Super Pacs Pros And Cons

Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to candidate’s campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.

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 United States has experienced fundamental changes that are dramatically detrimental to democracy. Voters’ ability to define political discourse has been so diminished that even decisive election results like Barack Obama’s in 2012 have little impact. That’s because powerful interests — freed to, in effect, buy elections, unhindered by downsized and diffused media that must rely on revenue from campaign ads — now set the rules of engagement. Lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain favorable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely both among and within political

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

In other words, Super PACs gives a voice to people with money. All corporations that have money to give, are giving millions and millions of dollars to the candidates across the board. Independent voters don't have that money to donate, so their

They own the elections and can shape the entirety of them, it is unfair to the average person because the ideals of the person they are voting for can be easily swayed by money from a special interest groups. Now that out of the way it leaves us with the issue of money, you can not have an election without money and financial backers. However left unchecked this could be a dangerous tool as proven by special interest groups who have led to the outcome of decisions throughout history. In the late 1800’s it was the sugar and banana lobbies that made us go into the latin countries and colonize them because it was the proper place to grow their crops.throughout the 1900’s the cigarette lobbies fought for laws to back them and not having to make them show what is in cigarettes. How do we solve this you ask? Well you show who is backing you and how much money they gave you this would show what the cause for every action you make is. If they are being backed by a big industry like oil and they put in place a law that favors oil and we will know why because money talks and it has some crazy ideas sometimes. These special interest groups are the real power behind the election along with the electoral college.

These interest groups, despite variation in specific motives, would join with state legislators in educating voters about the direct benefits of this proposed bill. This goal of capping personal income could also be recognized by super PAC’s, whose contributions to state campaigns generally have a stronger influence on government than compared to donations at the national level, as their sizable sums lead to direct favors from state officials (Blumenthal, 2015).

With companies already so strictly divided on the issues it makes it easy for lobbyists with aligning issues to jump on the bandwagon and provide monetary support assuming the candidate always votes the way that they please. The argument against the fight against big lobbyists is that it violates the first amendment, and that not only big oil and other companies of this nature are to blame. This only does to reaffirm my point! This issue is still being viewed as an “us versus them” problem, when in reality the whole system is flawed. Its not that left wing lobbying is bad and right is good or vice versa. It is that it is all bad, and it is all corrupting. The evil doesn’t lie in WHAT the group makes a candidate vote for, it is the fact that it makes a candidate vote for something at all. And now it has become a battle, between Exxon and green Peace, between WWF and Sunoco. People need to realize that they’re all a problem not simply one or another. In our current situation, partisan lobbyists are up in arms due to the fact that they don’t believe they’re getting enough money from the president’s new stimulus bill. They are arguing the first amendment rights to squeeze more money out of a very partisan bill already to get more money for their clients as if they need it! The country is verging on depression and they choose now to complain that their millionare clients aren’t quite rich

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 effects of the SuperPACs is something Americans are hearing more and more about in the 2016 campaign. Do Americans have a good understanding of what SuperPACs are and how they can affect the Presidential election.? This is something that needs to be discussed. As Americans, don’t we have the right to know who is financing the elections? These are only a few of the questions many people should be asking themselves.

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.

The majority of people are oblivious to the intergovernmental relations in how things go about. When it comes to election campaigns, the one with the majority of the money and the best name recognition wins, or has the best chance of upsetting the incumbent. This proves that self-interest plays a role in the connection of the polis and the market place being one in the same. The relations between the two play out so that it is mutually beneficial for the public policy makers and the leaders of the businesses in the market work together to increase each other’s profit in their separate day to day operations. If the leaders of the multi-billion dollar corporations or the policy makers do not comply with how they want the other to operate, both can take measures to harm one another. If the corporations act in a way the policy makers do not like, they can simply pass new rules and regulations to limit the businesses profit. If the public policy makers do not comply with the leaders of the market place, money can be funded into a competitors bid to challenge the non-complying incumbent for the policymaker’s office seat, which would make it difficult for them to seek

The economic structure of the United states will crumble if the money-hungry continue to distort the

As said by Joe Garecht, PAC that is an acronym for Political Action Committee, is an “organization that is formed to raise and spend money to support certain candidates, ballot propositions and issue campaigns (Garecht).” Meaning that it focuses on supporting nominees that take a certain stand on one or more issues or certain industries/areas. PACs are formed on an ideology that are either state-based or federal-based. With this government action can make a difference between profit and loss for a business. PACs are generally formed by organizations or individuals and channel the voluntary contributions they raise to candidates for elective offices, primarily in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. The formation of PAC forms contributions

Greed alone is not sufficient for policy failure, since the question then is why the people do not organize to counter the influence of the greedy interests and power seekers. The answer is the apathy of the voters. With the benefits concentrated among a few interests, and the costs spread among the whole population, the incentives of the greedy dominate the incentives of the masses. For the average voter, the cost of organizing and lobbying is greater than his own benefit, since the benefit goes to everybody.