Against super PACs Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Against super PACs - Essay Example The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. This paper will delve into the committee's history and the reasons behind the public outcry against the existence of Super PACs. A Super PAC is an independent - expenditure only committee that has the legal power to raise unlimited sums of money in campaign contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other (lobbyist) groups. The committee was the result of a landmark Supreme Court Decision (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee) that dictated that campaign contributions to third party groups cannot be limited. The term Super PAC can be attributed to Eliza Newlin Carney, a reporter who worked for CQ Roll Call. She was the first person to have used the term Super PACs in the context of the word definition (We theimer, â€Å"Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs: A Little History Is in Order†). Although Super PACs were not meant to openly support any single candidate, the committee has become a force to reckon with this campaign season. Its power and financial backing of particular candidates can be seen and felt in the negative ads that candidates like Mitt Romney have run, all amounting to tens of millions of dollars. That is one reason the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upo n the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party. In other words, Super PACs gives a voice to people with money. All corporations that have money to give are giving millions and millions of dollars to the candidates across the board. Independent voters do not have that money to donate, so their candidates are not as prominent in terms of connecting with voters. Such is the e ffect of the Super PAC. It makes it seem like only certain candidates have a right to be in the political race because they are the ones with the (lobbyist group) backing and financing. However, ordinary citizens also find themselves scratching their heads in terms of wrapping their brains around the idea of a Super PAC not being a coordinated group founded by the political figure. Take for example the case of Newt Gingrich and the Winning Our Future group. Disclosures later in the campaign proved that he was the very person who founded the group and his close friend Becky Burkett worked for the group. His personal