Super PACs

If you have watched The Colbert Report in the past few months, you’ll most likely have seen the Comedy Central host promote his Super PAC (Political Action Committee) “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow”. The committee was created by Colbert as a way to raise awareness of unlimited money in politics while also poking fun at the political process as a whole.

The idea is pretty funny, quite successful—the Federal Election Commission reports it raised $1.2 million in the past six months—and has reached a wide audience that may not have been aware of PACs beforehand.

Like all Colbert or Jon Stewart shticks, this one isolates a problem in politics. However, where does this problem stem from? Who are the culprits? And who is hurt by this?

Firstly, there has always been money in politics, and for a very long time there have been Political Action Committees which organize fundraising for candidates seeking office. Historically there have always been limits on the amount these PACs could raise, though.

That all changed in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that no limit of donations could be placed on outside organizations assisting campaigns—famously summed up as “money equals free speech”. Thus, Super PACs were born.

Initially there was outrage from nearly everyone. Although with a huge minority in Congress, Republicans and their backers soon changed their tune and argued that money did in fact equal free speech. Democrats, with a hefty majority, were repulsed by the thought of unlimited campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. They paid accordingly by losing control of the House as well as a significant portion of the Senate.

Come 2012, they appear to be changing their tune much like Republicans did only two years ago. President Obama, who admonished the Supreme Court’s decision for Citizens United in a State of the Union address, declared this week that he’ll allow his campaign to take money from Super PACs. President Obama’s reasoning for the flip-flop? He rationalized that his campaign cannot be “fighting with one arm tied behind our backs if [Republicans are] doing it”.

Perhaps not the most inspiring reason, but a sensible one nonetheless. Many Democrats like Congresswoman and DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz argue it is the only way to keep this year’s election fair.

And while there are still some Democrats rejecting this, such as Sen. Feinstein out of Wisconsin, most will soon fall in line behind the President and accept the large sums Super PACs can dole out.

If both Democrats and Republicans feel this way, can it really be all that bad? Some say no, but others worry that unlimited spending will ultimately lead politicians to care about pleasing their corporate interests before their constituents. This may not be a widely held view, but Colbert seems to think it deserves some national mockery—and people are listening to him.

- Kit

Share

Related posts:
Comments
February 10th, 2012 | Dan | Comments Off |