(Thanks to Jeff Lum for suggesting this topic.)
In July of 2010 a new kind of Political Action Committee (PAC) called a Super PAC came into existence due to the decision in the case SpeechNow.org vs. Federal Election Committee (FEC). The main issue at hand was the limitation of free speech. If you limit the amount of money private citizens can use to say whatever they want (via commercials, advertisements, etc....) then you violate the First Amendment.
(see official court summary on the FEC's website, here)
Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, so long as they follow simple reporting rules to the FEC.
What's the Danger?
What people are worried about is the influence of more money in the political system. When I was a graduate student at The George Washington University, one of the primary stats we looked at in order to determine chances of victory for a candidate was the amount of money raised. With more money a candidate can do more things. Although it is not something as evil as a direct bribe of a political official, we can see in the race to get the most dollars how a candidate might be influenced (promises to favor the making of certain new laws for example).
Does Money Influence Politics?
I actually had an intelligent, educated fellow student in one of my classes say that money doesn't influence politics. She proceeded to tell her story about how she wined and dined a politician on behalf of a company to vote in favor of policy X. It didn't work and the politician voted the other way. It's true, money doesn't always buy votes, but to say that it doesn't influence politics is naive.
Here is a link to the current Super PAC fundraising and spending totals for the 2012 election so far. (www.opensecrets.org = great data on who is giving money to who in politics)
Digging through data one can easily find that not only do individuals give, but organizations and businesses do too. The financial industry spends millions a year on lobbying and other political activity. These corporations and people aren't stupid, they know that money changes the game in their favor. In many cases the donations from a corporation are almost equally split between competing parties/candidates. They're covering their bases so it doesn't really matter who wins to them. Their foot is in the door with whoever wins. It's a good way to use company money and guarantees an advantage to influence legislation that potentially (and actually) saves the corporation more money than it invested.
Corporations aren't in business to throw away money.
Why Do These Groups Need So Much Money?
As of May 15, 2012, 538 Groups Organized as Super PACs Have Reported Total Receipts of $204,712,775 and Total Independent Expenditures of $105,529,146 in the 2012 Cycle. Competing in an election is extremely expensive, especially a presidency. The senior election campaign staff of the main contenders make tons of money. As a student I was told that a campaign manager of a presidential election could make close to $500,000, not to mention the perks of being so close to a powerful politician. It's expensive because it's a battle for mass popularity on an epic commercial scale. You need money to make yourself look good and more money to make the other person look bad.
One could argue that all this money flying around is good for the economy and it is to a certain extent, especially by creating temporary jobs. But I see it as a symptom of a deeper sickness. The majority of Americans have lost faith in our political system and left it to be overrun by those with the resources and will to influence it. Apathy is no cure.
Note: Sorry it's been so long. I kind of got married and stuff. (^_^)
No comments:
Post a Comment