Super Pacs Case Study

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

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 issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

In recent elections on the congressional level as well as for President we see the growing influences of interest groups in the form of PAC’s and Super PAC’s to back candidates. Super PAC’s can spend an unrestricted amount money to support a certain problems or candidate but cannot donate directly to the campaigns. PAC’s work with campaigns directly reallocating donations to candidates and parties.

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

While there is a limit to the amount an individual, group, or corporation can give directly to a political candidate, there is no limit to the amount of money one can give to a super PAC. These super PACs work closely with a candidate’s campaign and pay for many of the candidate’s expenses. Super PACs spend a lot of money on expensive television advertisements to endorse their candidate and degrade their candidate’s opponents. While candidates often have to disclose their direct campaign contributions, super PACS do not. Super PACs are able to keep the sources of most of their funds hidden from the public. Some Senators and Representatives have been working on passing legislation to remove the cap on individuals’ direct campaign contributions. This would allow candidates to campaign without super PACs, making the sources of campaign funding more clear (Price

That is one reason why the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision was extremely significant for American politics because it transformed how corporations are viewed by the law and gave corporations the right to spend an unlimited amount of money on candidate elections, which in turn gives corporations the ability to shift and influence

These laws were the perfect way for the state to make sure that the system is stable in the future. Just recently on April 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down the overall cap on monetary political donations. This is a classic case of the state adopting policies to ensure the stability of the system. Coping the scheme of citizens united the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allows an individual to donate as much money as they please to federal candidates in a two year election cycle. Although federal law bans direct contributions to campaigners by corporations and business, super pacs allow money to get to the politicians without direct contact. But this law still allows wealthy individuals to support the candidates that will represent their needs and wants in the national government. This creates an unfair system aimed at helping the elites because they will have more money to donate therefore will have more of the campaigners attention. Justice Breyer realized the importance of this decision being turned down and was recorded writing “Where enough money calls the tune,” he wrote, “the general public will not be heard.” (New York Times).

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a "law that requires all candidates to fully disclose all contributions and expenditures in excess of $100." (pg.161) This law proved very helpful because in 1968, before they really started pushing disclosure, candidates would report spending $8.5 million but four years later candidates were reporting that they had spent about $88.9 million. It was a giant leap in what they were spending, over ten times the said amount. The FECA also made it to where "it was permissible for corporations and labor unions to set up separate, segregated funds that could be used for a political purpose." (pg.161) Having this created a lot of PACs that would give political parties and interest groups money to running

Candidate-centered campaigns need financial support in order to win elections, the current state of campaign funding largely looks at campaign contributor motives, which is a component part to understanding funding disparities. Individuals support ideological candidates through donations (Barber 2014; La Raja and Schaffner 2015), and large funding backers, mainly interest groups, contribute financial support to incumbent candidates to gain access to decision-making (Fouirnaies and Hall 2014). Political parties seek to support their party’s candidate, while Super PACs financially support ideological candidates in competitive elections (Miller and Dowling 2012; La Raja and Schaffner 2015; Desmarais, La Raja, Kowal 2015). The motives for financially backing a

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

To combat too much political influence from advertising, the federal government passed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or as it’s more commonly known, the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA sought to expand disclosure on soft money and changed some limits on hard money. The key piece of this legislation is the electioneering communications statute, or section 203. This piece of BCRA was intended to limit the influence of PACs by restricting their ability to air advertisements right before elections. McCain-Feingold prevented corporations and PACs from showing political commercials sixty days before an election and thirty days before a primary (FEC BCRA 90).

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads