This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Please respond to the super PAC post by Friday, 2/10. Please use new articles to support your post. There are a lot of developments - including Florida - on this issue of super PACs which should be included in your response.
Labels: campaign finance, presidential campaign, super pac
posted by maby-keirstead @ 8:17 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
20 Comments:
@Katie
I am rather forced to disagree on some of these points. I feel that super PACs do not contribute to the public information and may in fact impede the process of educating the public about the candidates simply by filling the airwaves with more "junk." I do not like super PACs at all, as you may have noted in my post 3.
Let's start going through your points. First is a definition of what a super PAC essentially amounts to. This is a set fact, no one can argue it. I am going to argue, however, that super PACs tend to use that money to show good about candidates. 96% of all ads in Florida were negative in some way, shape, or form(1). Ninety. Six. My, how positive is politics these days, with an ample 4% of ads dedicated to tasks besides the direct demeaning the other candidates! Now, this is including statistics for candidate spending as well as all other forms, so maybe the super PACs aren't being negative? No, outside groups have aired 43.6% of total ads- and what's more, they've spent more money on all of their ads than the candidates have(2). Now, let's look at a sample super PAC: Restore Our Future, supporting Romney, has raised in the neighborhood of $18 million. $17.3 million has been spent on negative ads directed at other Republicans(3). I refute your theory that super PACs actually say positive things to any significant degree.
On your bit about most people assuming the worst of politicians: Yes, we do. No, it is not because of negative campaign ads. The position of a politician is one advertising his candidacy to be the best, by any means necessary. Do you trust advertisers for food or cars or clothing? I sure don't, and I don't think the rest of the world does either. It's not the negative ads that is leading to a lack of trust in politicians, it's the nature of what they are doing. Politicians could chose to never run a negative ad ever again, and I still wouldn't listen to a word that was said in a commercial. They are making a professional career out of hammering the truth into the most appealing shape, like all advertisers. That, and nothing to do with negative ads, is why I do not trust anything a campaigning politician says without verifying first.
Another point: why should the public view withdrawing inaccurate ads as the "nice" thing to do? The "nice" thing to do would be to publicly announce that the candidate was running no more negative ads, and sincerely hoped his super PACs would do the same. Ads are an effort to persuade, with truth taking second place. The only reason ads even bother to be truthful is because when people notice falsehoods, they make a huge stink about it. I refer you to the election of 1828, when fact-checking was simply not done(6). It's strictly damage control for a candidate who does not want his inaccurate ad to backfire on him most spectacularly.
Moving along. An important note: " Super PACs that have raised and contributed more money to specific candidates’ campaigns have proven to influence voters in that those candidates have been more popular, and have gained more support." This is not an accurate statement, as you are equating correlation with causation. Your source, (4), does not state causation, it only notes correlation. Super PACs might simply be flocking to the candidates who seem to be winning hoping that their campaign donations can cause the candidate to look with favor upon them while in office. It's a possibility.
Also: Santorum may have been little-known before Iowa, but he was going to become a big player afterwards. This is not tied to a super PAC. The winner in Iowa is big by definition and has always been so, even in absence of super PACs(5). It's not something super PACs have spontaneously caused.
In conclusion, I find super PACs to be utterly worthless in terms of providing useful, usable information that educates the standard voter. As you, I, and probably every single other student in AP Gov has noted, the fact checking record of these organizations is somewhat suspect. Most importantly from an education standpoint, the job of super PACs is to run ads. Lots of ads. Negative ads, like everyone else. I do not view ads as a valid source of information., negative ads especially. I therefore believe that super PACs have absolutely no positive benefit to information dissemination, and may even obstruct this solely by the sheer raw bulk of ads that they run.
And I didn't even get started ranting on the increased power of the wealthy. I feel proud.
(1)http://www.thenation.com/blog/165985/super-pac-big-donors-propel-romney-florida-victory
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/gop-primaries-ad-spending-super-pacs/52895296/1
(3) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?strID=C00490045&cycle=2012
(4) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
(5) http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/iowa-caucus.htm
(6) http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/a/electionof1828.htm
@ Alison A.
I really liked your post because it concisely got to the bottom of what super PACs essentially are. Super PACs allow candidates to donate tons of money to a campaign, but really it is in support of a specific candidate. You stated that the concept of super PACs are more along the lines of Republican views. The Republicans have spent ridiculous amounts of money, but Obama has repeatedly expressed his dislike and not supported them. However, the amount of Republican super PAC spending has brought the Democrats to feel the need to step it up. And they have good reason to-the Republican candidate super PACs are committed to raising a billion dollars to defeat Obama (1). A campaign official of Obama said that they made the decision to not allow Republicans to be the sole providers of unlimited spending. Both parties are now in the unlimited spending super PAC world, and it will be very interesting to see what that brings. It is especially interesting because of Obama’s disdain for super PACs, but they are now pretty much necessary evils for him to win. Like you said, if there is any negativity or controversy regarding a super PAC, the candidate it involves or involved, are able to keep away from that super PAC and claim to have been working independently of that group. You talked about Newt Gingrich claiming independence after an attack on Romney by Winning our Future. Super PACs are capable of basically fighting back to other campaigns, which just fuels the super PAC fire, and piles up the crazy high amount of money being spent. 96% of super PAC negative spending has gone towards Gingrich in the past week (2). That’s an absolutely incredible amount of publicized negativity going at Gingrich, not to mention the amount of money going into that. Gingrich did get 31.9% of the votes in Florida, second to Romney (3). The influence of super PACs could be looked at in the way that all the negative ad spending kept him from winning, or that through all the negative ad spending, he still got second place. I completely agree with what you said about super PACs being a perversion to the voting system, and making exposure directly proportional to super PAC money. The system of super PACs is a corrupt one, and although not everything with politics can be or even should be completely fair, they are heightening the exposure by wealth, which I don’t think is the way politics should be run.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/barack-obama-super-pac-support-priorities-usa-action_n_1260231.html
(2) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/10/96-of-negative-super-pac-spending-since-iowa-has-targeted-gingrich/
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/mitt-romney-florida-primary-results_n_1242039.html
Andrew Cross,
I understand where you are coming from, but disagree with much of what you said. That Super Pacs are "just people" may be legally correct due the recent “Citizens United” case, but is not true in reality. Super PACs are instead funded by extremely wealthy corporations and individuals. The other 99.9% of Americans do not have enough disposable income to spend on million dollar television advertisements. This is why campaign donation limits were created in the first place: from preventing already advantaged rich people from having an even more disproportionate advantage. Thus, their ads are most certainly not “the people’s decisions,” and “anybody” cannot win their support. The candidates that win support from Super PACs are more often than not the ones supporting lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Also, while it is true that political ads from Super PACs may “spread the word”, the word they spread is not anything worthy of attention. Political ads are chronically misleading, and do not lead to more informed voters. Instead they spread prejudices and misinformation among the electorate and encourage political tensions. They spend minimal time on actual issue positions, but rather focus on character attacks and minor voting record points. And the fact that only 1/3rd of Super PAC money was used on attack ads is not reassuring in the slightest, rather it is shocking. That is an extremely high ratio and is nothing to be dismissed.
@Jen I totally agree with you! One I believe it puts too way to much influence in the hands of big businesses and high up people. These people only represent a small portion of the United States, so really only the views of the people with money are being heard and catered too. Another negative impact is that Super Pacs are beginning to create campaign ads that aggressively attack other candidates rather than ads giving information and concrete facts to the public. Recently, Obama did a flip-flop on where he stands with these Super Pacs from not wanting any outside help from groups to basically begging for donations from these groups. Obama has realized that Super Pacs are essential to the presdiental race of 2012. If he wants to win re-election he is going to have to gain support from these groups because. However Obama is far behind the donations that Republicans have. The Republican super pac American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS has raised $51 million compared to Democrat group Priorities USA Action who raised only $19 million (1). As of now the a Republicans have the upper hand and I do not think that this will change much because a lot of businesses like Wall Street are punishing Obama for the statements and policies on banking and in result are contributing to the Republicans (1). I think a big part of how these Super Pacs are so powerful is the fact that they do not have to realse where they get their money and who puts the ads on. It helps these big business and big spenders confidence because no one will know it was them, but Democrats are hoping to pass the Disclose Act so that the PACS have to release who they receive money from (2). "This is going to be the dividing line between those of us who believe in honesty and openness — reform [and] transparency — and those who will continue to protect the powerful," said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "We're going to hold them accountable" (2). Hopefully if this is passed these Super Pacs will become more democratic and make elections less dependent on money contributions.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/with-a-signal-to-donors-obama-yields-on-super-pacs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
(2)http://thehill.com/homenews/house/209861-pelosi-dems-aim-to-unmask-super-pacs
Hello Justin! I think you’re completely right that campaigning is getting increasingly complicated due to Super PACs. This seems to be because candidates are getting less important as the billionaires who are supplying the money for all different kinds of campaigning gain power. They are now more important than voters due to their virtually boundless influence. (1) Candidates are being drawn farther away from the middle due to the fact that those with the money have strong ideological positions and so do the groups that have made enough money to make a sizable impact. I disagree with your second point though, that it is a positive thing that there is now more money in the campaign and run TV. commercials and other such advertising. I think that is actually bad that so much money is now being spent to functionally buy candidates and agendas. Not only that, but it is drawing out the nomination process. This was seen both with the democrats in 2008 and now with the republicans. (2) Neither party could find a nominee early on and instead, because there is so much more money in the race keeping the underdogs running, they continue to fight much later in the primary season. This weakens opposing party power in the general election which I think is perhaps bad overall. Even if that isn’t true, I think that extending the already obscene primary season is unnecessary. I think you’re right when you say the PACs just give the extremely wealthy Americans too much power. I am not sure that you’re right that PACs disproportionately help republicans, however. I think there are a lot of very wealthy democrats who also have strong interests in government and I know that there are super PACs on both sides of the political spectrum. I think it is absurd that one person can have so much power in a government that is based on an extremely democratic majority-run foundation. If it were not for one single individual, Newt Gingrich’s campaign would have ended much earlier, after his South Carolina defeat. (3) I think this is a negative change in the political system because one billionaire should not be able to influence the nominee by a major party enough to keep him in the race for weeks or even months. It will simply lead to a government that only caters to the rich and powerful whoa re already currently benefitted by the governmental system and need less governmental recognition.
1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/02/09/why-the-2012-election-will-ultimately-be-a-fight-between-super-pacs/2/
2. http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2012/02/09/opinion/superdelegates_super_pacs_and_a_super_mess_understanding_the_primary_process/
3. http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/07/gaming-the-system/
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Sam:
Hello! You said that if the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the rest of the population, they are entitled to a greater say in the direction of our government. This argument ignores the fact that Mitt Romney, one of the greatest beneficiaries of SuperPac money, earned over $42 million in dividends and capital gains in 2011 and his federal tax rate was a mere 15% (1). On the other hand, Mitt’s secretary, who earned a just $40,000 in 2011, is taxed at a 25% rate (2). So if those who pay more in taxes are entitled to a greater say in the direction of our country, then Mitt’s secretary should have a greater say than Mitt because she pays taxes at a much higher rate.
The upper one percent of Americans take in almost 25% of the nation’s income every year. The top 1% of Americans control 40% of the nation’s wealth. The top 1 percent of Americans have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, while those in the middle income range have actually seen their incomes fall (3).Clearly, the wealthy in America have been doing well even before the Citizen’s United decision. Now that the wealthy can “buy” Presidents and members of Congress, their wealth and income is sure to increase at an even greater rate and income inequality will only continue to grow in the U.S.
Saying that what is good for the SuperPacs is good for America assumes that only patriotic wealthy Americans are spending tons of money in an effort to buy the presidential candidate of their choice. The problem with this assumption is that we don’t know who is contributing to the SuperPacs. “Six of the top 10 SuperPACs active in the 2012 elections have received money from untraceable sources, including shell corporations,” (Qtd. in 4) Many of these shell corporations do not conduct regular business, but exist solely to hide the true source of funds contributed to the SuperPacs. Another source of untraceable donations is money transferred from one SuperPac to another in cases where the SuperPAC making the contribution had itself received funding from one or more shell corporations. The Citizens United decision has left open the possibility that SuperPacs could be funded by people who do not have the best interest of America at heart, like drug cartels or terrorist organizations. We just have no way of knowing who is funding the SuperPacs and what their motive may be.
1.http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/03/what-mitt-romney-has-to-lose-and-obama-has-to-gain-from-the-buffett-rule/
2.http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2010/04/2010-and-2011-tax-brackets-new.html
3.http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
4.http://www.rollcall.com/news/report_some_super_pac_money_is_untraceable-212225-1.html?
@Ms. Mcnaughton
To adress your first point about colbert I will start by agreeing that once somthing is on colbert it has reached the top. As far as superpacs focusing on extreme campaign positions by running mean your fat ads or nice woo hoo look at my smile ads I also agree. It seems like if these pacs have so much money the least they could do is put together a commercial that is more then ten seconds of somthing I couldn't care less about. Quotes are deffinetly used out of context and that is not fair because someone could be made to look like they said somthing mean and not be able to make up for it ex: canidate A has the support of a surper pac and runs a big fancy commercial on a big network thats pre legit and in this ad there is a quote from canidate B taken out of context that says "I hate the kitties" now obviously everybody will hate canidate B for saying that but what the general public doesnt know is that the whole quote says "I hate the kitties in the movie cats and dogs because the kitties are mean to the puppies and thats not okay" and the whole public will never know what canidate B actually said because he or she does not have the support of a surper pac to counter the comercial with an embarassing story about canidate A having a wardrobe malfunction and exposing body parts during a debate. Wow long example but yeah thats why I agree with you on that one and now I lost my train of thought by going completely off topic so now I will have to open a new window to read your original post...oh yeah. Well suprise suprise I agree with your third point too yeah deffinetly surperpacs are a vicious cycle of unregulated mayhem because duh politicians aren't going to vote against the ony thing that got them elected to office. Important rule in life is don't bite the had that feeds you especially if that hand is feeding you millions of dollars and a job as a politician. As much as I wanted to disagree with you on somthing I cant seem to find anything to thats great keep up the legit blog posts!!
@Rutger
I absolutely agree that super PACs are an overall negative influence on the electoral process. However, I think that to say they “truly threaten American politics to their core” is a bit of a stretch. For one thing, negative advertisements in politics are nothing new. 19th century campaigning techniques included extremely racist and untrue comments about John Adams and mocking of Grover Cleveland for possibly having fathered an illegitimate child (1). Negative ads are basically the oldest campaigning technique there is. Super PACs certainly don’t improve the situation, but the ads would happen with or without them. Another thing to note is that people have always found ways to contribute vast amounts of money to political campaigns; super PACs just organize and legitimize it a bit more. Multiple articles I read mentioned Sheldon Adelson, a man who has contributed at least $10 million to Winning the Future, a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich (2). However, what people fail to realize is that in 2008, Adelson was able to contribute three times as much money to a group called Freedom’s Watch through the 527 loophole (2). Negative ads and contribution loopholes are old problems, and super PACs are perhaps to blame for organizing and even encouraging them, all the myriad flaws in our electoral system cannot be laid upon them.
However, many of the problems you mentioned are still completely valid. I visited Endorse Liberty, the one you mentioned with only four links, and was appalled. There is no information, only vague, happy phrases like “fuel our economy” and “maximum prosperity” (3). Also I think someone must be getting paid for the number of times they use the word “liberty.” Another note: if you click the link to “Donate,” all the other links at the top of the page disappear (4). Once you indicate a desire to donate – even for the purposes of an AP Government and Politics blog post – there is NO WAY TO ESCAPE. (Well, there is, but it requires more effort.)
You mentioned disconnect between the super PACs and the politicians as a problem, and while I agree that it isn’t good, I think too much connecting between the candidates and their super PACs may be a much bigger problem. One of the defining features of a super PAC is that they’re not supposed to have contact with the candidates themselves. However, some candidates do have frequent contact with people associated with their PACs – specifically, Rick Santorum and Foster Friess, the primary funder of the pro-Santorum Red, White, and Blue Fund (5). Friess and Santorum both say that they never discuss super PAC activities – Friess even claims he never sees the actual ads (5). This could be true, but I think that this sort of relationship opens the door to even more corrupt dealings between super PACs and their candidates.
To really see the negative side of super PACs, you only have to look at the Florida primary. Super PACs supporting Florida victor Mitt Romney managed to spend $15 million in a week to create countless ads bashing Newt Gingrich (6). I definitely agree with you that super PACs are increasing the cost of campaigns to ridiculous levels – or at least legitimizing incredible spending levels – and that many of the actions they take are highly unethical. Still, I don’t think that the American political system will collapse as a result.
1. http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/13/the-10-dirtiest-political-race
2. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/what-everyone-is-getting-wrong-about-super-pacs/
3. http://www.endorseliberty.com/home.php
4. http://www.endorseliberty.com/donate.php
5. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10363184-major-super-pac-donors-public-role-with-santorum-campaign
6. http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC120208-0000042/The-super-PACS-attack
@Julie
I disagree that SPACS play a negative role in educating the voter. As a concept, yes, SPACS are counterproductive to actually getting at the issues, but I believe that the general chaos and confusion that SPACS have generated will actually have a positive impact on the presidential race. First however, I want to address a few issues that you brought up. You stated a few times that SPACS are not highly regulated, but you later mentioned that the FEC is still involved in receiving reports on fundraising and spending of SPACS. The recent reports that the FEC came out with regarding the SPACS spending reveal some interesting data. The “Restore Our Future” SPAC that is attached to Mitt Romney has actually spent less than Romney’s personal campaign (1). The same can be seen for Gingrich, who has raised more money for his campaign than the “Winning Our Future” SPAC has raked in. You also mentioned that rumors and false accusation against candidates are “detrimental for an election, which is supposed to be democratic and fair.” SPACS CAN lie about candidates, but this in no way harms democracy. SPACS will never actually decide the election because voters are still afforded a choice (you mentioned that it would be more democratic to allow voters to decide the election….they still do). When you look at the facts, SPAC spending does not favor a predetermined candidate (it’s not like Romney is getting all of the backing of every SPAC), and the spending does not affect voter turnout or how elections are conducted. Contrary, SPACS actually hold to the American ideal of democracy by providing more venues to exercise free speech (2). Not only do SPACS actually broaden first amendment rights, they also help lesser candidates to gain a boost up. Many political scientists now point to Santorum’s victories as further evidence that money is not everything in a presidential election (3). SPACS are an opportunity for individuals to support causes, and in turn support candidates. Santorum keeps winning, and Santorum keeps seeing his SPAC backing increase (4). Santorum’s win in Iowa led to a large enough increase in funding that he was able to push on, giving what most considered to be the “underdog” a fighting chance. SPACS help to reward winners, which is kind of the point in a presidential race.
The argument against American Crossroads can really be applied to any candidate, any opposition party to the democrats, or any opposition interest group. Having a “goal to have a Republican elected into office” is the point of any regular campaign donation towards a Republican, and also the point to aligning with the Republican Party. SPACS are not inflaming this particular issue in any way. Crossroads’ attempts at “blocking President Obama’s agenda” is also not a new issue. Many interest groups and candidates alike are calling for blockades to Obama’s policies. Just because a group is successful at fundraising, does not mean it has malicious intent. In fact, the founders of American Crossroads are highly revered in the Republican Party for having pure goals and intentions (5).
Lastly, negative ad campaigns are nothing new to American voters. I concede that there has been a significant increase in the number of negative ads during this campaign season, but I see this as a positive thing. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I think that confusing the voters with tons of negative ads is a good method for converting knee-jerk voters to educated voters. At a certain point voters will be forced to look into candidates themselves. I also do not see lying as an issue at all, simply because the media gets so frenzied over it that the public is easily informed of large discrepancies. Numerous articles already announce the big lies and warn against voters believing any straight ad (6) (7). If anything, this will force Americans to turn away from believing any political ads. Additionally, the example provided regarding the “attack ad” on Obama is actually pretty mild; nearly all of the Republican candidates argue that Obama is spending recklessly, and they would make this accusation SPAC or not. Negative ad campaigns existed before SPACS, and they will continue to exist long after…having uneducated voters voting recklessly is therefore not attributed to SPAC spending.
To conclude, SPACS are disrupting the status quo of the presidential election, and it’s a great thing. Voters in turmoil will have to find other methods to find out about candidates, and underdogs are making their way to the top (I LOVE YOU RICK).
Sources:
(1)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57369129-503544/super-pacs-exposed-groups-report-fundraising-and-spending/
SPAC disclosure details
(2) http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_19915893
(3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-santorum-proves-money-isnt-everything/2012/02/08/gIQAUa6hyQ_blog.html
(4)http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-donors-turn-to-santorum-super-pac-after-upset-victories-20120208,0,273890.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+(L.A.+Times+-+Politics)
(5) http://www.npr.org/2012/02/09/146613016/powerful-gop-linked-superpac-has-clear-agenda
(6) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/16/news/la-pn-santorum-romney-super-pac-demand-20120116
(7) http://www.newser.com/story/137469/newt-wants-super-pac-to-pull-false-bain-attacks.html
@Erin
Well hello! Unfortunately, I agree with the majority of your views, which means that this blog post will not be especially riveting. Sorry.
To avoid beating the dead horse, its clear that the majority of ads that super PAC’s fund are negative attack ads, and that often sound bites are taken out of context. While your point that super PAC’s are not a “fair solution” to the problem of expensive campaigns, I think you hit the nail on the head when you say (another cliché idiom!) that you “don’t see this changing anytime soon.” Case in point: Previously, Obama has attacked the role of super PAC’s in elections, even going so far as to call them “a threat to democracy” [1]. However, Obama’s campaign gave indication on Monday that not only would it support the activities of a very prominent super PAC (Priorities US Action [2]), it would even send cabinet officials to the super PAC’s events [1]. Clearly, Obama has embraced the inevitability of this loophole in campaign finance reform.
However, I would argue that super PAC’s are the product of the American way of life, and that if they were banned in some way, people would find another work-around—they always do. Super PAC’s are not the only organizations that take sound bites out of context, purposely twist the words of politicians, or run negative ads, so I’m not sure that these should be the main objection against super PACs. No, the real complaint against super PAC’s is in the way that they give preference in the electoral system, as you say, to the “super rich.” And because the wealthy elite in America have so many resources at their disposal, it is inevitable that they will seek to influence the political system towards their preferences.
While my defeatist attitude may be depressing, ultimately we must be realistic. I support to the fullest the fight against super PAC’s, but I predict this fight against the influence of the wealthy will go on long after super PAC’s are gone.
[1]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-picks-pragmatism-over-principle-on-super-pacs/2012/02/07/gIQABQbKwQ_blog.html
[2]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-in-a-switch-endorses-pro-democratic-super-pac/2012/02/06/gIQAVqnWvQ_story.html
@KatieV
I agree with much of what you said regarding Super PACs and their effects on elections. I think that your evaluation of Super PACs influence on voters was also very accurate.
I will start off by saying that I think that negative campaigning almost always has a negative impact on the candidate/candidates party who released it. There is rarely a situation where a harsh ad worked strongly in favor of the group who released it. I agree with you that Super PACs are not the most reliable because of the possibility that their information is not always accurate. Also, they are sometimes very harsh on candidates with whom they oppose, which results in a situation like you mentioned in which Newt Gingrich requested that an ad about Mitt Romney was withdrawn because of its content. [2]
The amount of money that flows into elections and campaigns by groups like Super PACs has recently “soared dramatically”. [1] This suggests that these Super PACs are becoming more and more important in deciding the outcome of election. These groups help promote candidates who they want to see win the race, and they do so by giving unrestricted amounts of money to these groups. One recent example of Super PACs influence is the help that was provided for Mitt Romney in Florida. Mitt Romney and his supporters aired 12,768 commercials in Florida through Wednesday, while Newt Gingrich and his supporters aired only 210. [1] This shows the dramatic difference between significant and below-average Super PAC support.
I also agree with you that Super PACs have both some positives and negatives. I think that they obviously provide a great service to candidates, but they also help signal to the public who has a great amount of support, therefore that candidate is probably very likeable by many. President Obama is even worried about the effects of Super PACs. He said that they are a “threat to democracy”, and he is also worried about how successful GOP Super PACs are in raising money for the candidates [3]. I think that all of the Super PAC business will help build up the excitement around the GOP candidates, thereby helping the nominee become victorious over him in the election. I think that they are negative, however, because they made it extremely difficult for third party candidates as well as independents from getting being very successful campaign process, let alone win.
Sources:
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/gop-primaries-ad-spending-super-pacs/52895296/1
[2] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign-20120114,0,2284640.story
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/president-obama-super-pacs_n_1258925.html
@ Karma Knutson
Karma, I completely agree with what you had to say in your post about the influence that Super PACS are having on the presidential race. Although some people would like to make the argument that Super PACS are having a positive impact on the campaign season, it is obvious in the minds of most that this is vastly untrue. A great majority of the news stories I have read about Super PACS are giving negative opinions, and as I said in my previous post most of the support is coming from those involved with a Super PAC (they get to wield unprecedented political influence from a monetary standpoint) and republicans (who are benefiting significantly from their contributions, though they are indirect). In your response you described Super PACS as making it so that “money plays the most central role in elections today”, which I feel is completely accurate of what they are doing. Super PACS have spent a record $41 million so far during this campaign season [1]; making it so that money is taking control of the campaign process. As one source stated, these Super PACS are making it so that “voters are relegated the role of passive consumers” [2]. This is not by any means what was envisioned for the voting system of our country and these recent changes are honestly a bit of a disgrace to it. Even other countries are ridiculing us for what is happening this campaign season. A UK newspaper, the Guardian, stated in an article that its country should “pledge never to allow anything like it to take root here” [3]. Ouch! Your next point suggests that candidates are saying certain things in order to gain the support of the PACS, which I at first was skeptical about but after doing some research I can totally see it. A perfect example is that Obama who used to be an opponent recently changed his position by agreeing to work with a Super PAC for his reelection [4]. Your point on Super PACS playing a negative role on educating voters is one that I slightly disagree with. I absolutely agree that Super PACS are doing virtually nothing to correctly educate the voters; the negative campaign ads are really immature and have no place in the political arena. I wouldn’t mind the ads so much if they weren’t used to go “against candidates, rather than for candidates” as you said. If they took this approach they could do a lot more to educate the voters and have a substantial reason for being in our political system. I’m not naïve to the fact that there is mudslinging in campaigns, but it does not have to be to this extent. The part of this I disagree with you on is on your support for this point saying that Super PACS are giving money to people it supports rather than those who would be good for the presidency. I feel that this point is a little irrelevant and untrue, since they have the right to support whomever they want- maybe your wording for this point was a little off, but I don’t really agree with it. However, I do agree that Super PACS are making it so that some candidates are able to extend their campaign run longer than it should, plus I feel that these groups make it so that some candidates who should still be in the run are unable to because campaigning is costing so much. Super PACS, as they are now, definitely do not belong in our political system, for they are ruining the democracy of this system. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that they should be eliminate, since it makes sense for them to exist as under the 1st amendment but I would have to say that some serious reforms need to be implemented. This will allow our political system to allow everyone to get their fair chance of influence, not just the wealthy.
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0206/How-super-PACs-are-changing-the-GOP-presidential-race
[2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72690.html
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/07/editorial-super-pacs-presidential-election
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/with-a-signal-to-donors-obama-yields-on-super-pacs.html?scp=2&sq=super%20pacs&st=cse
@Hannah
I fully agree with your points. For all those who complain that only Republicans benefit from SPACs, their President Obama has just endorsed one for himself [1]. Even Rick Santorum, who recently said “nobody ever thinks I can win anything,” (ADORABLE) has begun to see an upswing in his funding as a result of his wins in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado [2]. In our modern landscape of media exposure and extreme opinions, SPACs are necessary. They prompt the public to actually think about who they’re voting for, rather than just choose on election day or (perish the thought) not vote at all. For those who believe that SPACs allow people to buy elections, consider the American people. Advertising is all around us, and all it does is prompt us to think about things. It doesn’t cause us to automatically rush out and buy whatever the product is. In the same vein, SPACs just raise awareness among the public of who the candidates are and what they stand for. We in this AP GOPO class may scoff at the idea that people don’t know those things without copious advertisements, but not everyone is as politically inclined as we are. Better to prompt people to consider politics than leave them to their own, easily distracted, devices.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/barack-obama-super-pac_n_1265879.html
[2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaigntre80q2aq-20120127,0,4004643.story
@Jan
I completely agree with your opinion that super pac's play too big of a role in Politics. The amount of
Influence that the PAC system allows corporation to excercise is ridiculous. It leads to extremely negative campaigns, which are irritating to everyone but the most hardcore zealots (for their respective candidates). These vicious and purposefully misleading attack ads confuse the voter, and are a clear barrier to the democratic pillar of informed voting. We saw this in the last election, where scores of voters believed President (then Senator) Obama to be a secret Muslim or to have been born in Kenya. Now, four years later, the PACs have even more influence, which will lead to even more outlandish claims.
I also agree with you on how the PACs give the wealthy a disproportionate voice in the election. The PACs can often be used as tools for hoodwinking the Poor, brainwashing them into opinions that aren't valid.
However, there is a problem with eliminating PACS. It would be outlandishly diffucult to cut them out of the political system due to the foothold they've gained.
@ Andrew
I completely agree with you, money is too important in the campaigns today. I enjoyed your anecdote in class about your household being attacked, so to speak, by solicitors asking for campaign contributions even on Superbowl Sunday. I feel like that is fairly indicative as to what is happening as far as gathering monetary resources across the board, people are targeted as likely donors and then are harassed significantly until they donate. I feel that that is selfish for the candidate to do, at the end of the day will they help you? In your case, probably because you are conservative. I also believe that corporations are overly represented in Super PACs because they have access to huge amounts of money. I suppose that this could be definitive proof that corporations are in fact people too. I feel that Super PACs could easily be abused but I don’t think that they will be. Even with a fortune to spend on positive ads, a poorly qualified individual will not be able to get elected because debates and other aspects of the electoral process will expose the less admirable qualities. Super PACs, as you said, are another means of presenting a group or an individual’s opinion, which is fair; any person can share their opinion so any organzation can too. The upside of all of the money poured into the media helps to create jobs as broadcast centers will have more money to expand or improve what they have. This is a great benefit because the media is easily accessed by all, so all people are able to share in the benefits. Ultimately, Super PACs reallocate money to other places, not a bad thing nessissarily, but not the primary benefit of it. Overall , I agree that they serve as a platform for the voicing of opinions.
@mcnaughton
I mostly agree with your assessment of the impact that Super PACs have on the Presidential race today. This race has been a very negative race, and super PACs have been using super negative tactics, especially a pro-Romney group against Gingrich, in Florida. (1) I agree that these negative ads have very little usable information present, and reflect negatively back upon the person the ad is in support of. As negative ads progress and continue, people seem to think less of the candidate the ads are actually for. (2) Romney’s super PAC negative ads against Gingrich are thought to most likely end up hurting himself, and helping the other candidates in the long run. (2) I also agree with you that in order to be truly informed, one should watch the debates and such stuff. However, I think that some ads from super PACs do allow issues to be raised. For those who truly wish to be informed voters can research the truth about the snippets in these ads.
Yes, campaigning for President has become extremely expensive. And yes, super PACs help to fix this problem, somewhat. Super PACs raise a lot of money in order to campaign for their favorable candidate. (1) The spending by super PACs in this campaign, especially in Florida, has grown intensely, causing super PACs to have more influence, including the negative ads, whether or not they are helpful. (3) So all in all, I agree with you that there are many negatives of super PACs, but also think that there are a few positives.
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9055396/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-Super-pac-donors-revealed.html
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/politics/romneys-negative-campaign-in-florida-could-have-political-costs.html
3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/gop-primaries-ad-spending-super-pacs/52895296/1
@ Alison A. I loved you post because you quickly summarized super PACs quite thoroughly. You did talk about super PACs in a way that related to the Republicans. The Republicans have expended senseless amounts of money in this campaign and the current president has repeatedly expressed his opinions of them. Nevertheless, the Democrats have been pressured into spending more because of out of control spending of the super PACs who are supporting the Republican party by raising over a billion dollars (1). According to an official of Obama’s campaign, the decision has been made: the Republicans will not be the only ones with an unlimited budget. Both the Republicans and Democrats are now supported by the unlimited budgets of the super PACs and it will be extremely fascinating to see the results of this. Obama has expressed his dislike of super PACs but now they look like the best road to his success. As you stated, if there is a controversy involving a super PAC, the candidates associated with that super PAC will be able to distance themselves from the super PAC because that is not their sole supporter. You mentioned the attack of Romney by the Winning Our Future super PAC and how Newt Gingrich distanced himself from that situation. The super PACs are exceedingly capable of effectively attacking other campaigns, which increases the amount of money being spent.96% of negative super PAC spending was contributed towards making negative ads about Newt Gingrich (2). That is a ridiculous amount of public pessimism towards Gingrich, also a ridiculous amount of money. Gingrich received 31.9% of the Florida votes, behind Romney (3). The impact of the super PACS could be seen in two ways: the negative spending kept the candidate for winning or helped him get second place. I do not agree with what you said about the distortion that super PACs can bring to presidential elections. I do agree that they should not be able to contribute as much as they have in this election, but contributions to political campaigns (even in a financial way) is a way for voter efficacy to be enacted.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/barack-obama-super-pac-support-priorities-usa-action_n_1260231.html (2) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/10/96-of-negative-super-pac-spending-since-iowa-has-targeted-gingrich/ (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/mitt-romney-florida-primary-results_n_1242039.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home