Super PAC’s With the 2012 Presidential election this fall super PAC’s will have a crucial impact on the candidates in the election. The aspects of super PAC’s far outweigh the harmful side effects that occur. In an informal survey of Ohioans an English 102 class at Columbus State Community College found that 60 percent are aware of what super Pac’s are. In the same survey, 70 percent of Ohioans believe there should be no cap on the contributions by corporations and groups (Survey). Super PAC’s are controversial because they are a result of two court rulings against the Federal Election Commission by the Supreme Court. Super PAC’s are much like political action committees but cannot coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. They allow labor unions, corporations and different groups to make unlimited contributions to these groups that are not in cahoots with any political parties or candidates. The major controversies of this topic are: the First Amendment, disclosure of contributors, corruption, competiveness of elections, and political advertising. The two Supreme Court cases which lead to the creation of super PAC’s were Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee and SpeechNow.org vs. Federal Election Committee. These two rulings came in 2010 within months of each other. Mortimer B. Zuckerman in “Money in Politics: A Problem With No Easy Solutions” of U.S. Digital Weekly, illustrates the formation of super PAC’s. In the first case Citizens United vs. FEC found that the government cannot prohibit corporations and unions from spending money to support or oppose candidates. The second ruling in the SpeechNow.org vs. FEC upheld a constitutional of persons’ spending money independently of any candidate or party to pool their resources for a common cause (1+). Former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now Chairman of Center for Competitive Politics; Bradley Smith is one of the most important voices in the fight to roll back restrictions on political free speech. In the article “The War on Political Free Speech” he wrote for The Wall Street Journal, discusses the Citizens United case:
The U.S. government argued in Citizens United that it had the right to ban the publication of books, pamphlets and movies that advocated the election or defeat of a candidate if they were produced or distributed by unions or corporations, such as Random House, Barnes & Noble and DreamWorks. That position is the one that deserves scorn. Fortunately, no new amendment was needed to defeat it -- only the First Amendment and a Supreme Court willing to uphold it. (A19)
Smith resigned as Chairman of the FEC in August of 2005 after serving five years. During his tenure in the FEC Smith tried to reform the enforcement proceedings and tried to keep the FEC from expanding laws in uncharted areas. The Center for Competitive Politics and Smith were co-counsel for the plaintiff’s in the cases vs. the FEC. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects our freedom of speech and keeps the government from abridging freedom of speech. The Citizens United and Speechnow. Org decisions have restored our First Amendment rights. Super PAC’s bring together small groups with common interest that lack resources independently but together their voices can be heard. “Limits should not be placed on contributions to super PAC’s because that would also limit their donor’s free speech” (Super PACs). A government agency should not have the authority to censor free speech protected by the First Amendment. A point on contention between supporters and those who oppose super PAC’s is the disclosure of the donors. Critics are always citing disclosure in their arguments against super PAC’s but they are required to disclose all donations over 200 dollars, just like traditional political action committees. Non-profit groups such as the NAACP, the NRA, and Planned Parenthood are not required to disclose donors; super PAC’s are a step forward for more disclosure. Critics also think that corruption in politics will increase because money is said to be the worst political evil and it is allowing personal interest to run wild. President and CEO of Common Cause Bob Edgar suggest that “all these political investors come to Washington to collect on their gifts to the new Congress: The corruption will make Watergate look like a petty crime” (2+). Before these decisions were made, unlimited corporate spending in state elections were legal in many states, which included Virginia, Utah, Florida and Washington. These states are considered well governed and scandal free. Super PAC’s are thought to limit competition between candidates but that is not necessarily the case. The article “Are Super PACs Bad for Democracy?” from U.S. News Weekly finds that super PAC’s increase competition in elections. Incumbents usually outspend challengers three to one, but super PAC’s tend to support the challenger which tends to create a more level playing field. An example used in the article discussed Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon, having to campaign hard for the first time in many years because a super PAC spent 500,000 dollars against him. DeFazio outspent the super PAC by a sizable margin and won reelection. Newt Gingrich was running out of money in the republican primaries but thanks to the help of Winning Our Future, largely funded by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, kept Gingrich in the race and gave a voice to tens of thousands of supporters in South Carolina and Florida (2). In 2010 we had the most competitive congressional elections since 1930. Super PAC’s have been accused of financing the political ads attacking candidates. Matthew Creamer in “Super Pacs as Scourge of Political Advertising Battles? Not Necessarily” of Advertising Age reports that advertising of super PAC’s have made race more democratic. Ad spending in 2012 election is estimated to increase to 9.8 billion from 7 billion spent in the 2008 election. Super PAC’s will do the dirty work of shaping attacks on rivals and leaving candidates out of it. Critics believe most of these ads are absolute lies and filled with half truths. Negative ads are often closer to the truth than self-congratulatory positive ads and so provide informational value. Voters are smarter than they are given credit for and are not easily influenced by negative ads. Creamer believes super PACs have been exaggerated because of the media and there is no evidence to prove they are sponsoring a majority of the negative ads (1+). Television ads are a tool of free speech exercised by super PAC’s to get their opinion voiced to the public. The 2012 presidential election will feature super PAC’s backing candidates by spending money on ads and campaigning for theirs’ and against others. President Barack Obama has the support of Priorities USA Action which is run by Obama’s aide, Bill Burton. There are two Republican supporting groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, planning to spend 240 million. Also supporting Republican candidate Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, as well as other super PAC’s have spent 30.2 million in the Primaries alone. The House Majority PACs’ goal is to get the majority in the House of Representatives by supporting Democrats in races across the country. Stephen Colbert’s super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow was created to poke fun at super PAC system and creates outrageous television ads that are within the law. There are many in opposition to super PAC’s, but there is no data to support the claims that Super PAC’s are responsible for the majority of negative ads or that they are destroying the American electoral politics. Super PACs fall under our first amendment right and there is no way to censor free speech without taking away our rights. Critics of super PACs fear what they cannot control and American democracy is thriving.

Works Cited

“Are Super PACs Bad for Democracy?.” U.S. News Digital Weekly 4.6. Business Source Complete. Web. 22 May 2012.
Beneson, Bob. “Presidential Election.” CQ Researcher 22.5 (Feb. 2012): 117. Web. 22 May 2012.
Creamer, Matthew. “Super Pacs as Scourge of Political Advertising Battles? Not Necessarily.” Advertising Age 83.11 (2012):2-21. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 22 May 2012.
Edgar, Bob. “Con.” CQ Researcher.
Smith, Bradley. “The War on Political Free Speech.” Wall Street Journal. 23 Jan 2012: A.19. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 May 2012.
“Super PACs.” Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 23 May 2012
“Survey.” English 102 Students. CSCC. Columbus, OH. 20 May 2012
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. “Money in Politics: A Problem With No Easy Solutions.” U.S. Digital Weekly. 6 Apr. 2012: 21. Business Source Complete. Web. 22 May 2012.