Super PACs

The term PAC refers to political action committee. The role of a PAC is usually to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate by buying mass media advertising. Political candidates may interact with traditional PACs and opine on how funds should be spent. Individuals can contribute to a PAC, albeit only up to a certain amount. Organizations such as corporations, unions, and associations are prohibited from making direct contributions in connection with federal elections, and thus may not contribute to a traditional PAC. They may, however, set up a PAC that may only request funds from individuals connected to the organization. Organizations known as super PACs, however, may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and associations in order to purchase election or political advertising. Unlike a traditional PAC, a super PAC cannot directly interact with or contribute to a political party or candidate.

Background

Recent federal court cases have significantly changed the regulatory limitations on campaign financing in the United States. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that spending money can be constituted as free speech, and struck down prior limitations on unlimited spending for political campaigns. In 2010, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissioncase, the Supreme Court ruled that government may not limit political independent contributions or spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions. In other words, the judiciary concluded that independent organizations such as corporations and labor unions may spend without limits on United States elections. One rationale of the decision was to prevent corruption and improper influence by big donors. Another rationale was to uphold the First Amendment which, in the opinion of the majority, guarantees that American citizens have the right to contribute or spend unlimited funds to help select or defeat whomever they wish.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision was one of the most hotly debated rulings in recent history. Those who supported the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment received the opinion with enthusiasm. Electoral reform defenders, however, reacted adversely. Critics claim that the ruling shows that the court majority did not fully grasp the overall constitutional dimensions of corporate speech.

Constitutional scholars offer different theories to explain the ruling and its consequences, some of which seek to reconcile these sharply polarized groups. For example, some interpret the constitutional conflict over campaign finance reform as a debate between those who believe self-government needs democratic participation in order to build public opinion, on one hand, and those who argue that self-government needs a system of representation, on the other. While the former stress the importance of free speech, the latter stress the integrity of the electoral process.

Each of these opinions has a long trajectory in United States constitutional history. Both perspectives seek to uphold self-government. Some scholars argue that self-government today, however, can only prosper if elections are structured in such a way as to nourish public confidence in the system—specifically, public trust that elected officials heed public opinion.

Overview

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that individuals could make unlimited independent expenditures not coordinated with candidates, campaign managers or parties. Independent expenditures mostly refer to mass media advertising. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which was filed by Citizens United to get an injunction against the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, held that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to participate in electioneering communications. The defeated Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sought to regulate inordinate campaign contributions by preventing corporations or unions from funding electioneering communications from their treasuries.

As a result of the verdict, political parties sought to optimize spending while keeping within the strictures of the law. This gave way to the proliferation of various political advocacy organizations, such as political action committees, “soft money” groups—also known as 527 groups—and super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions and make independent expenditures. President Barack Obama criticized the ruling, and his campaign declared that it supported an amendment to place reasonable limits on such spending. To date, however, the ruling remains as issued.

Although many perceive super PACs as mainly connected to businesses, there are politically conservative as well as progressive super PACs. Super PACs are legal and operate within the law, yet seem ethically shady to many American citizens. They are concerned that super PACs could be used by wealthy donors seeking to avoid limits on contribution spending. Political campaigns may appear to lack transparency because of super PAC activity—in other words, due to unclear delimitations between independent information and the information disseminated by campaign organizers. Other critics argue that very little is known about where super PACs acquire their funds and how they spend them.

Another hot-button issue was the Supreme Court’s effort to protect the First Amendment by connecting campaign spending to the exercise of free speech. However, some experts say that because money is necessary in order to spread campaign information, limits on spending work to effectively restrict speech. As the Supreme Court noted in its 1976 ruling, all means of disseminating ideas massively in contemporary society require mass communication—television, radio, and other mass media—making the expenditure of large amounts of money a political necessity. Therefore, means of mass communication have become an indispensable channel for effective political speech today—and these are expensive. Critics warn, however, that groups funded with enormous amounts of money may drown out other groups’ messages. Others argue that all candidates and campaign organizers can do is get their message out and hope to persuade the audience. These independent expenditures, they say, help build an informed electorate.

Bibliography

Bardes, Barbara, Mack C. Shelley, and Steffen W. Schmidt. American Government and Politics Today: Essentials 2013–2014. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

Dowling, Conor M., and Michael G. Miller. Super PAC! Money, Elections, and Voters after Citizens United. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Garrett, Sam R. Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress. Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2013.

Jamison, Derrick, and Gina Gore. Super PACs (Political Action Committees): The New Force in Federal Elections. Hauppauge: Nova Science, 2012. Print.

O’Connor, Karen, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandra B. Yanus. Essentials of American Government: Roots and Reform, 2012. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Post, Robert C., Pamela S. Karlan, Lawrence Lessing, Frank I. Michelman, and Nadia Urbinati. Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2014. Print.

Remy, Richard C. United States Government: Principles in Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.

Sabato, Larry J. PAC Power: Inside the World of Political Action Committees. New York: Norton, 1985. Print.