Summary: Political action committees or as they're more commonly referred to, PACs, are political independent expenditure-only committees created for the sole purpose of raising and spending certain amounts of money for political reasons. These funds along with campaign contribution from donors are then used by the PACs to elect or defeat political candidates. A new type of PAC was created as a result of the US Court of Appeals decision regarding the Speechnow v. FEC case in 2010 and became known as "Super PACs". Super PACs could now raise unlimited amounts of money and don't have to report to the IRS if they filed 501(c)(4) status under the Internal Revenue Code. Eventually, because of the Federal Election Commission's unwillingness and/or inability to regulate these newly formed groups, the Super PACs now had greater freedom when it came to their actions as this meant that now there were no limits or restrictions on them or the sources of their funds. Proponents of the Super PACs often argue that their free speech is protected by the First Amendment rights and that the system in place is fair because they're not allowed to coordinate with the candidates. Opponents are frequently disturbed by the estimated $2 billion being spent by Super PACs on the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Additionally, opponents of Super PACs also state that the non-coordination regulations are nearly impossible to uphold. In this article, Paul Blumenthal of the Huffington Post discusses the role played by Super PACs in elections on both state and local levels to demonstrate how firmly ingrained these organizations are in our daily lives and how their involvement is almost impossible to evade, noting that no one is immune from their influence.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2015-elections-super-pac_5633d165e4b0c66bae5c7bbb
Questions: Are Super PACs harming US politics?
If so, should their influence be eliminated entirely or simply negated?
If not, should the FEC and IRS actually attempt to monitor and regulate them?
Well, let me say that politics is a dirty business even without the nefarious Super PACs. I followed a link concerning the election this week in Louisiana and found this ad actually made by the winning candidates' campaign. I thought that it was possible that the ad would be a Super PAC, but in this case Jon Bel Edwards was not secretive at all with his aggressive attacks.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tefrYRPzcFU
Well, let me say that politics is a dirty business even without the nefarious Super PACs. I followed a link concerning the election this week in Louisiana and found this ad actually made by the winning candidates' campaign. I thought that it was possible that the ad would be a Super PAC, but in this case Jon Bel Edwards was not secretive at all with his aggressive attacks.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tefrYRPzcFU
Super Pacs are just the latest way politicians have found a way to cheat the system. However, with billions of dollars being funneled into this election, it will essentially let candidates buy their way into the presidency. Legislation needs to be in place to either tightly regulate the Super Pacs or remove them altogether.
ReplyDeleteI think Super PACS are definitely harming American politics by concentrating power in the hands of the wealthy. There are limits to individual contributions to candidate for a reason - America is supposed to be a democracy, not a plutocracy. By allowing the wealthy to spend as much money as they want to influence elections, we are silencing millions upon millions of people who can't afford to so do. Super PACs, PACs, and any political group based on spending money should be completely abolished to safeguard democracy.
ReplyDeleteI think Super PACS are definitely harming American politics by concentrating power in the hands of the wealthy. There are limits to individual contributions to candidate for a reason - America is supposed to be a democracy, not a plutocracy. By allowing the wealthy to spend as much money as they want to influence elections, we are silencing millions upon millions of people who can't afford to so do. Super PACs, PACs, and any political group based on spending money should be completely abolished to safeguard democracy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with MIchael Luo. Super PACs are giving the wealthy too much power. Isn't this supposed to be a land of equal opportunity for everyone? Some may argue that this is a land of capitalism and that people just have to work harder if they want their voice to get heard. However, it is important to note that many wealthy people are where they are because of inheritance or other family, such as George W. Bush or Hillary Rodham Clinton. We need to get rid of PACs.
DeleteSuperPACs are harmful to American politics as they allow a select few to take control of the national political system, further separating the rich from the poor in politics. However, I am leaning towards the viewpoint that freedom of speech also pertains to how people spend their money, and if that money is spent on certain candidates, well, that's how those people wanted to spend their own money and the government should involve itself in that. On the other hand, I am completely aware of the negative side effects SuperPACs and the unlimited spending on campaigns - it only further corrupts an already corrupt system and hurts many people. I think that perhaps if these SuperPACs were better regulated, it would decrease the corruption and still allow people the freedom to express their views in form of money.
ReplyDeleteSuper PAC is very harmful to American politics because it gives most power into wealthy people politically. it limited poor people's influence on the candidates. This should be totally eliminated because this is taking away the equal right to vote of American citizens. FEC and IRS should attempt to regulate this, and they did try in a way that will not change the situation much.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned before, politics are already a dirty business, and PAC's just add onto that. It also gives power to wealthy people, which limits poor peoples influence on candidates. Allowing the wealthy to spend money to influence elections is leaving out the majority of the United State's opinions.
ReplyDeleteSuperPACs impact American politics by allowing a select candidates from the two major parties to influence and take control of the makeup of the political system. The SUPER PACs create a separation of class representation: the rich (the smaller percentage of Americans) gets a bigger voice than the poor (majority of Americans) in politics. Although, some might say that inflicting the right of freedom of speech also pertains to how people spend their money (on certain candidates) , I agree more with the negative affects on the system due to its shadiness. The 501 (c)4, the right for unlimited spending on campaigns , screams out corruption and as a result has already impacted individuals right to being fairly represented.
ReplyDeleteI think that Super PAC's definitely influence politics in a huge way. If we are going to allow unlimited spending on campaigning, what we are doing is setting up a system that favors and always will favor the rich. The poor have nothing to offer candidates. The rich will give money in exchange for policies and bills that help big business and the one percent. Politics is a mess. There is no system that can really make it "fair" because the process of elections and campaigns are intrinsically unfair.
ReplyDeleteSuper PACs ensure that corporations will always have a powerful voice in politics. SuperPACs give an insane amount of influence to companies that are able to 'negotiate' economic plans with candidates that would protect their interests. Unfortunately, this often means that economic plans tend to favor big businesses, rather than providing benefits for middle and working classes. The free range of SuperPACs easily leads to corruption. However, citizens do have the right to use their money on any legal practices. The FEC and IRS should most definitely implace more regulatory procedures on Super PAC so that they don't run wild. If SuperPACs were better regulated, the corruption would decrease while allowing people the freedom to express their views in form of money.
ReplyDeleteSupporters of super PACs argue that free speech is protected under the First Amendment, and they contend that it’s a fair system since candidates are not allowed to coordinate with them. Opponents disagree, and many are disturbed by predictions of upwards of $2 billion being spent by super PACs on the upcoming presidential election. They also hold that the non-coordination caveat is impossible to uphold and are upset by the proliferation of negative ads.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, I do believe that Super PACs are harming to politics. They can spend unlimited amounts of money trying to do what they can in order to get a certain candidate elected. This includes negative propaganda of opposing candidates that may not even be true. When politics become like this, where people can't just focus on the good of each candidate but must draw out each and every flaw of their opponent, politics certainly become skewed. The amount of influence a Super Pac has of course varies on how much money it is able to spend, but if it has a large amount of funds, then of course it can be highly influential, and therefore extremely harming. Because of this, I believe that the FEC and IRS should definitely put into place programs that will monitor and regulate Super PACs so that they are not harming to American politics.
ReplyDeleteSuper PAC’s play a big role in influencing politics. I believe that Super Pacs are harmful because it allows the wealthy to take the reins of the political system; it is systems like this that create such a large gap between politicians and the people. Although I believe that super pacs are overwhelmingly controlling, I think that they should not be eliminated, but be monitored. I believe that rather than unlimited spending, there should be a reasonable cap to the amount of money super pacs can give campaigns.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a Super Pac is kind of ridiculous and favors candidates who have money or have the resources to raise the most money. Stephen Colbert exposed how much of a joke the system is and in my mind, Citzens United vs FEC should be overturned.
ReplyDelete