Of SuperPACs and democracy
9/6/13 00:20![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLast year, Politico made a list of the funniest SuperPAC names they've found around during the last election campaign:
1. Raptors for Jesus
2. Bears for a Bearable Tomorrow
3. Talkin’ Smack PAC
4. Cats for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow
5. Science!
6. Buck Up to Beef Up America
7. DogPAC
8. Peeps PAC
9. Winning Our Liberty and Future (Wolf) PAC
10. I Ride Inside – The Pets Against Romney Committee
11. Same vs the Machine
12. Why Not ZoidPAC?
13. Just Drink the Koolaid
14. The Internet
15. A SuperPAC
16. Joe Six PAC
17. Americans for More Rhombus
And Stephen Colbert made an extensive series of spoofs on the subject, and he even created his own SuperPAC, aiming to ridicule this new phenomenon, but also to attract public attention to the issue.
That said, the issue of SuperPACs has been rather serious. There are lots of concerns about this new development in election campaigning, huge money from undisclosed sources now flowing into big politics with little to no restrictions, and close to zero requirements for transparency.
Basically, a PAC (political action committee) is a private group that's organized and funded for the purpose of getting a certain political candidate elected and/or advancing a certain legislative agenda. Now, "Super" PACs are groups officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees", and this new species was born after the 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling at the Supreme Court, where a narrow 5-4 vote decided that under the 1st Amendment, the government cannot prohibit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes. Soon after that, the Federal Court of Appeals decided in Speechnow.org v Federal Election Commission that no limits could be placed on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures. Since then SuperPACs haven't been allowed to "directly coordinate" with the candidates or the agendas that they advocate.
Now, there are many arguments for and against SuperPACs, as well as a myriad of misconceptions about them floating around the public space. For example here are some of the most common misconceptions:
- Because SuperPACs are required to disclose who their donors are, that ultimately makes them transparent. Well, transparency could be a vague thing, actually. For example in 2011 a Romney-associated SuperPAC called Restore Our Future got a $1 million donation from a something called "W Spann LLC". Turned out that company had the same registration address as that of Bain Capital, where Romney had previously worked. Only after being pressed on the matter, a former Bain executive came out and admitted that he had made the donation, and he had used a hollow corporation that his lawyer had set up specially for that purpose. I'm sure you've already guessed by now that exactly how often this happens in today's politics, there's no way of knowing for sure. But the precedent is right there.
- SuperPACS operate independently from the campaigns they support, so they cannot corrupt politicians. Well, in the Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the government can only regulate political activity that "has the potential to corrupt", and independent corporate spending is not that. But in the meantime, "common vendors" (media companies, pollsters, etc) are allowed to be used by SuperPACs and their respective candidates. This practically allows the candidate to solicit funds to SuperPACs, endorse them or appear at their events. And the financial donors from those SuperPACs are allowed to accompany the candidates on the campaign trail and advise them. Besides, the people who run the SuperPACs are allowed to be related to the candidates. Example: one Sheldon Adelson who donated $16.5 million to Newt Gingrich's superPAC, which was the bulk of all donations in that group. And one Foster Friess who ran Rick Santorum's SuperPAC, accompanied his favored candidate to various campaign events and even appeared on stage alongside him. If someone still believes SuperPACs are not essentially another form of bank account for campaigns (and with potentially unlimited resources in them), they're obviously in some serious denial.
- Corporations were not allowed to perform political activity before the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. Not true at all, actually. Corporations and unions often participated in federal elections before the Citizens United decision. They could raise and spend unlimited money for supporting candidates and campaigns, only the funds had to be voluntary and contributed by individuals. Including CEOs, shareholders, employees or union members, who, by any logic, were not exactly "independent". They could also endorse candidates, sponsor events, etc. And who's to say individuals cannot spend unlimited money for a campaign, just as businesses or public entities do now? Not that corporations and unions cannot act as individuals, and spend the money of their shareholders or members without their consent.
- Wealthy donors tended to donate similar amounts of money before the SuperPACs era. Actually, after the Buckley v Valeo ruling in 1976, individuals could make unlimited independent donations to political campaigns, but there was a limit on how much they could donate directly, so there was no way for them to hide behind vague entities such as the SuperPAC. They were obliged to put their names on all ads and other forms of campaigning, thus displaying exactly who was behind them. What we're seeing nowadays are individual contributions taking unprecedented proportions. Those guys with the big money are no longer feeling pressured to come to the bright light, and now that they can conveniently stay hidden behind the SuperPAC, they're more than willing to open up their purses. As Justice Scalia once said, "Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed".
As they say, when the numbers speak, even the gods remain silent. So here are some numbers.
The following two diagrams establish the disproportionate influence of private business on secret unlimited "independent" donations through the superPACs:
And the next two diagrams demonstrate the disproportionate influence that SuperPACs have given to the super-rich, and the disproportionately big focus that this puts on the agendas they tend to support:
(Source: HuffPo)
And, now that I've done my best to brainwash you about my own biased stance on the matter, here's a poll for ya. You may pick more than one answer if you like.
[Poll #1918008]
Your move, folks.
1. Raptors for Jesus
2. Bears for a Bearable Tomorrow
3. Talkin’ Smack PAC
4. Cats for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow
5. Science!
6. Buck Up to Beef Up America
7. DogPAC
8. Peeps PAC
9. Winning Our Liberty and Future (Wolf) PAC
10. I Ride Inside – The Pets Against Romney Committee
11. Same vs the Machine
12. Why Not ZoidPAC?
13. Just Drink the Koolaid
14. The Internet
15. A SuperPAC
16. Joe Six PAC
17. Americans for More Rhombus
And Stephen Colbert made an extensive series of spoofs on the subject, and he even created his own SuperPAC, aiming to ridicule this new phenomenon, but also to attract public attention to the issue.
That said, the issue of SuperPACs has been rather serious. There are lots of concerns about this new development in election campaigning, huge money from undisclosed sources now flowing into big politics with little to no restrictions, and close to zero requirements for transparency.
Basically, a PAC (political action committee) is a private group that's organized and funded for the purpose of getting a certain political candidate elected and/or advancing a certain legislative agenda. Now, "Super" PACs are groups officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees", and this new species was born after the 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling at the Supreme Court, where a narrow 5-4 vote decided that under the 1st Amendment, the government cannot prohibit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes. Soon after that, the Federal Court of Appeals decided in Speechnow.org v Federal Election Commission that no limits could be placed on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures. Since then SuperPACs haven't been allowed to "directly coordinate" with the candidates or the agendas that they advocate.
Now, there are many arguments for and against SuperPACs, as well as a myriad of misconceptions about them floating around the public space. For example here are some of the most common misconceptions:
- Because SuperPACs are required to disclose who their donors are, that ultimately makes them transparent. Well, transparency could be a vague thing, actually. For example in 2011 a Romney-associated SuperPAC called Restore Our Future got a $1 million donation from a something called "W Spann LLC". Turned out that company had the same registration address as that of Bain Capital, where Romney had previously worked. Only after being pressed on the matter, a former Bain executive came out and admitted that he had made the donation, and he had used a hollow corporation that his lawyer had set up specially for that purpose. I'm sure you've already guessed by now that exactly how often this happens in today's politics, there's no way of knowing for sure. But the precedent is right there.
- SuperPACS operate independently from the campaigns they support, so they cannot corrupt politicians. Well, in the Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the government can only regulate political activity that "has the potential to corrupt", and independent corporate spending is not that. But in the meantime, "common vendors" (media companies, pollsters, etc) are allowed to be used by SuperPACs and their respective candidates. This practically allows the candidate to solicit funds to SuperPACs, endorse them or appear at their events. And the financial donors from those SuperPACs are allowed to accompany the candidates on the campaign trail and advise them. Besides, the people who run the SuperPACs are allowed to be related to the candidates. Example: one Sheldon Adelson who donated $16.5 million to Newt Gingrich's superPAC, which was the bulk of all donations in that group. And one Foster Friess who ran Rick Santorum's SuperPAC, accompanied his favored candidate to various campaign events and even appeared on stage alongside him. If someone still believes SuperPACs are not essentially another form of bank account for campaigns (and with potentially unlimited resources in them), they're obviously in some serious denial.
- Corporations were not allowed to perform political activity before the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. Not true at all, actually. Corporations and unions often participated in federal elections before the Citizens United decision. They could raise and spend unlimited money for supporting candidates and campaigns, only the funds had to be voluntary and contributed by individuals. Including CEOs, shareholders, employees or union members, who, by any logic, were not exactly "independent". They could also endorse candidates, sponsor events, etc. And who's to say individuals cannot spend unlimited money for a campaign, just as businesses or public entities do now? Not that corporations and unions cannot act as individuals, and spend the money of their shareholders or members without their consent.
- Wealthy donors tended to donate similar amounts of money before the SuperPACs era. Actually, after the Buckley v Valeo ruling in 1976, individuals could make unlimited independent donations to political campaigns, but there was a limit on how much they could donate directly, so there was no way for them to hide behind vague entities such as the SuperPAC. They were obliged to put their names on all ads and other forms of campaigning, thus displaying exactly who was behind them. What we're seeing nowadays are individual contributions taking unprecedented proportions. Those guys with the big money are no longer feeling pressured to come to the bright light, and now that they can conveniently stay hidden behind the SuperPAC, they're more than willing to open up their purses. As Justice Scalia once said, "Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed".
As they say, when the numbers speak, even the gods remain silent. So here are some numbers.
The following two diagrams establish the disproportionate influence of private business on secret unlimited "independent" donations through the superPACs:
And the next two diagrams demonstrate the disproportionate influence that SuperPACs have given to the super-rich, and the disproportionately big focus that this puts on the agendas they tend to support:
(Source: HuffPo)
And, now that I've done my best to brainwash you about my own biased stance on the matter, here's a poll for ya. You may pick more than one answer if you like.
[Poll #1918008]
Your move, folks.
