Matthew Bomkamp

Ms. Ingram
UWRT 1103
26 October 2015
The Effects of Super PACs
In 2010, The Supreme Court ruled in what would be a largely controversial and
debated case that has dramatically changed the landscape of political campaigns in the
United States. This name of the case is Citizens United vs. FEC, and it would forever
change the way that campaigns to Washington are funded. The case calls into question
the role of corporations in the political process and gave birth to Super PACs. Although
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what they said to be a protected first amendment
freedom, the average Americans lost political freedoms because of it.
The whole case originated when a non-profit group that takes contributions from
private corporations, Citizens United, ran advertisements for their political film, Hillary:
The Movie, in support of Hillary Clintons 2008 campaign. The Federal Election
Commission, who is in charge for the compliance of all the rules and regulations for
elections, called the legality of the movie in question, claiming that it was violating the
regulations set on the amount amount of money that can be spent on a certain campaign.
And so the case went into the American justice system and eventually to the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court made a decision, although not unanimous, to side with
Citizens United, thus opening the floodgates for corporations to spend an unlimited
amount of money in support for a certain candidate. The majority opinion wrote, "If the

First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or
associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech (Toobin). On the
surface, this seems like an admirable viewpoint, The Supreme Court taking a stand to
protect the rights of its citizens. But is that what is really going on? Does this decision
protect the everyday Americans constitutional right for engaging in political speech?
Who benefits the most from this decision?
To fully answer these questions, it is vital to look at the effects that the case had
on campaigns in America. A predictable effect was the rise in spending by corporation
and unions, but the rise of political action committees (PACs) was unforeseen. PACs
are defined as an organization that raises money privately to influence elections or
legislation, especially at the federal level. Through the use of PACs, the amount of money
that a person or corporation can spend in support of a candidate is almost unlimited. All
the regulations upheld before the Citizens United case by the Federal Election
Commission are easily bypassed by the use of these PACs. Richard Briffault, a professor
of legislation at the Columbia Law School, notes that in many of the Republican
primaries, Super PACs outspent the candidates, thus showing how important these PACs
have become in the political process (Briffault).
So how do PACs operate? Quite easily would be an appropriate answer to this
question due to the large loopholes that allow for candidates to bypass all regulations on
campaign spending. PACs are technically not allowed to be in cooperation with the
official campaigns, but proving wrongdoing is nearly impossible. The maximum amount
of money that an individual can give to a candidate is $5000, but donating to PAC is
unrestricted (Working). So naturally, candidates would want a Super PAC to support

them, and coordination between the two is very likely. Take, for example, the Mitt
Romney campaign of 2012. Target Point Solutions was used by the official campaign
to reach more voters. The independent Super PAC that supported Mitt Romney also,
quite coincidentally, made use of the same consulting firm (Rosiak). Although this is not
damning enough evidence to press for a conviction, it helps to show that there are
connections between a Super PAC and an official campaign, which is likely the case in
every major campaign. If in reality the two were working together, they would be in
violation of federal law, but the enforcement of such laws are failing and a step behind
the practices of campaigns in this modern era of campaigning.
So what are the effects of Super PACs and are they harmful to the political
process? Dr. David Silver, an expert of professional ethics, states that the underlying
question one must consider is what the roles of corporations within liberal and social
democratic states are? (Silver). Where do they belong and are they productive to
democracy?
One of the many practices of Super PACs is to disguise themselves as a grassroots
movement. We have all seen the political commercials that state, This commercial is
paid for by Citizens for a Better Future, or another name to the similar effect. In reality,
big corporations pay for these commercials. They are meant to trick the average citizen in
believing that these commercials have been made for the greater good of society, but
actually are made for the sole purpose of supporting the personal interests of big
corporations. In a democracy, the people, and only the people are supposed to make an
informed decision based on the facts and their personal ideologies. Since the PACs are

ambiguous in nature, it can be concluded that they are harmful to democracy and wish to
deceive the average citizen.
When corporations choose to support a candidate, it is usually because that
candidate will benefit the corporation monetarily. The corporations want to be allies with
the representatives in Washington so that they can influence the legislation that is put
forth. As corporate money becomes ever more powerful in Washington, the voice of the
people is drowned out. Representatives start to listen to the voice of the company that
paid for his or her campaign rather than the actual constituents. For example, the National
Rifle Association (NRA) spent 20.8 million dollars in their Super PAC that supported
candidates that opposed gun control (National). The price of the Citizens United case is
the validity of our democracy. Can America really be considered a democracy if it is
corporations that carry the most political power?
The process of rectifying this problem must be done through the public. The
Supreme Court is not infallible when it comes to morality; it was, in fact, the Supreme
Court that upheld Jim Crow laws. And outside the court system, not many politicians will
speak out against the issue because they are the ones that stand to gain the most through
the use of Super PACs. Government will rarely do the just thing on its own accord. It
must be forced to do so by those it represents. As a people, we must make informed
decisions when we vote and use our freedom of speech to protect our rights. The use of
Super PACs became legal not through democratic ways. The people were never given the
opportunity to vote on whether corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money. The
decision was made by a group of people that were appointed, not elected by popular vote,
but by politicians that stood to gain the most from the allowing Super PACs to operate.

Works Cited

Briffault, Richard, Super PACS (April 16, 2012). Columbia Public Law Research Paper
No. WP 12-298.
Jeffery, Toobin. "Money Unlimited - The New Yorker." The New Yorker. The New
Yorker, 21 May 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015
"National Rifle Assn." Opensecrets RSS. Open Secrets, 16 Oct. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Rosiak, Luke. "'Social Welfare' Funders Sidestep Rules of Super PACs." The Washington
Times (Washington, DC). N.p., 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
Silver, David. "Business Ethics After Citizens United: A Contractualist Analysis."
Journal Of Business Ethics 127.2 (2015): 385-397. Business Source Complete.
Web. 7 Oct. 2015.
"Working Together For An Independent Expenditure: Candidate Assistance With Super
Pac Fundraising." Harvard Law Review 128.5 (2015): 1478-1499. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.