Political Action Committees ( Pacs )

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

According to Michael Stinnett who wrote an article about the negative consequences of super PACs on elections he says Super PACs “allowing wealthy donors to buy elections”(Stinnett). His fear is due to Super PACs having very lax campaigning rules and regulations it has the potential to let the wealthy few give all of their money to people who once in office support bills and law that will be beneficial for the donors. Michael Stinnett even went as far as saying “Super PACs are a pernicious influence on society and should be abolished”(Stinnett). Not only does he has this negative feeling about Super PACS, But he shares them with approximately two-thirds of americans who understand the new rules according to a new study done by the pew research center (pew

The PAC lobbies at a Federal level by endorsing candidates, speaking at political gatherings, and gathering petitions.

Due to the absurd amounts of money that is required for the candidates to be able to creditably and adequately compete; candidates have been forced to turn to PACs to fund their campaigns. "The current system of campaign financing argues that the high cost of office-seeking and current ways of meeting those costs not only distract elected officials from their primary task of lawmaking, but leave the door open to the influence of special interests" (Power online). This method of campaigning is criticized to be undemocratic, because candidates do not attentively listen to their

An assumption of representation is that an elected representative is an agent who expresses district preferences in legislative activities. Voters have preferences, but do not know which candidates in the election best aligns with these preferences; therefore, campaign communications and advertisements are important avenues that help highlight congruence of preferences between a candidate’s and voter’s positions (Krupnikov, 2011). This new electoral environment after Citizens United now has more independent campaign expenditures going toward election communications on behalf of candidates than in previous elections (Federal Election Commission, 2015). This new campaign environment includes three primary entities of outside spending: Super PACs, traditional Political Action Committees, and political parties.

Today’s media and communication have enhanced the knowledge of petitions, government affairs, and the environment. Although mass communication and formal protests are powerful and sometimes must suffer the darker side of the situation, they are labeled as interest groups. There are important factors such as money, power, and connections that are questioned and accessed within these groups. PACS or Political Action Committees are involved. Yet, there is another form of PACs that are named “Super PACS” where unlimited funds are raised (We the People). The “Super Pac” strategy should be outlawed by the government so it will not abuse its devoted followers.

or candidate? Today’s politics is being shaped by Super PACS and Interest groups, and we see this all the time in the elections happening. A Super PAC is a political committee that is organized to raise money to support their candidate so they can pull ahead in the polls, and spend money to oppose the other candidates. An interest group supports a certain side on a topic and a candidate for a position in government would find it beneficial to appeal to interest groups in order to gain supporters. Interest groups and Super PACs has changed the way we elect someone for their desired position. Some examples of interest groups are GLAAD, NRA, and PETA.These different Interest groups have nothing in common, besides the fact that everyone wants their support. A candidate can find good in appealing to certain topics to influence interest group help. The support given would definitely boost the votes and donations the candidate gets in order to ensure his win. It seems that a candidate can benefit from Interest groups just because of who the candidates know. This is seen as unfair or wrong, which I can personally see, but it does have its advantages. A couple examples of Super PACs are Commonsense Ten PAC, Patriot Majority, and Citizens for a Working America PAC. Politics is influenced by these PACs, which are either liberal or conservative, finding ways to raise money for a better chance to win. It is

This idea that Super PAC’s doesn’t corrupt politics sparked a meeting held in the University of Chicago where four executives representing both sides of the political spectrum debated the impact of their organizations’ multi-million dollar campaigns. “Political action committees (PACs) raise and spend funds with the intention to elect or defeat political candidates”(progressillinois). Unlike PACs, super PACs cannot make contributions to candidates, campaigns or parties. But the groups can use money by way of independent expenditures on things like ads and mailers in federal elections. There is no limit to how much they can spend. There are varying rules for Super PACs at the state level depending on the location, and in what is a perfectly legal maneuver in many states, Super PACs are at work in state elections, provide a foundation for future elections and serve as a source of money for other political committees. The ability to raise unlimited amounts of money from any donor and the gaps between federal and state campaign finance laws make super PACs much more useful than originally intended. Instead of being used just for a specific election, they are being devised for endless campaigns. Those super PACs that spent no money on federal independent expenditures either

The influence of outside power in American politics has been around for a long time. It has manifested itself in the form of a spoils system made famous by Andrew Jackson, and the rise of trusts helping to finance elections, which started the precedent of corporate donations to campaigns. While the type of influence has shifted, there has been a trend for corporations to control more in government. This was made clear by the 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, which lead to the rise of bigger political action committees (Super PACs) and eased regulations on money spending. In Philip Bump’s article “Jeb Bush and the first super PAC-run campaign”, he argues that Super PACs are a natural progression of how modern political campaigns are run. This is not completely false, but he makes no reference to the landmark Citizens United v. FEC, which is the true reason why PACs have risen so dramatically over the last few elections and how they could be cut out as easily as they were allowed in. This is the subject of Paul Blumenthal’s piece “Super PACs and Secret Money.”

illegal, with 52% of the participants feeling strongly about the issue (Cillizza & Blake, 2012). A

When running for office, special interest groups donate large sums to a candidate's campaign with expectation that the candidate, if elected, will support their cause This activity clouds the purpose of public service. An elected official is elected to serve his or her constituents, not the will of special interests groups. Campaign finance reform needs to be addressed to restore the faith of the American people in their elected

The so called super PACs have not been in existence for very long since America has remained used to the PACs. The electoral system has been used to the PACs that are political committees with the ability to raise up to $5000 in order to support particular candidates or issues. The super PACs on the other hand may raise unlimited amount from the donors who can remain anonymous if they choose to. The Super PACs are not allowed to donate directly to the individual campaigns or the candidates or the political parties. The super PACs may use as much money as they may collect to promote what they support or to attack what they oppose. The American political landscape saw the super PACS come into being in 2010 after the Supreme Court’s January 2010

-Political Action Committee also referred to as PAC is a committee, which is a group of organized people whose main focus is to raise and spend money to elect and vanquish political candidates. PAC is supported by groups like business that share the same ideologies. The political organizations are customarily political parties, candidates, committees or associations.

Super PACs are "Political Action Committees", which are not directly affiliated with any one politician. They are however, able to raise and spend vast sums of money to influence the political realm, be it through the bribery of a congressman who will push their ideas, or funding campaigns to get officials who they favor into power. These actions allow major corporations to be the puppet masters of the government, making those who favor them successful, whilst snuffing out those who don't. Because the only successful representatives are the ones the companies allow, the average person's concerns are rarely ever voiced. This completely destroys the idea of people having any say whatsoever.

The P&G Political Action Committee (P&G PAC) is an intentional, impartial political activity board of trustees. Enrolled with the U.S. Government Election Commission (FEC) and proper state workplaces, the PAC enables P&G representatives to pool individual, deliberate monetary commitments to bolster applicants at the elected, state and neighborhood level, who bolster issues essential to the business and the personal satisfaction in the groups in which they live and work.