icPurple SuperPAC Looks to Spend Major Money Backing Viable Independent Candidates

Ted Waitt is the founder of Gateway and a notable Independent who has created the icPurple SuperPAC in an effort to help fund Independent political campaigns which are winnable. He has seeded the organization with $300,000 to start running ads in some key races for Independent candidates.

A new SuperPAC has been formed to support independent candidates around the country, including Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher’s for San Diego mayor and Chad Condit’s bid for Congress.  The group, named icPurple, presents itself as the first SuperPAC dedicated to the promotion of centrist and moderate candidates running with no party affiliation.

Fletcher and Condit are two of five candidates that icPurple has committed to backing. The others are former Governor Angus King, running for US Senate in Maine, Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, running for Congress, and Chad Walsh, who is running a campaign to enter the California state house.

Chad Condit is the son of a former Democratic Congressman from California, Gary Condit.

8 thoughts on “icPurple SuperPAC Looks to Spend Major Money Backing Viable Independent Candidates

  1. IndeCan

    Though it’s great to see real money support Independent Candidates, it’s still a Super PAC, and reflects the dark nature of money politics in this country. We need all money out of politics, even the money that is earmarked for actual good.

  2. Trent Hill Post author

    Why? Money is just a means to an end. It’s similar to have lots of volunteers or lots of name recognition. Just a tool.

  3. IndeCan

    Trent, that’s a very dangerous justification. Money is more of an “end” than a “means”, and mostly as a “means” to further pad the “end”. Not all tools are created equally, nor do all tools have the same power, prestige, and design for use.

  4. Trent Hill Post author

    You want to keep people from using their money the way they please, to promote the causes and candidates that believe in–I think that’s a dangerous removal of free speech.

    In what world is money an end in politics? It isn’t. No one becomes a congressman in order to get rich–it requires far more money than it supplies. Money is the way to get where they’re going.

  5. Donny Ferguson

    Too bad they’re wasting the money on TV ads, which in local and congressional races are about as effective as putting your money in a pile and burning it.

    The only reason you should run a TV ad is if you’re running for president or statewide office. You can target and reach every potential supportive voter in a local or congressional race with a targeted message for less than you’d blow on a TV ad where less than 15% of the audience votes.

    Some political consultant, who typically pockets 15% of a TV buy plus his fees, is just shaking this guy down for money.

  6. Trent Hill Post author

    Donny–I agree somewhat. Some TV Ads, despite not being the best tool for targeting, can give a campaign the air of legitimacy. However, you’re mostly right–targeted mailers, Internet ad campaigns, and phone calls, would be wisest.

  7. Deran

    I think this is a promising “alternative” use of the current regulatory structures for federal elections that is positive in that it funds serious Congressional challeneges to the two party set-up.

    In many many ways this seems like a more productive use of big money investment than Americans Elect (unless AE has something rlsr up their french cuff sleeves.)

    A serious investment in a funding structure and basic issues agreement set up last year to recruit “centrist” Congressional condidates would make a lot more sense, if AE were really seeking to change US electoral politics?

    AE’s funders could do a superpac that poured money in to indeoendent “centrist” Congressional campaigns.

    Just saying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *