The Importance Of Super Pacs

With electing candidates, the PAC can offer anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 towards a candidate committee, or a national party committee. With money being a sole factor with the PAC, it plays as a huge role with power being that it determines influence when it comes to elections and/or legislation. Another similar Political Action Committee is known as the Super PAC, raises an unlimited amount of funds from corporations, unions, associations, and citizens. The Super PAC spends its funds towards advocating for or against political candidates at a federal level. With the unlimited amounts of money being brought to the Super PAC, they must undergo a monthly reporting of their funds to the Federal Election

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

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.

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 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

Citizens United impacted the Political Institutions by allowing unions, corporations, and associations to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. Saying that they won't coordinate their efforts with a candidate. Citizens United helped unleash unprecedented amounts of outside spending in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Before Citizens United was created, outside groups legally limited they ways they could use the money to influence elections. Citizens United teamed up with a lower court case and they cleared the way for direct corporate spending and created the super PACs, which accepts unlimited contributions from different corporations or individuals in making expenditures. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations

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

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.

In 2012, in an effort to win reelection as President of the United States, Barack Obama raised $1072.6 million dollars. $78.8 million of it was raised by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. (Ashkenas, Ericson, Parlapiano, and Willis, 2012) PACs or Political Action Committees are groups formed in order to raise and spend money for a political candidate. PACs began in 1944 and had strict guidelines set by the Federal Election Committee in which an individual could only donate $2,500 to a PAC and companies were not allowed to donate money. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case which indirectly led to the formation of Super PACs which allowed for unlimited spending and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations to political

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.

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

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.

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