The Pros And Cons 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

Limiting independent expenditures is limiting money spent by individuals and groups, such as 527’s and super PACs, for candidates and parties that the individuals and groups are not directly affiliated with. There are many viable arguments in favor of the proposal; one of the strongest arguments in favor is that the most affluent groups and people should not be the most influential groups and people. If there was no limit of independent expenditures, the influence that wealthy individuals and groups have over elected officials would be potentially magnified. Thus, as long as there are restrictions on the amount of money that individuals and groups may expend in support of candidates and parties, the influence of the preponderance of the population is closer to being equal.

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.

When a citizen turns 18, the law regards him or her as an independent entity, capable of voting, paying taxes, and serving in the military. To deny this citizen the opportunity to hold federal elected office is inconsistent and discriminatory. Voters should be the judge of a candidate's abilities and qualifications without the government setting restrictions based on certain personal characteristics.

DBQ - Democracy in Colonial America Essay The thirteen colonies in America began early on to develop democratic features. Accountability, individual or human rights, and regular free and fair elections are only a few principles that make up today's democracy. Today's democracy is quite different from how it was during colonial times. In colonial America, there were many democratic and undemocratic features that made democracy a work in progress.

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.

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

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.

Voting rights have been intertwined with every part of our history. The fight for the right to vote started evolving before the American Revolution and hasn’t completely stopped. Due to taxation and ruling from King George of England, many colonists were upset with how they were living in the new colonies. They wanted freedom from a king and independence so they could choose how to live. But the American Revolution did not bring as much freedom in government as the people may have hoped. The creation of the Constitution, and the then Bill of Rights, enabled the people to have the limited government they desired. It did not include policies for social welfare and justice, but it was open to be edited in the future. When certain policies, like voting, where brought to people’s attention, cultural differences impacted how some people voted throughout history. The founding fathers were smart to leave the Bill of Rights amendable. Through amendments

America has been built on the idea that as citizens, we have the choice to decide what is the best for our country. Millions of Americans cast their vote every election day to make sure their voices are heard on who is going to run their country and what new policies they will bring with them. As stated in Anny Shin’s article, “Takoma Park 16-year-old savors his history-making moment at the polls,” voting is a, “valuable privilege,” in which many don’t realize. In the United States, not every is allowed to vote, only 18-year old citizens are allowed to vote. However the number of 18-year olds voting is very low and this has been an issue in the political for quite a while. The concerns and desires of most millennials are not being expressed as many are not voting. Many, like the city of Takoma have proposed to allow 16 and 17-year olds to vote as they believe that voting among millennials will increase.

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.

The best example as to why is given by Jeb Bush who was leading in Super PAC money. Also, Donald Trump is leading in delegate count for the Republicans and Bernie Sanders has 1,357 delegates which, although less than Hilary, is more than most people expected him to receive. So does this mean that super PACs have no influence on American politics? No, candidates still need money in order to run their campaign and Super PACs are an easy way to receive this money but it is not the only way. The real question now is not how influential Super PAC money is in elections but, how influential money in general is in elections. Is all money corrupt or can a candidate be self-funded, like Trump, or receive grass roots support, like Sanders, with no strings

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

What is campaign finance? Campaign finance are all funds that are raised to promote candidates as well as defeating them.it PAC, SuperPAC, 527s, and 501 (c) 4 are what help contribute to campaign finances. What are these? What are their rules and what do they contribute? Since 1944 PAC’s have been around and PAC stands for a Political Action Committee. PAC’s are organized to help make and spend money when it comes to electing candidates as well as defeating them in debates. PAC’s are meant to represent interests such as labor, businesses, and ideological interests. PAC’s are able to give up to $5,000 to a candidate per election. Also, $15,000 to a national party committee and they are able to contribute $5,000 to another PAC. A SuperPAC was

As citizens, we have the power to vote for our representatives who we see fit to run the United States. We elect representatives, senators, and the President in good