It is estimated that the PACs have spent about $75 million on the 2012 elections thus far.
I think that many Americans are frustrated that political action committees are paying for so much of the 2012 election campaigns, which implies that they probably have a large influence over the candidates and their policies. However, we have also learned that PACs can be helpful as they are mediums for citizens who want to show support or opposition for legislation and candidates.
Do you think PACs are essential to our political system or can we do without them?
3 comments:
I think Super PACs are overstepping a boundary of corruption. Despite the fact that they are not allowed to communicate or directly work with candidates, it is still clear that there are some personal connections where they shouldn't be. I think if citizens want to contribute to a candidate, they should find a better way to do it. I just find it striking that those trying to lead our country are throwing around millions and millions of dollars for advertising while many US citizens do not have enough money to have a shelter or feed their families.
I completely agree with Jamie's point that it is absurd to think about millionaires and billionaires funneling millions of dollars into a single federal election when millions of Americans do not have enough money or resources to adequately clothe and feed their families.
For my term paper, I analyzed the famous Citizen United ruling, from with Super PACs were essentially born. In its Citizens United ruling, the Court ruled that because Congress cannot enact a law ti "abridge the freedom of speech," certain laws that limited monetary donations were unconstitutional. Without getting to deep into the specifics of this ruling, perhaps the most significant result was the creation of Super PACs, which are essentially PACs that can accept and spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.
Many proponents of Super PACs cite this First Amendment argument as a reason why Congress should not enact laws to limit free speech. However, one interesting statistic I stumbled upon while researching. A Gallup poll found that while 57 percent of Americans believe that campaign contributions qualify under the First Amendment as free speech, 61 percent believe that Congress has to authority to and should limit these contributions. Here is the link to this information: ttp://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
As I think is made clear by this statistic, as well as the numerous polls that have circulated since the Citizens United decision that have revealed public discontent, many if not most Americans feel that Super PACs are an unwelcome development to our current political system.
Perhaps Super PACs can be outlawed without violating the First Amendment by declaring that since donors don't directly control the activity of the Super PAC, the donors are not speaking through it. The donors are not self funding their own messages but giving money to a group that uses the money to fun its own message (which just happens to be what the donor supports).
Post a Comment