Will Super PACs Control the Election?

In July 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions. Ever since this ruling, political action committees (also known as Super PACs) have been pouring money from donors such as large corporations and unions into political campaigns and advertising. Throughout the 2012 election season and even in late 2010, the airwaves of television and radio stations have been full of attack ads against the Obama administration as well as other incumbents and candidates for Senate and House offices.

This election cycle has involved more spending on advertisements and campaigns than any other election in American history, which is due in part to outside spending from groups such as Super PACs. According to the Wall Street Journal, in the 2012 election cycle, Super PACs have spent over $565 million on campaign ads attacking and supporting various candidates for political offices. Some well-known contributors to Super PACs include the conservative billionaire Koch brothers and liberal pundit Bill Maher. The highest spending PAC is Restore our Future, which supports Mitt Romney. It has spent over $142 million on behalf of the Romney campaign, and even with only one day left until the election, it will continue to spend large amounts of money on ads promoting Romney.

Although some might argue that unlimited spending by Super PACs only helps get candidates’ messages shared with the American public, the ads on TV and radio stations are more often than not used to oppose certain candidates. As of November 5, 2012, over $149 million have been spent on ads opposing President Obama but not necessarily promoting Mitt Romney. According to the Wall Street Journal, over $77 million have been spent “opposing” Mitt Romney’s campaign, which is about half of the spending that Super PACs spend “opposing” Barack Obama.

Even though there are Super PACs supporting and opposing both ends of the political spectrum, the vast majority of the spending comes from conservative-favoring Super PACs rather than liberal-favoring Super PACs. This massive increase in campaign spending will positively affect the Republican candidates running for office, such as Mitt Romney (ironic, since Republicans are known for wanting to cut spending). The negative ads attacking President Obama and his current administration will have a negative impact on the Obama re-election campaign and other Democratic campaigns around the country because Super PACs are not pouring as much money on behalf of Democrats as they are on behalf of Republicans. If a Republican-favoring election occurs tomorrow, we can assume that it is due in part to the large amounts of spending on ads and campaigns from outside sources such as Super PACs.



Rate this posting:

{[['']]}