Post #3: Due Friday 1/27
After the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United decision many predicted that "super PACs" were going to destroy American elections. There has already been a lot of super PAC money in this presidential election and a lot of speculation on its impact in the Republican primary race.
Research the role of "super PACs" in this presidential election. If you need a place to start go to opensecrets' list of super PACs. You can use the names of the super PACs to help guide your search. Then answer the following questions in your post:
What are the positives and negatives of super PACs in the presidential race? Do you think they play an overall positive or negative role in helping the voters make an educated decision on who they should vote for?
I look forward to reading your posts. Please post ON TIME. Thank you.
Labels: campaign finance, PAC, presidential campaign
posted by Ms. Aby @ 1:00 PM
23 Comments:
Super PACs have played a huge role in this year’s election. While, these groups were made Constitutional in Citizen’s United, there are numerous pros and cons associated with them [1]. First of all, super PACs are not highly regulated by the government, which makes unethical and dishonest practice a major concern [2]. There are small fines, and rare investigations into these acts [2]. For instance, the super PAC, Winning Our Future, created a half hour film titled “King of Bain,” which contained many inaccurate attacks on Mitt Romney [3]. This film, created by a pro-Gingrich super PAC, led many to believe false overstatements and elaborated truths about Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital [3]. Not only does this hurt Romney's reputation, it also is responsible for creating rumors and false accusations about a candidate. It is detrimental for an election, which is suppose to be democratic and fair. In addition, the idea of the super PAC supports the elitist theory of the rich being the main influence in government and elections [2]. With the lack of restrictions on fundraising, those PACs with the support of the wealthy will thrive much more than those of the majority, such as some labor unions [1]. Then, those wealthy groups that support winning candidates have impact in the elected officials’ decision, especially if they need to be funded for reelection. In addition, there is no rigid disclosure rules, which makes it much easier for these wealthy billionaires to donate money without being attached to it [5]. For example, the super PAC, American Crossroads, has a site set up, Crossroads GPS, which allows secret contributions to the group [5]. While Crossroads GPS groups cannot specifically support or disapprove of a candidate, they still can make issue ads to reflect past decisions of candidates [5]. Additionally, this super PAC is detrimental to the current president’s agenda [5]. Their goal is to have a Republican be elected into office, while at the same time blocking President Obama’s agenda [6]. Being harmful to current legislation will just create more roadblocks for necessary change in government and in America’s policies. Moreover, some believe that this money would be much better and more accounted for if it went straight to candidate [2]. This would make it more democratic for just the voters to decide the eleciton, rather than the super PAC. Lastly, super PACs increase the public focus to be on the horse-race of the election, rather than their beliefs and platforms [4].
Contrasting, supports of super PACs believe they are restoring America’s constitutional right of free speech in politics [2]. With restrictions on donations, people are restricted for their right of symbolic speech to support a candidate who parallels their own personal views. Moreover, super PACs are democratic and reinstating the belief that the government should be run by the people and for the people [2]. It shows how the people are campaigning their message and political beliefs, rather than just the single candidate [2]. While people are able to contribute as much as they want to a super PAC, the super PAC is still accountable for providing the FEC with reports on its fundraising and usage of the money [7].
First off, I find it important to note that money has been and will always be a factor in elections. Moreover, people with more money have a greater interest in the economy and the government. If the wealthy are taxed to the same percentage as everyone else*, they should be able to, having a greater stake in financing government, exert more force on the democratic system via contributions to candidates. Everything requires money; therefore to get any thing done, it needs to be financed. The people paying for the most of it, assuming they are the wealthy upper class, should get more say in what goes on in the government because they ‘own’ more of it so to speak. If our government is ‘By the people, for the people, and of the people’, shouldn’t those that make the bulk of it happen get more say? Super PACs allow this to happen exactly, but only in theory. I question how representative the groups are of the population of people who pay taxes (thus, the people deserving to vote). On the listing on Open Secrets.org, all of the highest spending super PACs appeared to only favor one candidate while not providing any info on where the money, or what specific interest other than their advocacy of a candidate they supported, came from (1,2). Open Secrets.org did show where the money went, however. Much of it went to media providers, presumably for airtime for ads (3). In this reality, I don’t think that it’s fair to have undisclosed donors; it’s more of a negative than anything else in the current situation. I feel that the anonymity in donations can only mean that they don’t reflect the will of the people, otherwise why hide it? Unless some sort of regulations are imposed the system is set up to be less democratic.
*My argument assumes that at some point in the near future taxes will not be decreased for the wealthy, but instead increased to match the lower and middle-income makers. Even if this does not pan out to be the case the wealthy still pay more as they control the majority of the wealth in the nation. Feel free to tell me I’m wrong and my argument is invalid if it makes you feel better but I’ll be disappointed if that’s your entire beef with me.
1 http://restoreourfuture.com/
2 http://www.winningourfuture.com/
3 http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
A big problem with super PACs is that they allow candidates to claim they are taking the high road while the PACs prepare mud-slinging ads. Citizens United gave to much power to the wealthiest 1% in our nation, allowing them to have a huge influence in selecting our leaders (1). By November's general election, corporations and the rich will have given millions of dollars to Super PACs. Most of this money, around 60 cents for every dollar contributed to campaigns, will buy airtime for political attack ads. News stations hardly ever reveal where funding for these ads come from. They also do not spend their programming time looking closely at these ads to find out which claims may be completely fabricated (1).
Hardly any super PACs represent our nation’s “silent majority,” or the large group of moderate voters. The super PACs mainly spend time and money supporting the right wing of the Republican Party and the left wing of the Democratic Party. The top ten super PACs had spent $36,314,420 as of January 26th, 20120. Nine of the top ten super PACs supported conservative candidates or conservative causes and those super PACs spent a total of $34,910,905. The conservative super PACs spent 96% of the total super PAC expenditures and liberal super PACs spent a total of 4%. This does not reflect the electorate as a whole.
It's estimated that political ads will air up to 200,000 times before viewers become voters in November. When researchers examined sample markets with a race for the House of Representatives back in 2004, political advertising outstripped news coverage of those elections by an average of 6 to 1. In markets where Senate races took place that year, political ads exceeded news coverage of those races by as much as 17 to 1. The situation is likely to be even worse in a post-Citizens united world. A 2011 FCC staff report found that 33 percent of commercial TV stations air little to no local news whatsoever (1). A 2010 USC Annenberg School report showed that in the average 30-minute local news broadcast, less than 30 seconds is devoted to hard local government news, including reporting on political campaigns.
The super PAC funds the dirty work of attack ads while the candidate gets to remain high and dry. They are not required to appear on camera or to say that he or she approved the message. The super PACs are supposed to be independent of the candidate’s campaign, but that does not always seem to be the case. Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, is run by Carl Forti, political director of Romney’s 2008 campaign. Its treasurer is Charles Spies, was part of the Romney 2008 general counsel. Its fundraiser, Steve Roche, headed the Romney 2012 finance team until jumping to the super PAC last summer. Another fact that goes against the PAC’s supposed independence; Romney himself has spoken at “Restore Our Future” events (2).
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/campaign-ads-2012_b_1233354.html
2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/05/its_the_super_pac_era_ 112652.html
3. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
Super PACs are becoming a very influential part of the 2012 presidential election. They come up in almost every newscast and influence every debate. They pump huge sums of money that would simply be impossible otherwise. PACs are certainly increasing the amount of ads and other information that is being put out there regarding all of the candidates. This could be seen either as a positive aspect or perhaps negative, because most of it is misleading and heavy-handed. Many people are arguing that super PACs are just extensions of campaigns, and are run by related people. Gabriela Schneider of the Sunlight foundation said of the Pro-Mitt Romney super PAC “They think like the campaign because they actually used to run the campaign,” “That’s a level of knowledge that a complete outsider, and these groups are supposed to be outsiders, wouldn’t have.” (1) Recently, a Newt Gingrich super PAC contributed to the campaign by spending $6 million to enter the negative ad was in Florida with Romney. The ads perhaps raise awareness by focusing generally on issues relating to Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusets and also aligning Romney with President Obama. (2) Others might argue that such ads and thoughts simply complicate the election and campaign in ways that are unproductive, and stray from the issues which should be the focus. I think that people would be able to make the most education decision in a world where there were no political advertisements, specifically on television because they all prey on human weaknesses. They use biases and certain phrases and images to manipulate peoples’ thoughts in ways that should probably not be the most relevant to the voting decision. They might increase knowledge of the candidates, but I do not think it is productive or objective knowledge. Unions have been criticizing super PACs because of the lack of responsibility people have been taking in them. While unions and super PACs were competitive in terms of the amount of money spend in the 2010 election, but disclosure laws are where they differ. (3) Some would argue it makes it possible to buy a democratic election result. I think this is probably at least somewhat true and I think they are unnecessary. I wouldn’t say that any recent elections that have not had super PACs have been lacking in the amount of information put out or even television ads purchased. There are other ways to find information about a candidate that better prepare someone for deciding how to cast their vote.
1. http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/01/26/pro-mitt-romney-super-pac-parallels-campaign/
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57365309-503544/gingrich-super-pac-enters-negative-ad-war-with-$6-million-buy/
3. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/politics/politics_super-pac-unions_1_american-crossroads-labor-unions-political-spending?_s=PM:POLITICS
Super PACs are a complete failure in terms of their widely- announced goal of increasing political freedom of speech. They are an exceptionally negative influence on the integrity and factuality of our presidential elections and are a quite destructive force acting on the average citizen's education regarding election matters. At this point in time, with this being the first election super PACs will play a role in, it is hard to pin down the nature of exactly what they will do to elections, but I'm not liking what I'm seeing. I have a great many complaints regarding super PACs and not all of them are pertinent to the topic of the post, so I will try to restrain myself.
Elections have been drastically better funded since Citizens United- and most of that is going into negative ads (1). These ads seem to be having serious fact-checking issues(2). The groups responsible for this influx of cash are super PACs, groups capable of spending an unlimited amount of money on a candidate's campaign, so long as they do not directly coordinate with the candidate. These groups all have names that are variations on the same theme, resulting in confusing similarity (3). I have major issues with all these points, but let's start with the simplest first; I want to get it off my chest.
The simplest complaint is that regarding the confusingly similar names. The names of super PACs for a few of the candidates in the Iowa caucus: Restoring Our Future, Winning Our Future, Make Us Great Again, and Our Destiny. Also, Red, White and Blue and Endorse Liberty (3). Does it bother anyone else that these are all exactly the same names? Seriously, I don't think anybody in our AP Gov class can keep all these straight, much less the American public. This bothers me greatly!
Now, the flaws inherent in the definition of a super PAC. This is the age of communication. It is nearly impossible to not communicate with someone. The express prohibition on coordination will cover the most obvious forms, no other. Super PACs are frequently run by people from the campaign they are supporting(4), and candidates can use public methods to communicate with super PACs. Private communications and coordination seem somewhat unnecessary because of this. I'm going to go ahead and hypothesize about the predominant effect this has on super PACs: negative ads. I'd like to suggest that one reason we are seeing so many negative ads this election cycle is that super PACs cannot coordinate to form a coherent positive image that meshes with the image a candidate is trying to put out. Since they cannot guarantee that the positive ads they produce will in fact garner lots of support for their candidates because of this, they produce few positive ads. Negative ads, on the contrary, are guaranteed to tear down the opponent. Negative ads therefore become the safer thing for super PACs to run. Also, already noted, is that super PACs give candidates a degree of plausible deniability. They can't control what their super PAC says- they haven't been working with them (4)! It's an old adage that he who throws mud must get a little on himself. Super PACs have shaken this rule, though, by allowing proxy mud-throwing. While there is evidence that some of this is splashing back (5) candidates still seem eager to use super PACs as a chance to throw negative ads around.
In short? I think that super PACs have no positive role to play and a great many negative roles in campaigning. I would go so far as to say that they are actively and willfully working against voter education regarding candidates in elections.
(1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/elliottsuthers/2012/01/12/why-all-the-negativity/
(2) http://factcheck.org/2012/01/did-gingrich-slash-federal-spending/
(3) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012 (4)http://www.npr.org/2012/01/20/145500168/superpacs-celebrate-anniversary-of-citizens-united-case
(5) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/16/news/la-pn-santorum-romney-super-pac-demand-20120116
With the ever increasing price of campaigns politicians are finding it much more difficult to campaign. A positive point about super pacs is that they provide canidates with much needed funds to run ads on the air etc. A couple negative aspects about pacs are that they disproportionatly (can't spell sorry) favor right wing canidates also they give what some would say too much power to the very wealthy lastly super pacs are not heavily regulated by the government. There is no doubt that super pacs have played a roll or will play a roll in the presidential election. Overall I think super pacs are a negative thing. The contributors to super pacs come primarily from the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the country and this gives them way too much of a potential influence on candidates that realistically could be the next president. Due to the fact that super pacs are mainly contributed to by the weathly they also historically suport either extreme left or extreme right positions but a majority right. This is a simple correlation between the top 1% and supporting the republican party which can be explained by the simple fact that they do not wish to be taxed. If super pacs are mainly supporting right wing candidates then they have a clear advantage to being elected to office and will most likely help the people who got them there by encouraging a favorable tax code for the wealthy. I do not know much more in regaurds to the ammount of regulation super pacs have say to any other group contributing money.
Money plays a huge role in the campaign process. It can come from individuals, companies, interest groups or super PACs. I don’t think that super PACs are a negative influence because anyone could gain their support and thus their money. Super PACs are, in my mind, just another group of people. If they want to run negative ads, then they should be allowed to because it’s the people’s opinion. Super PACs are the new wave of the political campaigning process. It used to be who could get more papers out and then it changed to who could get more ads. Eventually, politicians changed to YouTube and Twitter and interest groups and PACs came to be an important factor in the campaign process. Super PACs are just a new way to get funding and spread the word. Super PACs are not that influential and actually have more positive messages than what is conceived (usnews). In the Iowa caucus, Rick Santorum’s super PAC spent $537,200 and won. In contrast, Mitt’s super PAC spent $3.4 million and lost (usnews). The Wall Street Journal released a study and found that in this election super PACs have spent $9.6 million on positive ads compared to $5 million in negative ads (usnews). Personally, I don’t see any negatives to them. I think they are a creative tool in the campaign process.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics/super-pacs-engage-in-more-positive-than-negative-messaging-2
Money is obviously a big factor in politics. If you don’t have a lot of money you won’t get very far. Recently in the world of politics super PACs have been a big means in financing the GOP candidates. They have become an easier way for candidates to gain support or even lose support. These super PACs can put an unlimited amount of money towards advocating for or against a candidate, they get the money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals (1). Super PACs basically can do whatever they want except for some regulations, they must report their donors to the FEC every month and they can’t directly give money to candidates (1). A couple of positive of the super PACs is they can raise as much money as they want and according to the Washington Post they, “explicitly urge voters to oppose or support a candidate in an election” (1). I think this leads to people being able to speak up for the issues that they really care about by spending more money toward the issue or to the candidates that have the same views. The more money they are willing to spend the more they are going to get listened to. On the other hand that leads to a negative. One negative is that businesses become too involved and powerful in politics (1). Businesses have too much of a say on what Congress and the President implement in legislation. These two branches are going to have to keep these big spenders happy by passing policies that will make them happy, but are not necessary beneficial to the country. People wanting to be elected are going to be pushed around by these big business and compromise in order to receive the money.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/27/AR2010092706500.html
2) http://www.economist.com/node/21533419/comments#comments
3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/huffpost-fundrace---dems-_n_1232368.html
4) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=
Super PACs were made possible by the 2010 Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1). Essentially, they allow groups to spend as much money as they want either in favor of or against a candidate, as long as they are not officially linked with the candidate’s campaign (2). Most recent news coverage of super PACs has focused on their negative aspects. This is the first presidential election where they have been a factor, so almost everything about them is new. One major aspect is highlighted in the news coverage: most of the money spent by super PACs has been on negative ads. These ads can be very helpful to the candidates because they can benefit from them while dismissing all accusations of responsibility. Winning Our Future, a super PAC associated with Newt Gingrich, has aired ads attacking Gingrich’s primary rival, Mitt Romney, while Gingrich has publicly stated that the United States should “get rid of these super PACs” (2). Meanwhile, Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney group, has created ads attempting to deconstruct Gingrich’s claims that he is an heir to Ronald Reagan (3). It’s not just a Republican phenomenon, either – there are pro-Obama super PACs as well (2). At first glance, super PACs seem like a way to increase the amount of negative campaigning while allowing politicians to avoid all responsibility.
However, the issue is more complicated than that. Almost everyone is happy to attack negative campaigning, but studies have shown that voters respond more to negative ads than positive ones (4). Similar studies have additionally demonstrated that negative ads may contain more facts than positive ones – attacks must be based on something, after all (5). It’s not exactly a positive reflection on our country, but negative ads are used because they’re effective, and that was true even before super PACs. Other issues brought to the forefront of political discussion by super PACs aren’t exactly new either. There were always loopholes allowing people to spend money on political campaigns – Sheldon Adelson, one of the primary contributors to Winning Our Future, was able to contribute $30 million to a 527 group in support of Newt Gingrich’s campaign in 2008 (5).
I don’t think that super PACs are a positive part of our electoral process. However, I also don’t think they’re necessarily very much worse than what came before them. Negative ads, while unpleasant, strike a chord with voters and always have. People who really want to contribute outrageous amounts of money to campaigns have always found a way to do that. If anything, super PACs may provide a bit more organization to this process. While they’re certainly affecting this election, every election brings new issues and new challenges. Super PACs aren’t pleasant, but their core elements are nothing new.
1. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/25/super-pacs-influencing-races/
2. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/super-pacs-reshaping-2012-presidential-campaign/1212559
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/26/romney-super-pac-ad-ronald-reagan?newsfeed=true
4. http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/01/26/3-reasons-not-to-get-worked-up-over-super-pacs/
5. http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/13/attack-ads-are-good-for-you/singlepage
5. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/what-everyone-is-getting-wrong-about-super-pacs/
The new role of Super PACS in the presidential election is playing out among the Republicans as the campaign season heats up. Obviously this new financing option has its positives and negatives, but I believe that the use of Super PACS has a net positive result, as it increases opportunities for candidates to campaign.
So first, the negatives. Examining the list of Super PACS (SPACS), who they back, and with how much money reveals a clear message: the poll and primary/caucus winners are coming out on top (in fact, the list is almost the same ranking as national popularity). (1) This is a pretty clear indicator that SPACS are allowing the strong to become stronger, and the weak to fall by the wayside. Not only is there a great disparity in the financial capabilities of the SPACS, but the major focus is who can create the best attack ad (2). Candidates are being forced to defend actions that they had nothing to do with (non-coordination of course!) and policies are being disregarded for more intriguing arguments over which candidate “crossed the line.” Gingrich was forced to discredit an ad by “his” SPAC when its facts were called into question, and Santorum is struggling to keep up against attacks from Romney’s backer, Restore Our Future (3). Some argue that SPACS have enforced the stereotype of elitist government control, and others compare them to “buying” the election as well as forcing candidates to support negative elections (4).
And now, the positives. Although popular candidates receive more backing from SPACS, that is not necessarily bad. SPACS accurately represent how the public feels about candidates, so no one is really being “shut-out” without reason (1) (5). Additionally, lesser candidates are actually provided with a higher chance of success with the incorporation of SPACS, because a small “win” garners more financial backing, as evidenced by Santorum’s win in Iowa which raked in donations (6). Even Santorum’s win was partially attributed to heavy campaigning from two of his SPAC backers. Some believe that SPACS are also enhancing democracy, as it contributes to free speech and informs voters of potential negative aspects of candidates (7). Finally, many organizations are choosing to broaden their appeal further, by running both a SPAC and a PAC (8). I view this as a positive shift, as PACS can be directly tied to candidates which helps attribute more responsibility in running negative ad campaigns. Many of the larger SPACS are considering starting a PAC so that they can provide more direct assistance without risking doing the “wrong” campaign strategy.
Overall I see that SPACS contribute to a balanced presidential election. The closeness of the Republican primary/caucus scene is partially due to the new influence of the SPACS, and I think that Americans should be exposed to a myriad of positive and negative ads before voting day. The public needs to be conflicted so that ballots are thought out. Perhaps people will actually look into candidates and their political stances if they cannot simply base their decision on who is the “nicest” or the most “presidential”.
Sources:
1. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/26/romney-super-pac-ad-ronald-reagan?newsfeed=true
3. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/19/nation/la-na-super-pacs-20120119
4. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/25/super-pacs-influencing-races/
5. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152126/Romney-National-Lead-Down-Points.aspx
6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-ross/santorum-campaign-finance_b_1191276.html
7. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-11/news/30617924_1_super-pacs-spending-on-negative-ads-gingrich-ad/2
8. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71763.html
Super PACs have been all over the place lately. Stephen Colbert even has been talking about them on his show, and thats when you know its big news. I would first like to talk about the idea that super PACs might have the ability to educate voters. I would say that they don't. Yes super PACs do have lots of money and are able to run commercials. The commercials they run however are not what I would call strictly informative. Often these ads are incredibly positive or crazy negative. They will either praise the candidate they support like this (2). Or use any dirt they can find to destroy the other candidates like this (1). These ads do tell viewers something about the prospective candidates, but not much. It shows about ten seconds of information on the candidates entire career. Facts are twisted and quotes can easily be taken out of context. I do not think that seeing these sound bites on candidates can be defined as "being informed" on the candidates. I would argue that even just listening to the recap on the local news of what is happening in the political word doesn't count as being informed. If you are actually listening to the debates and what the candidates say in their speeches then you are informed (3).
As for the positive and negatives on super PACs as a whole, I would say there are many more negatives. I do recognize that running for office is very expensive (4). Super PACs are a valid response to the problem. I don't think its a very fair solution. Third party candidates certainly are never going to get a super PAC to support them. Also there just isn't regulation on these PACs, not sufficient amounts anyway. This seems to me to be an example of how the super rich get an unfair say in politics. I don't really see this changing anytime soon. Mostly because why would the politicians in power want to change the system that allowed them to be elected.
1. http://race42012.com/2012/01/24/new-gingrich-superpac-ad-think-you-know-mitt/
2.http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394434/august-11-2011/super-pac-ad---rick-perry
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-new-hampshire-primary-night-speech-text/2012/01/10/gIQACW2WpP_blog.html
4.http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/pronewt-super-pac-unveils-new-antimitt-ad-112121.html
It is often said that politics and money are synonymous with each other; this statement seems to be especially true in the current 2012 presidential election campaign. A recent influence in campaign finance, super PACs have gone from “obscure” to front-page news in all media sources. Super PACs have exploded onto the political scene as a result of the 2010 landmark Supreme Court decision in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, in which super PACs were created [1]. Super PACs are most definitely an influential part of the 2012 campaign, already spending $42 million in the election [2]. Their ability to wield vast political influence, has caused much concern throughout the political spectrum, which is why super PACs have succumbed to much debate as of recent.
The role that super PACs play in political campaigns has been seen as both positive and negative, though most often it is regarded as negative. Let’s begin by discussing the positive aspects that super PACs play in our political system and the arguments in support of them; it must be noted that much of this support only seems to come from those who are directly involved with super PACs. Super PACs provide a means for people to contribute unlimited amounts of money to help support their candidate, although not in a direct manner [1]. They also are able to produce advertisements to support their candidates, as well as inform the voters about their candidate and his/ her opponent]. Super PACs are protected under the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech, and thus have every reason to be involved in the campaign process with the current role they have secured [3].
Although some valid arguments seem to be made in support of the positive impacts of super PACs, the reality of this is that most people do not feel this way. Super PACs have been called a “mockery of our political campaign season” and a “poisonous element of the campaign finance process” [2]. It is statements like these that show the absolute distaste that a great portion of our nation has for these super PACs. Super PACs have become such a big issue, that they have now become prime comedic material for Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart (who are running their own super PACs and presidential campaigns as a way to mock them) [4]. Although this is quite humorous, it just shows how insane this issue has become and the great disregard that the public has for the super PACs. The three main arguments against the super PACs are that they: run heavily negative advertisement campaigns, the identity of many donors remain unknown to the public, and that they help to “skew” the legislative process [3]. All of these seem to be valid arguments against the super PACs because they perfectly illustrate the countless negative aspects of these groups. Also, super PACs are supposed to be completely separate from the political campaigns they are helping, but the truth of the matter is that the groups usually have close ties to the candidates [2]. This is a direct violation of one of the few requirement that were placed on these super PAC groups, and gives way to corruptness within both the financial aspect of campaigning and the campaign itself. Plus, those who are supposed to be benefitting from the efforts of these super PACs are up in arms against these groups and calling for their immediate disclosure [5]. If those who are supposed to be benefitting from them don’t even want them, then is there really any purpose in keeping them? Both houses of Congress have recently been separately drafting an updated version of the Disclose Act, which would increase the transparency in the election [5]. This is in complete accordance with not only the views of the majority of citizens, but also the general feeling within Washington regarding these groups. No one wants them, and people are tirelessly working towards eliminating, or at least restraining their influence, from the electoral process.
Personally, I think that super PACs are a negative aspect of the electoral process in almost all respects. Super PACs do nothing to help educate the voters, like they are allegedly supposed to do, and use very negative and tasteless tactics to get their opinions across. I definitely feel that the Supreme Court made a huge mistake in its 2010 decision, and hope to see it mandated in the future. I just do not see why some people should get to wield more political influence than others just because they have more money, to me this does not seem democratic. Simply put, super PACs should be eliminated for they provide no valuable use to our political system.
[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?ql3
[2] http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/super-pacs-reshaping-2012-presidential-campaign/1212559
[3] http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/index.html
[4] http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/23/cnn-in-depth-series-focuses-on-super-pacs-this-week-mark-whitaker-writes-column/
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/disclose-act-super-pac-chris-van-hollen_n_1232008.html?ref=politics
Super PACs have played a very significant role in the 2012 election. The positives of super PACs is that they support candidates that they think deserve to win by giving them their money contributions. The negatives of super PACs, however, seem to outweigh the positives for me. Super PACs make it possible for money to play the most central role in elections today. “The Super PACs are outspending the candidate committees two to one at this point in time… The ones that are buying the most [air time] are going to have the biggest impact. You know, just like in the world of business and advertising, politics goes the same way. Those that spend the most have the biggest impact.” [1] This is why candidates aim to say things that will be approved by the country as a whole, but more importantly, the people and groups with money and power. These candidates want these groups to approve of the work they are doing and their stances on issues because it is likely that these PACs will allocate substantial funds to them. Super PACs can now give substantial, and unlimited, amounts of money to candidates because of the Citizens United decision. It’s much more anonymous now. The money that is allocated to each of the candidates is essential in their campaign. Without it, they have no chance of survival in the race.
I think that super PACs play an overall negative role in helping the voters make an educated decision on who they should vote for in the presidential election. This is because super PACs give money to the candidate who the like and support the most, but this does not necessarily mean that this candidate is the best possible candidate for the presidency. Candidates who could potentially lead the United States out of all of its problems could be left behind in the Republican primary race simply because they aren’t supported strongly enough by super PACs. Also, much of the negative advertising that has been aired through the media is a tactic used by candidates to attack an opponent, while avoiding the blame. [1] At one point during the campaign leading up to the Iowa caucus, Newt Gingrich was in first place. After a negative ad was aired, attacking Gingrich, he dropped to fourth place. [3] This is a perfect example of how hard-hitting these negative ads are for competitors. There are many super PACs that use their money against candidates, rather than for candidates, which is clearly meant to break down their chances of winning. For example, Open Secrets had a list of figures about a variety of super PACs, including Priorities USA Action. This PAC has only spent money against someone ($321,229 against Republicans), but it has not spent a dollar in support of another candidate. [2] This is why I think that super PACs do a poor job of helping voters decide who to vote for, because voters see which candidates are the most popular (which is often based on money), and their decisions tend to be influenced by these projections.
Sources:
[1] http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10167332-unlimited-contributions-give-super-pacs-power-to-change-presidential-race
[2] http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?strID=C00495861&cycle=2012
[3] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71056.html
In my opinion Super PACS play a completely negative role in politics. Their existence has allowed corporations and unions to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money on political television advertisements. In general, most of these advertisements have been more negative in nature, or "attack ads", than those actually created by the candidates. For example, in the recent South Carolina primary, candidates' "official" advertisements were generally focused on themselves, while the attack ads were somewhat restrained. However, Super PACs funded a huge amount of misleading attack ads, saturating the airwaves (1). If we accept the belief that negative ads are harmful to the democratic proccess, so are super PACS.
Also, Super PACs give corporations and unions a disproportionate voice during the election due to their wealth (2). They allow the wealthy to use television as a tool to convince "regular Americans" of their agenda, which generally is not conducive to the success of poorer people (3).
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-13/south-carolina-republican-primary-super-pacs/52655406/1
(2)http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ff%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F01%2F20%2FMN5C1MREB6.DTL%26ao%3Dall&ei=X8AiT_i4HYTsggfT0PjCBw&usg=AFQjCNGDxp7gwZr1lZkh1thATQxCgGjCVA
(3)http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/16/10167332-unlimited-contributions-give-super-pacs-power-to-change-presidential-race
Super PACs are a blight upon the American election system, and serve as nothing but increased avenues for corporate America to Influence elections, and for candidates to launch unwarranted, and often under researched attack ads. They have exacerbated an already bloated campaign process, wasting more money and time on low-class drivel.
The main problem with PACs, besides the fact theat they exist, is the confusing and loophole-rich regulation that surrounds them. Stephen Colbert, and now Jon Stewart, have done a fantastic and uproariously funny job of exposing the shady and often nonsensical rules and regulations of the Super PAC. Of particular note is the ease at which Colbert transferred ownership of his PAC to Stewart., even signing the necessary document (yes, document) on air.
The amount of influence the PACs are having is simply too much. Because the PACs don't have to disclose donors, it allows any and all organizations to have as much influence as they want on the candidates. This is obviously a bad thing. Corporate influence is widely decried, and decreasing it is a primary focus for the FEC at the moment.
Another negative of the PACs is the propensity for attack ads. Because they are not "officially" affiliates with a candidate, attack ads don't have the same negative connotation upon the purveyor, as they would for a candidate. This leads to vicious, often unfounded accusations, that can cloud the minds of impressionable (read: Fox News watching) voters.
What are the positives and negatives of super PACs in the presidential race? Do you think they play an overall positive or negative role in helping the voters make an educated decision on who they should vote for?
Recently, there has been lots of discussion about super PAC’s in the media, especially after a single man, Sheldon Adelson, kept Newt Gingrich a viable candidate in the eyes of the people—to the tune of 10 million dollars [1]. I believe that super PAC’s have both positives and negatives, but ultimately play a predominately negative role in helping voters make an educated decision on who they should vote for.
On one hand, super PAC’s allow citizens an extraordinary amount of freedom in support the candidate that they believe in. This, in our open, democratic system of government, is a good thing. However, on the other hand, some say that this lends an unfair advantage to less-wealthy candidates, or ones with less-wealthy supporters. The ad campaigns have been reduced to what amounts to a brute-force strategy—who ever spends the most amount of money, with the largest amount of air time stands considerably ahead of the other candidates. Many Americans object to the activities of super PAC’s because they play too big a role in deciding the outcome of elections, even though they are technically not affiliated with a particular campaign. On careful inspection, most of the people who run the biggest super PAC’s have previously worked on the campaign of the candidate they support, and know how to best spend their money [2]. Not to mention the entire purpose of super PAC’s—to get around the individual campaign contribution limits established by congress. It is interesting to note, however, a valid argument by opponents of this unsavory view of super PAC’s; they believe that this large amount of money will always find its way around barriers, and even though super PAC’s did not exist in the 2004 and 2008 elections, donors still found equivalent ways of donating massive sums of money [3].
Regardless, I still believe that super PAC’s exert a negative influence on voters trying to make educated decisions. Like all presidential ads, super PAC ads focus on negative aspects of a candidates campaign, or may take words out of context. This negative approach does not generally reflect back on the other candidate because he/she is far removed from the decisions of the super PAC. Super PAC’s twist the system in favor of the wealthy, and take away from an election system meant to be fair and just.
[3] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/what-everyone-is-getting-wrong-about-super-pacs/
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9044854/US-election-2012-Sheldon-Adelson-the-man-keep-Newt-Gingrichs-bid-afloat.html
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/politics/super-pac-general/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+(RSS%3A+Most+Recent)
In regards to an election, money = campaigns. There’s no way around it, and there will never be an election that doesn’t involve large sums of money. Super PACs have taken the word “large” over the limit. So how much money should be able to go into campaign? The Citizens United decision allowed for an endless amount, and that causes campaigns to get out of control and give too much power to the wealthy. Though super PACs do have positive assets, their overall effect is negative.
Super PACs are not completely bad. The intention of the Citizens United decision was to overturn a portion of the McCain-Feingold Act and allow corporations to spend as much as they want to support a candidate for President and Congress (1). This decision reflects the views of those who believed that the previous limits on campaign finance were unconstitutional regarding free speech. As part of the basic views of our government and its democracy, the people and groups should be able to use their money to contribute to campaigns, and ultimately candidates, as they like. The problem with that is that those lacking in money more so than others are not able to get their campaigns across like the wealthy.
The Court decision was a gift to the wealthy. The wealthy candidates, the wealthy groups, and the wealthy individuals who contribute to the groups contributing to campaigns. A problem with these super PACs is that they are able to allow candidates to directly attack other candidates (2). The power of their money can create negative issue ads regarding other candidates. Citizens United has opened up a whole new playing field for those with the money to run ads against politicians, which can’t be reciprocated well if the other doesn’t have the money. Besides the fact that this allowance of money gives too much power to the top 1%, super PACs are also risky in themselves. Because they are relatively unchartered, there hasn’t been enough use of them to truly analyze their role. Only a few occurrences, such as the last minute $5 million contribution to a super PAC backing Gingrich can show us anything about the effects of them (3). There is a non-disclosure provision regarding the super PACs and the Court decision, and it is uncertain how this will turn out. For now, I would say that groups backing candidates and the candidates themselves are given a disproportionate voice in the election process with the super PACs, and don’t allow voters to truly see the views of all candidates when some are taking over air time or having negative ads run against them. Right now, I don’t think anything can be done about them though, because they are not a bold new occurrence in politics, are run the way many politicians would like to play the election game. Someday, there will hopefully be some reforms to this decision and its implementations, but I don’t think that will come at any time soon. As Colbert says with his super PAC, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.”
(1) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35287
(2) http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/superpac/
(3) http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202540279287&Super_PACs_Risky_for_Corporations_Say_Dean_and_Steele
I see many negatives and very few positives in the advent of super PACs. Or rather, whether it is a positive or negative innovation depends on your political alignment. Super PACs align much more easily with Republican ideas than Democratic ones. Republicans see super PACs as being a way to balance out political contributions; they say that it will counteract the money that Democrats receive from unions and other groups [1]. However, there are already plenty of non-super PAC groups who support Republicans. Super PACs are supposed to operate independently of the candidates, but that doesn’t always occur in real life. However, when the public looks negatively upon the actions of a super PAC, such as the recent mostly-false documentary about Mitt Romney released by Winning our Future (a super PAC that supports Newt Gingrich), the candidate is free to distance themselves from the actions of the super PAC by claiming that they operated independently. In the case of Winning our Future, the idea of the documentary being created independent of Newt’s campaign is suspect. It fits extremely well with the points he has been emphasizing recently in his campaign, and Gingrich’s response to the group seemed to be a slight waggle of his finger and nothing more. His halfhearted attempt at a facade of disapproval is clearly because he knows that there are uninformed voters who will take this film’s claims at face value [2]. I think they play a negative role in educating voters on the best candidates, because the best candidate may not always be the one with the most money and most vitriolic advertising campaign. Super PACs make the amount of exposure a candidate receives directly proportional to the amount of money backing them. Super PACs are a perversion of the voting system, and leave politics to become meaningless bickering between children [3].
[1] http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/politics/politics_super-pac-unions_1_american-crossroads-labor-unions-political-spending?_s=PM:POLITICS
[2] http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-confronts-his-super-pac/
[3] http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145305294/super-pacs-alter-nations-campaign-landscape
The SuperPAC. It is a mighty and terrible beast, and one which I believe truly threatens American politics to its core. Although I fundamentally disagree with them, I can see both sides of the debate. On the one hand, they are a valuable way for candidates to gain support proportional to the monetary value of their supporters. It allows for otherwise impossible donations to go through and help a candidate, allowing people and organizations to feel truly responsible and participatory in presidential election. The increase in the airtime that candidates take up, with an increase in the power of the PACS, allows and creates more and more informative adds, making a more informed voters. In this way it helps democracy on a fundamental level, as only by educating themselves can a citizen truly believe they are part of a democracy. The list of cons is slightly more pressing. The sheer volume of advertisements allowed by the advent of SuperPACs means that the cost of a presidential campaign is spiking even more. It prevents many potential candidates from running on the pure and huge estimated cost of entering and maintaining a place in the running. SuperPACs like Endorse Liberty for Ron Paul give their candidate much attention, but it also has the double edged sword of being able to run counter to the candidates priorities. Specifically, that Ron Paul may not be as opposed to Newt as the PAC would like to suggest he is with a new advertisement they are running. At other times they are pure and hopeless propaganda, hoping only to get money, and elect a candidate. One page I went to had only four links, Home, Donate, Contact, and Press. There was little to no information about what the PAC itself was looking for, not even that it supported Ron Paul. It was just a hyper effective front to gain cash to use for the campaign. REVPAC is another money mill, seeking to promote Ron Paul in the 2012 election.
I do think that the negative outweighs the positives. The possibility of a more informed public does nothing to address the issues brought up by the SuperPACs in the first place, such as the increased power of corporations on influencing elections. It is another cog in the money machine, allowing the candidate who spends the most money to win. It on some level informs the voters more because of the vast influx of information, but it countered and killed by the hate advertisements it spawns.
1) http://www.endorseliberty.com/home.php
2) http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/propaul-super-pac-hits-newt-in-florida-ad-112111.html
3) http://www.revolutionpac.com/
Super PACs are going to be extremely influential in the 2012 election. They have impacted every debate and are mentioned in every newscast including the candidates. PACs have been maximizing the amount of information distributed and increasing the number of advertisements being shown. Some will definitely view this negatively because it could be seen as deceptive. Gabriela Schneider from the Sunlight foundation said “They think like the campaign because they actually used to run the campaign,” “That’s a level of knowledge that a complete outside, and these groups are supposed to be outsiders, wouldn’t have.” (1) A Newt Gingrich super PAC recently contributed $6 million to start a negative ad campaign towards Romney in Florida. These ads were supposed to raise awareness by focusing mostly on issues that were relative to Romney’s healthcare plan and positioning Romney with the president. (2) Some people may contend that these ideas and advertisements would not help the campaign and would bog it down in useless ways that would deviate from the issues. People would be able to make more educated conclusions if there were no political endorsements or advertisements. These advertisements use images, phrases, and biases to manipulate peoples’ thoughts. These generally aren’t relevant to the voting conclusion. Unions have been condemning the super PACs because of their lack of reliability that they have. The disclosure laws are different than the 2010 election. (3) Some people would say that it is feasible to buy a democratic election. This is most likely somewhat true, I believe that PACs are unnecessary. I believe that that are some alternative ways to learn things about a candidate that would prepare someone to be an informed voter. 1. http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/01/26/pro-mitt-romney-super-pac-parallels-campaign/ 2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57365309-503544/gingrich-super-pac-enters-negative-ad-war-with-$6-million-buy/ 3. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/politics/politics_super-pac-unions_1_american-crossroads-labor-unions-political-spending?_s=PM:POLITICS
@ Sam
I like your views on super PACs. I agree that the people with money and who can make a large difference should be able to spend their money how they want. I don’t really see a negative to a super PAC. Who cares where the money came from and who contributed it? I think that there really shouldn’t be a limit as to how much a person or organizations can contribute. With the new right to work law, unions will not have an unfair advantage in the distribution of money for candidates. I feel like if the US didn’t have restrictions on how much people could donate, it would make it more democratic, and the issue of super PACs or interest groups would be gone. This would never happen because people are afraid of change and uncertainty, but it would really give way for new investment.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home