Are Super PACs Harming U.S. Politics? >
Super PACs Level the Playing Field
Super PACs allow citizens to take advantage of fast-breaking developments
January 13, 2012
About Bradley A. Smith:
Bradley A. Smith is the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and the Blackmore/Nault Professor of Law at Capital University. From 2000 to 2005, he served as commissioner and chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
Super PACs are not an evil tolerated under the First Amendment--they are what the First Amendment is all about. A super PAC, after all, is simply a group of citizens pooling resources to speak out about politics.
In 2010, the first election after the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC struck down the federal law prohibiting super PACs, turnout rose over the prior midterm elections in 2002 and 2006. There were more competitive races than in anyone's memory, largely because the ability of super PACs to raise money quickly allowed citizens to take advantage of fast-breaking developments. Super PACs even leveled the playing field--the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates outspent Republicans by roughly $180 million, including an edge of approximately $65 million from traditional PACs, but super PACs cut that Democratic spending advantage in half.
[See pictures of the 2012 GOP candidates.]
This year, super PACs have already made it possible for a broke Rick Santorum campaign to keep fighting after his strong showing in Iowa; and for New Gingrich to stay in the game after disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. President Obama will easily outspend his GOP rival this fall, who will have used up much of his money in the primaries. Super PACs, however, will help level the field.
Similarly, in 2010, super PACs helped challengers win numerous races in which they were vastly outspent by incumbents. For example, Democratic Congressman Dan Maffei of New York outspent his opponent, Ann Buerkle, by more than $2 million, but Buerkle won a narrow victory with the help of just over $500,000 in independent expenditures from super PACs. Similarly, in North Dakota, Rep. Earl Pomeroy had a $2 million advantage in traditional PAC money over his challenger, but super PAC spending partially offset that advantage and helped Dan Berg score an upset win.
[Bain Attacks Rally Support Behind Romney.]
Super PACs disclose all of their expenditures and all of their donors (probably some contributors to this symposium will tell you otherwise--they are wrong, confusing super PACs with traditional nonprofits such as the NAACP or the Sierra Club).
Super PACs are helping to shatter the old, established order, create more competition, and break the hold of special interests lobbyists--big business actually joined the "reform" community in opposing super PACs in court.
Are super PACs harming politics? Of course not. How odd that anyone would think that more political speech was bad for democracy.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- 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
-
#435113
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
-
#531114
No — There is nothing wrong with presenting the voting public with more information
DAVID N. BOSSIE, President of Citizens United
-
#730119
No — Super PACs have less influence than we think
JENNIFER MARSICO, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute
