Skip to content

Super PACs changing landscape of U.S. politics

Super PACs, the inde­pen­dent expenditure-​​only polit­ical action com­mit­tees that sup­port but cannot coor­di­nate with polit­ical can­di­dates, have reshaped polit­ical cam­paigns since the United States Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Cit­i­zens United v. the Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion in 2010. We asked Richard Aren­berg, a polit­ical sci­ence lec­turer in the Col­lege of Social Sci­ences and Human­i­ties, to explain how Super PACs are reshaping the polit­ical landscape.

How have Super PACs changed polit­ical cam­paigns since the Cit­i­zens United case?

It has been almost exactly two years since the Supreme Court decided Cit­i­zens United v. Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion on a 5–4 vote and the damage to our polit­ical process from that deci­sion and the Speechnow​.org v. FEC deci­sion that fol­lowed is still unfolding. It is clear already that the twin equa­tions of cor­po­ra­tions equaling people and unlim­ited inde­pen­dent con­tri­bu­tions equaling free speech have dis­torted, if not cor­rupted, the cam­paign finance system.

Super PACs are able to raise unlim­ited amounts of money from cor­po­ra­tions, unions and indi­vid­uals and are able to spend huge sums in sup­port of or to attack spe­cific can­di­dates. All of this throws our polit­ical cam­paign fundraising nearly back to the pre-​​Watergate days of brown paper bags full of cash. Undis­closed (in any timely fashion) and nearly uncon­trolled funds from spe­cial inter­ests and gigantic cor­po­ra­tions, multi­na­tional in their nature, dis­tort polit­ical cam­paigns. Aggres­sive and neg­a­tive assaults made by Super PACs on oppo­nents on behalf of can­di­dates relieve the can­di­date of account­ability for the ad. Romney, for example, claimed that he could not tell Super PACs sup­porting him what to do without vio­lating the law. Even more alarming than the spread of shadowy neg­a­tive attacks is the inevitable rise in influ­ence that the enor­mous con­tri­bu­tions by indi­vid­uals, unions and cor­po­ra­tions will foster.

Though can­di­dates them­selves are not allowed, do cam­paigns and out­side stake­holders col­lab­o­rate or strate­gize with Super PACs?

Almost without excep­tion, Super PACS involved in the 2012 cam­paigns are formed and are led by former staff, fundraisers and asso­ciates of the can­di­dates. While it is hard to know specifics about whether actual direct coor­di­na­tion is taking place, the legal fic­tion that these are “inde­pen­dent” enti­ties is obvious to even casual out­side observers.

Pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates ben­e­fit­ting from multi-​​million dollar ad buys, many of whom are on record sup­porting Super PACs, wring their hands and bemoan the effects on the cam­paign of expen­di­tures – fre­quently even larger than those made by the cam­paigns them­selves – by these “inde­pen­dent” enti­ties. The result of this cha­rade is a deep­ening of public cyn­i­cism about the polit­ical process. Come­dian Stephen Col­bert has high­lighted the hypocrisy by staging a mock pres­i­den­tial cam­paign ben­e­fitted by his Super PAC bril­liantly named the “Def­i­nitely Not Coor­di­nating With Stephen Col­bert Super PAC.”

What are the chances that Con­gress would pass new leg­is­la­tion to scale back the influ­ence of Super PACs? What fac­tors would influ­ence such a decision?

While Con­gress is never quick to address cam­paign finance reform, there are incre­mental mea­sures Con­gress might take, like strength­ening dis­clo­sure require­ments that would restore some level of account­ability for the public to see. How­ever, the Supreme Court’s deci­sions limit Congress’s options. Aside from a change of heart by the Court or a change in its makeup, the main option to reverse the deci­sion is an amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion. This, of course, is a long and dif­fi­cult process requiring two-​​thirds votes in both the House and the Senate and then rat­i­fi­ca­tion by three-​​quarters of the states. Without strong and pro­longed public demand for action, prospects for such amend­ments are dim.

– by Matt Collette

More Stories

Photo of the Capitol Building at night

High stakes for politics, SCOTUS in 2018

Photo of the crashed truck that was used in the October 31st attack in Manhattan.

Weaponizing Language: How the meaning of “allahu akbar” has been distorted

Northeastern logo

Why I love studying Spanish