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.
Large campaign contributions from individuals, groups, and corporations have always been a hot topic in politics. Money and popularity are how elections are won. Whomever has the most money, and the most contributions is able to get their name out into the eye of the public. Usually, in American presidential elections, the most well funded parties are the Republican, and Democratic parties. By November 26, 2011, Barack Obama along with the democratic party, and Priorities USA Action Super PAC raised 1072.6 million dollars for their campaign, while Mitt Romney, the Republican party and Restore Our Future Super PAC raised 992.5 million dollars total for their campaign. Almost
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 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
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.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
Clawson, Dan and Alan Neustadtl, Denise Scott. Money Talks: Corporate PACs and Political Influence. 1992.
Should we enact a campaign finance reform and ban soft money contributions? Campaign finance is among the top governmental and social issues of today's society. The truth is that today's campaigns are being financed by members of supported political parties that can afford to send their candidate to the top. These contributions are known as soft money contributions. Soft money can be defined as, unlimited union and corporate donations to political parties that allow special interest power brokers to have their way in Washington. Ultimately, These contributions are taking away pure democracy that is given to today's citizens. I, particularly, am interested in this issue because I would like to see the potential that our leaders have by running a successful campaign without large amounts of soft money contributions. It is important that candidates take our democratic system seriously and not toy around with our involvement in today's governmental system. Soft money contributions amounted to $487 million in the last election cycle, up from $271 million in 1996 and $86 million in 1992, according to the Federal Election Commission.
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.
The SEIU engages in several kinds of election lobbying. They utilize their political action committee, endorse candidates, use their general treasury fund for independent expenditures and PAC contributions, the SEIU endorses candidates and mounts voter mobilization drives to get out the vote on election day. SEIU’s political action committee is called SEIU CORE (Committee on Political Education). SEIU CORE’s membership consists of current SEIU members, organizational staff and SEIU retirees who contribute to the fund. SEIU CORE has increased its political activity and election lobbying in the past 12 years. In 2008, SEIU CORE reported 47 million dollars in expenditures during the 2008 election cycle (FEC 2008). During the 2010 election cycle, the SEIU CORE spent $36,260,831 dollars and contributed $1,855,500.00
Congress ratified several pieces of legislation in the years following to limit the contribution of individual donors, whether they are PACs or individuals. Unfortunately, groups found ways to circumvent these statutes, ushering in the era of Super PACs. Prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United, the FEC permitted PACs to donate up to $2,500 for a given election. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that PACs can spend an unlimited amount of money on a candidate’s campaign so long as no collusion between the PAC and the candidate occurs. The implications of this decision include the following: corporations and labor unions can endorse any candidate without a spending limit and apply for tax-exempt status, individual contributions to campaigns will most likely constitute a much smaller portion of the total campaign funds, and that money will drive campaign
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 campaign, the more important the money becomes, and subsequently the less involved the candidate becomes in listening to the "voices of the average Americans." The Federal Election Commission, established in 1974, was the first independent institution created to monitor and enforce the campaign finance reforms that were designed to limit [individual or corporate] contributions that would disproportionately influence a federal election. The Commission also tries to ensure that the campaign finance information is accessible to the public, because "disclosure…is the single greatest check on the excesses of campaign finance," (Sabato).
A hot topic in recent years has been the influence of Political Action Committees or PACs, which are specific special interest groups that raise and give money in order to have their policies shown in government. These PACs represent groups of people that have professional int...
We elect politicians on the basis on the issues by which they stand, and these issues are either held up or weakened by the numerous interest groups that exist today. Interest groups target both major and minor issues, using all of their resources to sponsor or overpower the groups’ concern. Interest groups are composed of a limited range of the body of voters who have a great stake in the issues their group support. They make evident the issues their group supports. Their resources are used in an attempt to make their issue public policy. Interest groups are persistent; they do not give up until they succeed. They lobby congress, take legal action, and attempt to influence election results in order to benefit their cause. ”The AARP monitors local and national legislation of interest to its members.”1 The AARP, an example of a non-PAC interest group, focus their efforts to electioneering and media. They influence the elections through their voter guides, election forums and the large senior voting population. Through television, radio, and periodicals the AARP is able to achieve many of their goals to aid retired persons.
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...
Running an election campaign is very strenuous and time consuming. In many ways it is a balancing act. One must deal with maintaining public visibility, appealing to the voters, developing a platform, kissing disgusting babies, and meeting as many people as possible. However, one of the most important and difficult parts of the job is raising money. Money is necessary for all parts of the campaign, and without it, a campaign can grind to a halt. In this paper I will attempt to explain how a candidate gets the money to campaign.