Are Super PACs Harming U.S. Politics?
A PAC, or political action committee, is the name given to any private group organized and funded with the goal of electing a political candidate or advancing a legislative agenda. The term “super PAC” (for groups officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees”) gained popularity in 2010 after the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case was decided in a 5-4 vote, and the decision argued that, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes. Soon afterward, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission that no limits could be placed on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors and are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates or agendas they advocate.
Since then, super PACs have started campaigns in support of particular agendas, most notably to back Republican presidential candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, the pro-Romney super PAC Restore America has raised 12.2 million dollars this election cycle, and it released numerous advertisements in Iowa attacking Newt Gingrich. This week, the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future released a 28-minute documentary-style video called When Mitt Romney Came to Town that attacks Romney’s business career at Bain Capital.
Proponents 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.
Are super PACs harming U.S. politics? Here’s the Debate Club’s take:
The Arguments
Yes — We need to fix not only flawed FEC decisions enabling super PACs but Citizens United itself
ROBERT WEISSMAN, President of Public Citizen Comment
Yes — Super PACs make it harder and harder for the voice of the average American to be heard
BERNIE SANDERS, Junior United States Senator from Vermont Comment (6)
Yes — There is an alarming lack of transparency that allows "independent" groups to spend tens of millions
DANIELLE BRIAN, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight Comment (7)
No — Super PACs allow citizens to take advantage of fast-breaking developments
BRADLEY A. SMITH, Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics Comment (1)
No — Super PACs fund political speech and are protected under he First Amendment
JOHN SAMPLES, Director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute Comment (1)
No — Super PACs have less influence than we think
JENNIFER MARSICO, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute Comment
No — There is nothing wrong with presenting the voting public with more information
DAVID N. BOSSIE, President of Citizens United Comment (2)
