Superpac Research Paper

elections all the way to choosing the next president of the united states. In recent years however there has been an upsurge of people making an independent political action committees called super PAC. Super PACs are unique due to them being allowed to spend an unlimited amount of funds in support which ever candidate they choose. there are however some strings attach to super PACs such as them not being allowed to give money they have collected directly to the candidate or coordinating with the candidate's own political action committee. Super PACs have created a issue on whether it is fair to the opponents of whoever is running against them if they do not have a super PAC, because they can not match the amount of spending a person has spent on political ads or other forms to help get votes when compared to people who have a super PAC helping them.

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 history of the government attempting to reform or suppress candidate donations for the office of presidency goes further back than you may think. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA). This was important because it was to set limits on the amount of money campaigns could spend on advertisement and mandated the reporting of the source of funds to the federal government (Magleby, Light, & Nemacheck, 2015, p. 249). According to Magleby, after the major scandal of Watergate, Congress made stricter laws regarding limitations on spending and contributions of the candidates. Congress created the Federal Elections Commission (FEC); accordingly, the responsibilities of the FEC are to inforce the laws set forth by the FECA.

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.

“Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC 's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.”2

After Mr.s Sowers has chosen his associates to venture with, he will have to file with the Federal Election Commission to form his pact. There are two different kinds of PACs: separate segregated funds and non-commissioned committees. A separate segregated funds pact is based around a group of people like an organization or labor union. The separate part of the name comes from the fact that the funds are from separate entities; this type of PAC will receive its money from the donations of individuals who choose to support our cause. On the other end, we have the nonconnected committees which are not going to be tied down with other entities and will be able to receive their funding from the public population. Since the Free Blind Siberian Tiger

In 2012 election, there were huge amounts of money going into political campaign spending. Corporations were donating to Mitt Romney’s campaign and trying to denounce Obama’s spot. In the article ““Citizens United and the Corporate Court” by Jamie Raskin, she says that “there are 844 Super PAC’s and countless 501(c) vehicles; experts say billions of dollars, much of it untraceable, will flood the 2012 election” (Raskin 20). She explains that billions and billions of dollars are spent in just wining a presidential campaign which is being untraceable. Lots and lots of Super PAC’s are taking advantage of the system and donating all this money to a presidential campaign, which in return, the president will sponsor or vote on a certain bill which

Another source of funding would be the candidates themselves. Candidates that spend their own money is protected by the first amendment. There are some limitations

Americans can see how this money is either effective or ineffective because there are two candidates left in the race who declared that they did not want a Super PAC funding them; However, both of these candidates have two very different reasons for rejecting Super PACs. These two candidates are Bernie Sanders, who is a democrat, and Donald Trump, who is a republican. Sanders did not want any Super PAC funding because he is tired of big money, he does not want money to influence his decisions in any

Along with the rise of soft money, there has been a proliferation of political action committees (PACs). Under current law, PACs (which are basically an association of people with similar interests) are permitted to contribute $5,000 per federal candidate per election. Critics say incumbents, uniquely situated to raise PAC funds in Washington, derive an unfair advantage over challengers.

Politicians run campaigns to gain support from voters and donors so that they can win an election. However, running campaigns require money, which is provided by many corporations to the political parties. In 2010, the Supreme Court made a decision in Citizens United v. FEC where companies can contribute to political parties during elections. The court ruled “that the First Amendment protected the right of corporations and unions to spend money on political speech” (NPR Staff 1).

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).

Transparency is an essential characteristic and quality to have in an organization, workplace, business, leadership, government, etc. Transparency creates an open communication and trust but, without transparency, distortion is the result. The push to this distortion was the court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United case which opened up the gates for independent organizations to begin to raise and spend exceptional amounts on political advertising just like Super PAC. As I said before a lot of the money comes from corporations and interest groups. For instance, during the 2014 midterm election, Super PACs and other groups spent about $4 billion just to influence the voters. But it is not

Under new rules, corporations can’t directly give money to candidates but had to form a corporate PAC and register that money with the Federal Election Commission. The company funds can operate the PAC in which they can pay for staff and the PACa corporate PAC can contribute up to $5,000 per candidate to an unlimited number of candidates. However, money is funneled through the Super Pacs which can raise and spend unlimited amounts on politics but must operate independently of candidates and cannot contribute to individual candidates. Super PACs do have to file regular financial disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission, including the source of donations and the amounts given. The 527 group is named for a section in the tax code, a 527 group can run political ads with unlimited individual and corporate contributions but must disclose donors to the IRS. However, the drawback of the 527 status is the disclosure of donor names. The IRS created the 527 selection specifically to permit organizations and committees to collect contributions for political activity. This means a 527 must report donors and contributions much like a candidate who files a campaign contribution report to state and federal election commissions. 501(c) is a nonprofit status, which is meant for organizations that primarily focus on social welfare. Like

It was after Watergate, that Congress enacted legislation that limited the sum of money that individuals could contribute and the amount they could independently spend in support of or in opposition to particular political candidates. Congress’s purpose was to establish a more “fair” political process. The ultimate goal was to decrease the probability of corruption of candidates and equalize the influence between corporations and unions. In 2010, that would all change when the Supreme court would overturn this ruling in the Citizens United verses the Federal Election Commission. The Supreme court would now allow for corporations and unions to use their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures, which they