Attack of the Super PAC

Super PACs are a recent financial phenomenon that have dramatically changed the way presidential campaigns will be conducted. 


To clarify, PAC stands for Political Action Committee.  Such an organization stands either for or against political candidates, legislation, or ballot incentives. An organization is recognized as a PAC at the federal level when it receives over $1000. However, at the state level, the definition and classification of PACs is left up to the state's election laws. 

So what's a "super" PAC, and why do we care? Well, the advent of organizations known as "super PACs" has changed the way that national campaigns in the US are run. James Werrell of The Rock Hill Herald described these super PACs well in his February article Super PACs Must be Limited:  "The so-called super PACs were spawned by the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. Justices declared that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on spending for political purposes by corporations and unions, overturning federal rules that had restricted the amount of cash businesses and unions could spend on political advertising." Therefore, super PACs can spend as much as they want in favor of a candidate, but the court ruled they may not directly coordinate with a campaign. 

Clearly, a candidate is at an advantage if they have more monetary support than his opposition. Thus, according to a January 12th article by Time Magazine entitled Super PACs Play a Leading Role in Republican Air War, super PAC spending had accounted for nearly half of all paid media on broadcast networks, cable TV and radio since the fall. Obviously, super PACs have spent even more since that time. The article notes: "Their ability to boost allied candidates or blanket opponents with negative ads has played a crucial role in shaping the contours of the race". To be sure, these organizations have spend millions on the current presidential race--Buzz Feed put together a graphic demonstrating the amount of money spent in the race: seen here.

Therefore, I propose that there should be a limit placed on the influence of organizations such as super PACs. Granted, we should not limit free speech and the promotion thereof, but campaign success should not be based on who has the most money. If we look at the numbers presented in the Buzz Feed graphic referred to above, pro Mitt Romney spending dwarfs that of any of his competitors--and guess who is winning the race? Mitt Romney. Granted, there are other factors about Romney that contribute to his success, but when his campaign has an inordinate amount of money to spend on attack adds, its hardly a coincidence he does so well.