The Dangers of Unlimited Campaign Spending
Everything you need to know about PACs, Super PACs, and how they impact our political process
Democrats love to blame so-called “Super PACs” for everything. Despite the frequency of these complaints, a majority of the voting public doesn’t even know what “PAC” stands for. According to a Washington Post/Pew research poll done in 2012, only 4 in 10 Americans were able to accurately define what a PAC is.
So, what was Bernie Sanders yelling about in the 2016 presidential election? There are two different types of PACs . To begin, we have traditional Political Action Committees, or PACs. They are organizations formed to raise money for the purpose of electing political candidates. A single PAC may donate a maximum of $5,000 to any given candidate per election cycle, and up to $15,000 to National party committees, annually.
On the other hand, Super PACs, more formally known as independent expenditure-only committees, are similarly organizations that raise money on behalf of political campaigns. Where they differ from traditional PACs is they may raise and spend an unlimited amount of money. This privilege is due to the fact that they are separate or independent from the campaign.
Independent expenditure-only committees include, but are not limited to corporate sponsored PACs and leadership PACs, which are started by a candidate officeholder. Super PACs have only existed since 2010, and there hasn’t been time for regulation to catch up, although, this type of PAC is banned from making direct donations to campaigns, or coordinating with the campaign in any manner.
They may, however, spend funds on organizing and advertising on behalf of a candidate. As one might imagine, the lines get rather blurry. It is relatively easy to slip information under firewalls, regardless of the laws in place, whether by individual interactions, informants, or other methods.
Soon after Citizens United was passed, Super PACs requested that candidates be permitted to speak at Committee-hosted fundraising events. Permission was granted, with a few updates to campaign finance legislation. However, the term “event” was never defined, nor was a minimum attendance instituted.
Due to this, PACs would hold events in which only the candidate, the PAC founder, and one or two big donors would take part. Events very quickly became closed-door meetings that allowed, legally, very direct coordination between PAC and candidate. For more insights about these closed-door meetings, check out this article from the Independent Voter Network.
One example of how this donation system directly affects the decisions politicians make is the PAC created by the National Rifle Association (NRA). In the 2016 campaign cycle, the NRA PAC, formally named National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund, spent 22.6 million dollars on campaign donations. Less than 0.5% of this money was donated to Democratic candidates.
According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, the 97% of Americans support universal background checks. On top of that, 83% of those polled wished to see a mandatory waiting period for all gun sales. Despite such overwhelming support for these measures from both sides of the isle, Congress has yet to pass laws that reflect the will of the public.
This is largely due to the fact that Congress had, until recently, a Republican majority and nearly every Republican congress member receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA. This group that has repeatedly made public statements that oppose the implementation of both stricter background checks and waiting periods.
With that said, Candidate Joe doesn’t care a whole lot about your $20 donation when Big Corp is donating hundreds of thousands to his campaign.
Some regulations have come about, following discoveries of ways in which Super PACs circumvented donation restrictions. For example, Super PACs must disclose the names of all of their contributors. This is meant to prevent sketchy transactions, such as international contributions and embezzlement. Also, records of raising/spending must be released to the public by pre-election deadlines set and enforced by the Federal Election Commission. This gives voters a chance to see where each candidate gets their money and how donations are spent.
In the 2018 midterms alone, one third of House donations came from PACs, according to The Center for Responsive Politics, indicating that PACs continue to have a dangerous influence over political power in the United States.
So, the next time you find yourself researching who you’re going to vote for, consider looking into the PACs and Super PACs that support their campaign. Or, better yet, consider supporting a candidate who doesn’t accept PAC donations at all.
If you liked this article, check out my other article on the broader issue of campaign finance!
