te from candidates' campaigns.

It would appear, however, that a PAC is now coordinating with the Hilary
campaign while not being under the same fundraising restrictions.

To me, PACs have always been subversions of the American governmental process
and now one operating more or less as the "long-arm" of an individual
candidate's campaign just makes them even more troubling.

The second thing is this type of brigade behavior, especially with funding
behind it, is particularly dangerous since it has a disproportionate ability
to influence general public perception. It may not influence you or I much
individually, but I am not sure Hacker News readers/commentators are a
representative sample of the "average American".

------
harigov
I don't see this as a problem at all, as long as these commenters are
representing the opinions of Hillary. I actually believe that
people/organizations should be given an opportunity to respond to these
comments "officially" using the same channels that commenters make use of.

~~~
wille92
What about pro-Hillary comments coming from unofficial social media accounts?
The article didn't say exactly where these comments would be coming from. I
assumed they would be "astro-turf" type users that purport to be everyday
reddit users but are actually affiliated with this Hillary PAC.

~~~
oh_sigh
So what if they are? As long as they don't misrepresent themselves, why not?

~~~
alistairSH
_As long as they don 't misrepresent themselves_

An astro-turf user is by definition misrepresenting themselves. They gain
credibility by presenting themselves as unaffiliated with the candidate.

------
lifeisstillgood
Seems simple to police : have an account that has a "registration" number. You
get some basic training and access to a FAQ generator and can post "on
message" replies - all above board as you need it.

~~~
tamana
What about users who don't claim to be working for the campaign?

The problem isn't overt campaigning. The problem is covert astroturf
campaigning.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Well, don't d