Skip to content

HuffPo: zombie super PACs and legal marijuana myths

February 28, 2014

@HuffingtonPost: Two political zombies:

First, “Zombie super PACs face termination” by Dave Levinthal begins:

A legion of zombie super PACs — they exist on paper but barely engage in politics, if at all — face “administrative termination” by federal regulators for failing to file mandatory financial disclosures,

Recall last year ZombieLaw: Zombie Super PACs

zombie super pacman

Next, “Just Say No To These 11 Outrageous Arguments Against Legalizing Marijuana” by Matt Ferner and Nick Wing, listing as #8:

8. “Legalization will cause mass zombification!”
While the threat of a zombie apocalypse is one of the Internet’s favorite fantasies, some anti-legalization opponents use it as a metaphor for their unsubstantiated fears of a lazy pothead nation developing in the wake of legal weed.

The authors bust this zombie “fact” by showing no link between decriminalization and increased consumption. If that’s true, it calls into question the entire premise of criminal law. Would murder rate increase if it were not criminal? Maybe not… Maybe all criminal law is merely ex post facto nonsense and has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting society from the future occurrence of crime. Perhaps it is merely a system designed to profit on the known occurrences while creating a fantasy illusion of security theater? Then connect racial data and we might consider that criminal law becomes a system of marginalizing minority behaviors, a means of stigmatizing and ostracizing minority culture. Not changing consumption, just stigmatizing social cultures. And so that’s the true zombie apocalypse, a fascist world where authority perceives itself as unified culture and criminalizes dissenting practices.

So how does this relate to Zombie Super PAC money? In this media economy, how is money-flow the same as speech? And how much anonymous will we allow in terms of supporting political speech? Supposedly #Anonymous might be a terrorist group (#YOUmightBEaTERRORIST)? But if we force all political speakers to name themselves, isn’t that a major chill on political speech when we know that criminal persecution (if not “forced disappearance”) is normal business practice of politics. But alternatively, if we don’t force them to name themselves and let them prop up and collapse zombie PACs, doesn’t that leave the system open to big manipulative foreign/corporate money? Or maybe I’ve just been watching too much “House of Cards”?


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: