The Role of Super PACs in US Politics

The Role of Super PACs in US Politics A super PAC is a modern breed of a political action committee thats allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals, and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. The rise of the super PAC was heralded as the beginning of a new era in politics in which elections would be determined by the vast sums of money flowing into them, leaving average voters with little to no influence. The term super PAC is used to describe what is technically known in federal election code as an independent expenditure-only committee. They are relatively easy to create under federal election laws. There is about 2,400 super PACs on file with the Federal Election Commission. They raised about $1.8 billion and spent $1.1 billion in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Function of a Super PAC The role of a super PAC is similar to that of a traditional political action committee. A super PAC advocates for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office by purchasing television, radio and print advertisements and other media. There are conservative super PACs and liberal super PACs. Difference Between a Super PAC and Political Action Committee The most important difference between a super PAC and traditional candidate PAC is in who can contribute, and in how much they can give. Candidates and traditional candidate committees can accept $2,700 from individuals per election cycle. There are two election cycles a year: one for the primary, the other for the general election in November. That means they can take in a maximum of $5,400 a year half in the primary, and half in the general election. Candidates and traditional candidate committees are prohibited from accepting money from corporations, unions, and associations. Federal election code prohibits those entities from contributing directly to candidates or candidate committees. Super PACs, though, have no limitations on who contributes to them or how much they can spend on influencing an election. They can raise as much money from corporations, unions, and associations as they please and spend unlimited amounts on advocating for the election or defeat of the candidates of their choice. Some of the money that flows into super PACs cannot be traced. That money is often referred to as dark money. Individuals can mask their identities and the money they give by contribution first to  outside groups including nonprofit  501[c] groups  or  social welfare organizations  that go on to spend tens of millions of dollars on political ads. Restrictions on Super PACs The most important restriction prohibits any super PAC from working in conjunction with a candidate its supporting. According to the Federal Election Commission, super PACs cannot spend money â€Å"in concert or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, the candidates campaign or a political party.† History of Super PACs Super PACs came into existence in July 2010 following two key federal court decisions that found limitations on both corporate and individual contributions to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech. In SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a federal court found restrictions on individual contributions to independent organizations that seek to influence elections to be unconstitutional. And in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that limits on corporate and union spending to influence elections were also unconstitutional. â€Å"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,† Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. Combined, the rulings allowed individuals, unions and other organizations to contribute freely to political action committees that are independent of political candidates. Super PAC Controversies Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the court rulings and creation of super PACs opened the floodgates to widespread corruption. In 2012, U.S. Sen. John McCain warned: I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it’s making the campaigns irrelevant. McCain and other critics said the rulings allowed wealthy corporations and unions to have an unfair advantage in electing candidates to federal office. In writing his dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens opined of the majority: At bottom, the Courts opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Another criticism of super PACs arises from the allowance of some nonprofit groups to contribute to them without disclosing where their money came from, a loophole that allows so-called dark money to flow directly into elections. Super PAC Examples Super PACs spend tens of millions of dollars in presidential races. Some of the most powerful include: Right to Rise, a super PAC that spent more than $86 million supporting  former Florida Gov. Jeb Bushs failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.Conservative Solutions PAC, which spent nearly $56 million supporting U.S. Sen. Marco Rubios failed bid  for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.Priorities USA Action, which spent more than $133 million supporting  Hillarys Clintons bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and backed President Barack Obama in 2012. Another prominent pro-Hillary super PAC is Ready for Hillary.New Day for America, which spent more than $11  million supporting Ohio Gov. John Kasichs campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.