Super PACs: The Dark Money Influencing American Politics
In the United States, political campaigns are big business. Every election cycle sees billions of dollars poured into advertising, canvassing, and other campaign activities. However, in recent years there has been a dramatic shift in how this money is being spent. Rather than being funded by individual donors or political parties, much of it is now coming from Super PACs.
Super PACs are a relatively new phenomenon that emerged following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission back in 2010. This ruling effectively removed restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions and opened the door for outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.
Since then, Super PACs have become an increasingly powerful force in American politics. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Super PACs spent over $2 billion during the 2020 election cycle alone. That’s more than double what they spent just four years earlier.
So what exactly are Super PACs? And how do they operate?
At their core, Super PACs are independent expenditure-only committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions or other groups as long as they don’t coordinate directly with candidates or parties. This means that they can spend as much money as they want on any candidate or issue without any limits.
However, unlike traditional political action committees (PACs), which can only accept donations up to $5,000 per year from individuals and $15,000 per year from party committees; super PACS have no such limits.
This has led to some staggering amounts of money being funneled into elections by a small group of wealthy donors who often remain anonymous due to lax disclosure rules. For example:
– In 2016 alone Sheldon Adelson donated over $82 million to Republican-aligned super PACs.
– During the same election cycle, Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist, gave over $91 million to Democratic-aligned super PACs.
– During the 2020 election cycle, Michael Bloomberg spent over $1 billion of his own money on his failed presidential campaign and on supporting other Democratic candidates.
It’s not just individuals who are pouring money into Super PACs. Corporations and unions are also major players in this game. According to CRP data, during the 2020 election cycle:
– The top five corporate donors to Super PACs were all in the finance industry: Blackstone Group ($29 million), Renaissance Technologies ($23 million), Paloma Partners ($20 million), Citadel LLC ($19 million) and Elliott Management Corp ($18 million).
– The top five union donors were all public sector unions: National Education Association ($39 million), American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees ($26 million), Service Employees International Union ($22 million), United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America ($20 million) and Laborers’ International Union of North America($17million).
This huge influx of money has had a profound impact on American politics. For one thing, it has allowed candidates who might otherwise have struggled to get their message out to compete with better-funded opponents.
However, it has also led to concerns about corruption and undue influence in the political process. Critics argue that Super PACs allow wealthy donors to effectively buy elections by flooding them with ads that often distort or outright lie about their opponents’ positions.
Moreover, because many Super PACs operate as dark money groups – meaning they do not disclose their donors – it is impossible for voters or regulators to know where this money is coming from or what interests may be behind it.
For example:
– In 2012 Crossroads GPS pumped more than $71million into Republican campaigns without disclosing its donors.
– During the same year Priorities USA Action did likewise for Democrats by spending over $63 million without disclosing its donors.
It’s not just the lack of transparency that is worrying. Super PACs also undermine the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving outsized influence to a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations.
This can be seen in the way that candidates often prioritize fundraising over actually engaging with voters on key issues. According to a report from Public Citizen, during the 2020 election cycle:
– Candidates for Congress spent more than half their time raising money.
– The top 100 donors to federal elections gave more than double what all small donors combined (those who gave less than $200).
This creates a vicious cycle where politicians are dependent on big-money interests to fund their campaigns, which in turn makes them more beholden to those same interests once they’re elected.
So what can be done about Super PACs? Some advocates have called for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United and restoring limits on campaign spending by outside groups. Others have proposed strengthening disclosure rules so that voters know exactly who is funding political ads.
In recent years there has been some progress on this front. For example:
– A handful of states – including California, New York and Washington – have passed laws requiring greater disclosure from Super PACs.
– In 2019 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 – a sweeping package of reforms aimed at reducing corruption in politics – which included provisions requiring Super PACs to disclose their major donors.
– The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has also been urged to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending.
However, these efforts face significant opposition from both sides of the aisle. Many Republicans argue that any restrictions on campaign spending violate free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment; while many Democrats worry that cracking down too hard could hurt their own fundraising efforts.
Moreover, even if stricter regulations were put in place it’s likely that wealthy donors would simply find new ways to influence elections – such as by funding so-called “dark money” groups that are even less transparent than Super PACs.
The bottom line is that Super PACs have become a powerful and largely unregulated force in American politics. While they can provide much-needed support for underfunded candidates, their rise has also raised serious concerns about corruption and undue influence.
Unless these issues are addressed, it’s likely that outside spending will continue to distort our democracy and undermine the principle of one person, one vote.