Superpacs Pros And Cons

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

This diminishes the potential of an elitist concentration developing in the congress. By providing each politician (whose is significant enough to qualify for such funding) an equal amount of funding to use to campaign during an election, the frugality of limited resources will cause the funds to be spent deliberately, appealing to people through a political platform and message, and not due to behemoth largesse employed to win elections. According to author of Welfare for Politicians?: Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns John Samples, “Fundraising success correlates strongly with electoral success. In 2002, 95 percent of House winners raised more than their opponents. In 2004, more than 95 percent of House winners outspent their

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.

I feel the system is biased because there are inequalities among the representation and participation of interest groups and constituents in the political system. Unfortunately, poor and uneducated citizens aren’t as organized as interest groups, lobbyists and PACs because they lack the money, resources and connections necessary to influence congress members on legislative bills. It is evident that, “businesses, interest groups and labor unions are spending more than $100 million a month to lobby the federal government”(Associated Press, SFC, 3/7/98). “The actual population of interest groups in Washington surely reflects that there is a class bias in the membership of interest groups”(JBG).

At the basis of the campaign finance reform movement is the belief that everyone should have an equal say in the government, and that wealthy individuals or special interest groups should not be able to manipulate the system through excessive contributions to unduly influence elections. The more expensive it becomes to finance a

Hundreds of millions of dollars are raised and spent on elections every year in the United States of America. The 2012 election season is recorded to be the most expensive in history thus far. Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire that runs Las Vegas Sands (America’s largest casino company) reportedly contributed $150 million dollars to 2012 campaigns. According to Huffington Post, “He plans to double his political investments in 2016” (qtd in Mogulescu). Donors of campaign money play a huge part in presidential elections and where there is money being raised there is money being spent.

The main focus or goal that Congress Men possess is that of being reelected. Something they realize that is important is their own self-interests and following them. Now we all know that people have their own feelings when it comes to the topic of abortion or foreign aid. But congressmen know that and they realize they are going to make friends and enemies at the same time. The men who are the Congressional setting have experience, and prior knowledge of being within this so called “seat”. Meaning most congressional men would like to be reelected while some others do not. That is why it is our job to thin out, and select those who will continue to benefit Congress and rid out the others who are just

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

While voting results could give Trump a critical boost against his closest rivals, Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), a well-funded super PAC is ramping up its effort to discredit the New York businessman with a devastating new television advertisement that portrays him as a predatory huckster who scammed working- and middle-class

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

There were discusions in the media following the 2012 presidential election about whether the efforts of pro-Republican PACs were for nothing, after all, President Barrack Obama was relected, and the Democrats gained eight House seats while also expanding their majority in the Senate (Franz, 2014). Even though the Republican outcomes suggest the ineffectiveness of all the money spent, there is not enough evidence at this time to declare electioneering efforts from Super PACs ineffective (Franz, 2014). During the 2012 elections, Super PACs injected new perspectives on some issues, namely the economy, while talking a lot about the issues on which the candidates were focused. Super PACs forced candidates to respond to questions they may have otherwise avoided (Franz, 2014). As Franz (2014) writes, interest group effect on election outcomes is not yet conclusive, but it is probably not the case that they determine the outcome of many

American elections have always been supported by private money. These funds have come from the American people, special interest groups, and business. The funding amounts that the last two can give exceed what most Americans can give. As a result, politician frequently find themselves beholden to those who can give the most money—wealthy donors, special interests, and business. This has caused many civic groups and political reformists to advocate public funding of elections. Such public funding is a good idea for three reasons. First, elected officials should represent the best interests of the people. Wealthy donors and special interests may influence the vote of representatives by offering campaign support or threatening to withhold

Lawmakers have made several attempts to control how much money is allowed into elections during the many different time periods of American history. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act did attempt to limit the amounts of money in

The main concern regarding money being used for political purposes or contributions expenses is that the money will be used to boost approval ratings through media outlets. Monies used for airtime that is contributed by the millions by corporations to help campaign for their choice in officials should be considered their choice and their freedom of expression or speech. Many citizens only have television or internet as their main form of education regarding elections, therefore this may seem threatening to campaigns that may not have the wealthy corporations backing their progress. The problem that we are facing as a nation is not whether someone or something gives money to a political venture; it is simply education of the citizens that are voting. Any amount of manipulation by money or campaigns should not matter if a person is educated properly on who they are voting for and why.