The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's history and the reasons behind the public outcry against the existence of Super PACs.
A Super PAC is an independent- expenditure only committee that has the legal power to raise unlimited sums of money in campaign contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other (lobbyist) groups. The committee was the result a landmark Supreme Court Decision (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee) that dictated that campaign contributions to third party groups cannot be limited (Wetheimer, “Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs: A Little History Is in Order”). The term Super PAC can be attributed to Eliza Newlin Carney, a reporter who worked for CQ Roll Call. She was the first person to have used the term Super PACs in the context of the word definition.
Although Super PACs were not meant to openly support any single candidate, the committee has become a force to reckon with this campaign season. Its power and financial backing of particular candidates can be seen and felt...
... middle of paper ...
...obby groups and big corporations. He will be the best game player of them all because he will wear 2 political faces the way an entertainer wears the entertainment mask. He will be the master of telling people what they want to and need to hear all the while working in the background to get his political backers the legislative deals that they desire. That is the main reason why people are up in arms against the existence of Super PACs.
Works Cited
Hudson, John. “The Media Convinced Everyone to Hate Super PACs”. Politics. The Atlantic Wire. 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2012.
Scola, Nancy. “The Darkest Day in the History of American Super PACs”. Election 2012. The Atlantic. 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2012.
Wertheimer, Fred. “Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs: A Little History Is in Order”. Politics. Huff Post. 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United. NCPAC generated enormous fundraising for campaigns, including spending $1.2 million in the 1980 election that attacked six Democrats in the Senate.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
Interest groups, lobbyists, large corporations, and PACs try to influence the congressional committees' bills so they can have a say in the legislative process. When an interest group hears about a bill that is being debated on in a committee, they try to influence a members vote and they try to get a part of the bill changed. For example, a lobbyist came to me on a bill I proposed on making health care plans have no minimum requirement on benefits the company gives to its patients. He told me about how he did not get the right treatments and tests done on diseases he has and now is suffering badly from them. It was because the health plan did not have to give him anything extra. He changed my mind on the bill, and I changed the bill to setting a minimum standard on benefits given to patients.
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
Political systems within the United States work together to establish laws and create boundaries for their people. Government officials work with the Senate in Congress to help establish regulations not only for the American people but also for corporations in order to not become monopolies in today’s market. This all corresponds to a legislative process in order for Congress to have a clear idea of passing effective laws that help reinforce results within our society. Members of Congress and political affiliations are impacted by representatives from large business corporations through the process of bribing these government officials into supporting the ideas and desires of these corporations. In order for this to occur, these companies engage in lobbying. Lobbying is the attempt to influence government officials in decision making processes or swaying the government by employing tactics through various agreements in the form of verbal or written statements to public officials in Congress. This usually occurs through donations of large amounts of money to members of Congress as a way of bribing them to support the representatives of these corporations. Therefore, corporations have widely influenced Congress, making it difficult to pass laws and bills that are not in favor of these corporations. Thus, lobbying is influenced by money and promotes the interests of these specific corporations.
Donald Trump can be appreciated for his cunning business savvy and an ability to at various times throughout his career, make it big. By co-creating this reality show with Mark Burnett, not only has he capitalized on the public's desire to fantasize about (and for a precious few, compete for) achieving a high-profile, financially lucrative career as a business mogul, he has also brought to the mainstream audience a heated, emotional and stimulating debate about something that we all seem to have an opinion on: what it takes to be a great leader.
People always tell you that there are two subjects never to bring up at a dinner party, one is religion and the other is politics. Why is that? It is because both subjects invoke very strong emotions. Rather than saying something inappropriate, most people avoid talking about religion altogether. But get those same people in a room and ask their political opinions, that is a different story. For many reasons, people are vocal about their political beliefs (Bentz, 2013). Unfortunately, individuals will judge people by their political beliefs first, without notice to other important aspects of their lives. And that is the reason that politics is not brought up in dinner parties.
Along with Obama, Vogel mentions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as critics of large donors, who then also were leading in super PAC fundraisers. Though Vogel mentions many people and events, he never goes into great detail about any of it. Even with the immense amount of information that is left to the reader to decipher and research, one must ask themselves this question, “what are the effects of big money on modern politics.”
In today’s politics, interest groups play a large role in the government system. An interest Group is defined as 'an organized body of individuals who try to influence public policy.' This system is designed so that interest groups would be an instrument of public influence on politics to create changes, but would not threaten the government much. These organizations are either made up of people who represent a different organization or people who represent themselves. Interest groups represent the citizens’ interests and views, while expressing their own needs as well. They are the link between people and politics, giving a way for the public to voice their opinions. Members of interest groups use different tactics to basically impose their wants or needs onto the government by lobbying, educating, and campaigning.
The advocacy explosion is strongly linked to the decline of the American political party and the role of the political parties in elections. As interest groups have gained more power and had a larger control over politics and political goods the power that is exerted by political parties has dwindled. The power of the interest group has grown larger with the amount of members and the financial rewards that have come with the new members. In elections interest groups do not usually participate directly with the candidate or the election. Berry points out that “Groups often try to leverage their endorsement to obtain support for one of their priorities” (Berry, 53). With interest groups spreading their resources around the actual election can be affected very minimally by the many interest groups that contribute money to the election. However, the candidates who obtain political office through the help of special interest money still owe some sort of loyalty to the interest group regardless of which party wins the election. This loyalty and the promise of more money in the future gives the elected of...
Lobbying involves more than persuading legislators. Professional lobbyists investigate and examine legislation or dogmatic proposals, are present at congressional hearings, and teach government officials and company officers on imperative issues. Lobbyists in addition work to transform public opinion all the way through advertising campaigns or by control 'opinion leaders'. There are approximately 30,000 recorded lobbyists, other than that does not comprise the public relations experts, marketers, support personnel pollsters, and others who support their work. The majority lobbyists are hard–working professionals who comprehend how to find the way the political process, gain access to lawmakers and main executive–branch officials, and construct a strategy to accomplish their legislative objective. Whether or not you like the renowned place they engage in our system, lobbyists have turn out to be such an essential part of...
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.