidates or PACs.

Corporations cannot donate money to campaigns at all, either directly or through PACs.

I can't believe just two people are going to drop $900M on a single election through PACs.

While Romney was supported heavily by Super PACs, almost all of Obama's fundraising went directly into his campaign--where it could pay for core technologies.

Many other things need to be changed: 1) banning corporations, PACs or any organization from giving money to politicians - only individuals should be able to donate and the sum should be limited to maybe $1,000 (allowing "NGO's" and such to give money is just a loophole looking to be abused) 2) making votes in Congress anonymous [1].

(Incidentally, the need to find, and the partial arbitrariness of, a dividing line between that example on one hand which should have constitutional protection, and super PACs on the other which should not, is why "corporations aren't people" is a bit simplistic as an approach to solving the Citizens United problem.