Are Super PACs Harming U.S. Politics? >
Super PACs Promote Attack Ads and Special Interests
We need to fix not only flawed FEC decisions enabling super PACs but Citizens United itself
January 13, 2012
The pre-super PAC era was no halcyon day of U.S. politics. But things are far, far worse thanks to the super PACs and the flood of campaign money from the superwealthy and corporations facilitated by the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. Three key ways the Super PACs are debasing our democracy:
- Attack ads with no accountability. Everyone hates negative advertisements, but politicians air them for a simple reason: They work. Politicians, though, are restrained by the fact that voters may turn on them for running an overly negative campaign. Super PACs suffer from no such restraints. They don't have members to whom they are accountable, they don't care about their reputations, and regular people don't know who they are. Thus we have the specter of the Mitt Romney-supporting super PAC Restore Our Future destroying the Gingrich campaign in Iowa, and Romney disdaining any responsibility.
- Outsize influence by the megadonors. Super PACs aren't raising money in small chunks. A very small number of superrich individuals and corporations are ante-ing up cash in quarter million-dollar chunks. A handful of casino magnates, hedge fund managers, and oil and gas moguls are now exerting huge influence over the Republican presidential nomination process.
- An invitation to corruption. You can't have this much money coming from this small a group of individuals and corporations--and the amount of money will get much larger, soon, as independent organizations and trade associations ramp up their spending for the 2012 general election--without a deeply corrupting influence. We're virtually inviting scandals on the scale of Watergate, or worse.
It is true that the absurdity of the super PACs has provided wonderful material for Stephen Colbert. But the damage being wreaked on our democracy is no laughing matter.
[Newt Gingrich Amps up Negative Attacks on Mitt Romney.]
We need to fix not only the flawed Federal Election Commission decisions enabling super PACs, but the Citizens United decision that underlies the profusion of election spending by corporations and the superrich. That will require a constitutional amendment--an uphill fight, to be sure, but momentum is fast growing. For more on the movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and restore our democracy, see democracyisforpeople.org.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Mogul Gives $5 Million to Pro-Gingrich Group.
- Other Arguments
-
#116621
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
-
#314517
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
-
#435112
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
-
#531113
No — There is nothing wrong with presenting the voting public with more information
DAVID N. BOSSIE, President of Citizens United
-
#628112
No — Super PACs allow citizens to take advantage of fast-breaking developments
BRADLEY A. SMITH, Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics
-
#730118
No — Super PACs have less influence than we think
JENNIFER MARSICO, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute
