Superpac Research Paper

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

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

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.

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.

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).

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 American society is plagued by the concept and the idea that the wealthy are secretly pulling the strings behind every political action and every policy move made by our national government. The government has preventative measures that prevent obscenely large donations from wealthy businesses, labor unions, and individuals, right? Actually, that all changed in 2010 in a court case called “Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission” (Hasen). The Supreme Court ruled that “the First Amendment barred a federal law preventing corporations and unions from spending their own funds to influence the outcome of elections,” which does not sound too horrific or detrimental does it (Hasen)? Well, as Mr. Donald Trump would say: “Wrong!” This ruling allowed for the creation of a horrific creation of what are now referred to as “Super PACs.” Super PACs are organizations that operate independently from any candidate or political party. These organizations are allowed to receive any amount of money from any person or organization, which they can they allot towards their own support of a political candidate. A good example of this would be Mitt Romney’s Super PAC entitled “Restore America,” which spent over twelve million dollars launching an ad campaign that attacked Newt Gingrich (MacMillen). These new Super PACs have no purpose other than to allow the rich and wealthy to gain leverage in politics and to push their own agenda by throwing money at candidates. Super PACs and PACs

An assumption of representation is elected representatives are agents who express district preferences in legislative activities. Voters have preferences, but do not know which candidate in the election best align with these preferences; therefore, campaign communication and advertisements are important avenues that help highlight congruency 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 environment involves three primary entities for outside independent expenditures, Super PACs, traditional Political Action Committees, and political parties.

The group originally did fund raising for events but has since added campaigning strategics to their list and, of course, winning major elections.

Proliferated in 2010, Super PACs have played an immensely influential role in the outcomes of elections and collective action. Super PACs are a new kind of committee that operates politically. As reported by opensecrets.org, Super PACs acquire any amount of donated money in a phenomenon that aggregates towards a fund “to advocate for or against political candidates and must report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis”. They are not allowed to give the money to the political candidates, campaigns, or parties explicitly. However, Super PACs can contribute to the outcome of an election by paying for ads that are in support of the candidate that they want to take office, or spend

Imagine living under a totalitarian oligarchy, where the wealthy and elite have control over every aspect of your life. Oppression is everywhere, and nobody cares about the poor or their needs. Well that seems like fiction to us in our democracy, but it could become our reality. Super PACS (Political Action Committees) need to have limitations for how much an individual/corporation can give before it is too late. First of all, unlimited campaign contributions through Super PACS put the needs of those with the money above those in need of desperate help. Secondly, limits on Super PACS would allow the middle class/ lower class to have a greater say in politics while not harming the 1st amendment. Lastly, unlimited campaign contributions through Super PACS give an unfair advantage and ruins our democratic process.

FEC in 2010 was Speechnow.org v. FEC. This court case was created by the organization Speechnow.org who wished to accept donations from individual people rather than corporations. After failing the first time in court, the case was approved, with the court ruling that, “contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption” (McCutcheon v. FEC). As a result, this court case gave birth to a new era of funding campaigns: Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs). Because of the ruling from Speechnow.org v. FEC, Super PACs are able to “raise an unlimited amount of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then speed unlimited sums to overly advocate for or against a political candidate” (PACs). The only restriction with a Super PAC is that they cannot directly give their money to a candidate, and their spending cannot be parallel with the candidates. Essentially this means Super PACs may be used to create TV advertisements for candidates, without ever associating with the candidate. These court cases have essentially allowed to use of corporations to fund campaigns, without ever technically doing so. As a result of this, attempting to run a campaign without the help of PACs is highly

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