Are Super PACs Harming U.S. Politics? >
Super PACs Enhance Democracy
Super PACs fund political speech and are protected under he First Amendment
January 13, 2012
About John Samples:
John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and the author of The Struggle to Limit Government.
Everyone loves to hate super PACs. One critic said they were "a new political animal that is ugly, loud, anti-democratic." In fact, super PACs enhance democracy.
What's so "super" about a super PAC? A political action committee raises and contributes legally limited sums to candidates for office. Super PACs are not limited in how much money they can raise or spend during an election. Why not? They do not contribute to candidates. No contribution, no quid pro quo with officeholders—hence no corruption.
[Aggressive Old Newt Gingrich Is Back.]
Consider what super PACs actually do. In Iowa, a super PAC associated with Mitt Romney charged Newt Gingrich with ethical lapses and hypocrisy. In the upcoming South Carolina fight, a Gingrich super PAC is using a $5 million donation to accuse Romney of destroying jobs.
In other words, super PACs fund political speech. The First Amendment protects such speech.
Are these charges against Gingrich and Romney correct? That's the wrong question. If government could suppress "false" speech, the First Amendment would be meaningless. Those in power would find that their critics are lying and suppress their criticisms.
A better question: Do super PACs inform voters? Romney's attack on Gingrich questions his fitness for the GOP nomination and for office. Gingrich's response raises questions about Romney's character and his competence. The information is relevant. Voters must decide if the criticisms are true.
[Bain Attacks Rally Support Behind Romney.]
Studies show high spending on negative ads increases voter knowledge and turnout. Those who have the least knowledge at the start of a campaign benefit the most.
But don't big donations mean the rich buy elections? The large donation to Gingrich kept him in the fight long enough to air his critique of Romney. It bought Gingrich more time to make his case, not a lock in the nomination.
Candidates for office do not like to be criticized. Who does? But voters need to hear the worst about candidates to make the best choice now and in November.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Newt Gingrich Amps up Negative Attacks on Mitt Romney.
- Other Arguments
-
#116821
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
-
#216528
Yes — We need to fix not only flawed FEC decisions enabling super PACs but Citizens United itself
ROBERT WEISSMAN, President of Public Citizen
-
#314617
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
-
#531114
No — There is nothing wrong with presenting the voting public with more information
DAVID N. BOSSIE, President of Citizens United
-
#628113
No — Super PACs allow citizens to take advantage of fast-breaking developments
BRADLEY A. SMITH, Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics
-
#730119
No — Super PACs have less influence than we think
JENNIFER MARSICO, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute
