Against Super PACs - Essay Example

Against Super PACs The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committees history and the reasons behind the public outcry against the existence of Super PACs. A Super PAC is an independent - expenditure only committee that has the legal power to raise unlimited sums of money in campaign contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other (lobbyist) groups. The committee was the result of a landmark Supreme Court Decision (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee) that dictated that campaign contributions to third party groups cannot be limited. The term Super PAC can be attributed to Eliza Newlin Carney, a reporter who worked for CQ Roll Call. She was the first person to have used the term Super PACs in the context of the word definition (Wetheimer, “Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs: A Little History Is in Order”). Although Super PACs were not meant to openly support any single candidate, the committee has become a force to reckon with this campaign season. Its power and financial backing of particular candidates can be seen and felt in the negative ads that candidates like Mitt Romney have run, all amounting to tens of millions of dollars. That is one reason the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party. In other words, Super PACs gives a voice to people with money. All corporations that have money to give are giving millions and millions of dollars to the candidates across the board. Independent voters do not have that money to donate, so their candidates are not as prominent in terms of connecting with voters. Such is the effect of the Super PAC. It makes it seem like only certain candidates have a right to be in the political race because they are the ones with the (lobbyist group) backing and financing. However, ordinary citizens also find themselves scratching their heads in terms of wrapping their brains around the idea of a Super PAC not being a coordinated group founded by the political figure. Take for example the case of Newt Gingrich and the Winning Our Future group. Disclosures later in the campaign proved that he was the very person who founded the group and his close friend Becky Burkett worked for the group. His personal friends like Sheldon Addleson contributed a cool $10 million to the group. This is clearly a violation of the rules governing the Super PACs, a loophole that the candidates are willing to exploit to their own benefit. (Scola “The Darkest Day In the History of American Super PACs). Another issue surrounding the existence of the Super PAC is that it has changed the election landscape from being public issue-centric to personal attacks and negative ad campaign oriented. Reading the election section of any local or national newspaper today shows us that candidates are too busy throwing stones at each other for what they consider to be personal black propaganda rather than taking to the pulpits and debating public policy and issues that the voting public care about. It would seem that the large corporations and union groups prefer that the presidential campaign be run in this manner. It removes the pressure of having to protect their vested interests and vetting candidates in terms of voter support for their causes after election from the lobby groups.(Scola “The Darkest Day In the History of American Super PACs). In fact, I would even hazard to say that in this particular election season, the public will be voting for and the Electoral College will be declaring their support for a presidential candidate who has been carefully chosen by the large lobbyist groups. We might think that our next elected president will be representing the peoples interests. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, the Super PACs have made it very easy for lobbyist groups to seat “their man” in the White House to protect “the lobby group interest” instead. The Super PACs will change the landscape of the government, as we know it. By the time the Super PACs will have existed for at least 2 presidential election cycles, the public will come to realize that the large corporations and lobbyist groups have taken over the functions of our elected government because the only choices the voters have for candidates will be coming from their Super PAC controlled roster of candidates. The Big Corporation money will get the candidate what he wants and in exchange, the candidate will have to remember which corporation contributed how much to his campaign and repay them in kind once any legislation affecting that corporation comes to the floor in congress. In other words, a Super PAC created public official can never be trusted to vote for and on behalf of his actual constituents. The reasons I have mentioned above are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the reasons as to why the voting public openly distrusts and is against the existence of the Super PACs. John Hudson of The Atlantic Wire even goes so far as to mention a recent Washington Post- ABC poll on the issue of public support for Super PACs. He mentions that: ... nearly seven in 10 registered voters think they should be illegal. If you just take independents, a whopping 78 percent believe the fund raising vehicle should be banned outright. (Hudson “The Media Convinced Everyone to Hate Super PACs”) Although rules have been set into place by the Federal Election Commission pertaining the release of the identities of the Super PACs contributors, the media, who have direct access to this list, cannot help but fuel the sense of distrust that continues to mount against the super committee. It seems impossible for anybody with a logical mind to support the existence of the Super PACs because the group has fed the desire of political parties to spend insane amounts of money in order to gain the political upper hand in Washington. This spending explosion does not show any signs of slowing down in the future. Instead, it only seems to be heading towards even more unimaginable spending on both political aisles. Honestly, Super PACs should make the voters worry about the new era of complete political corruption that the super committee can usher in. Super PACs place our society at the mercy of big corporations and powerful lobby groups and unions. The campaign season was meant to be a platform by which the candidates can share their constituents concerns and present their ideas for solutions to various socioeconomic problems that beset our nation. Instead, we have candidates accusing each other of libelous and slanderous acts in the guise of “political discussion” as supported by the Super PAC. The issues on the table are no longer the kind that the voting public have the power to use the power of the ballot upon. Instead, we have the new power brokers in the form of the Super PACs hovering over us. Waiting to pounce on the carcasses of the once powerful voting bloc known as the American people. Super PACs have their own agendas. They will contribute to the candidates who best reflect their political interests regardless of the (questionable) honesty and integrity of a candidate. This campaign season is all about secrets and deceit. The candidate who wins is the one who will best be able to camouflage his direct relationship to these powerful lobby groups and big corporations. He will be the best game player of them all because he will wear two political faces the way an entertainer wears the entertainment mask. He will be the master of telling people what they want to and need to hear all the while working in the background to get his political backers the legislative deals that they desire. That is the main reason people are up in arms against the existence of Super PACs. Works Cited Hudson, John. “The Media Convinced Everyone to Hate Super PACs”. Politics. The Atlantic Wire. 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2012. Scola, Nancy. “The Darkest Day in the History of American Super PACs”. Election 2012. The Atlantic. 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2012. Wertheimer, Fred. “Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs: A Little History Is in Order”. Politics. Huff Post. 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. Read More