Super PAC
A super PAC is a political committee that can solicit and spend unlimited sums of money. A super PAC cannot contribute directly to a politician or political party, but it can spend independently to campaign for or against political figures. These committees are also called independent expenditure-only committees. A super PAC is not legally considered a political action committee (PAC) and as such is regulated under separate rules.[1][2]
| Super PACs |
|---|
 |
| Read more about super PACs and the super PACs covered on Ballotpedia. |
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that individuals cannot be prevented from spending unlimited sums of money on political messaging. With two 2010 rulings, the United States Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporation and union spending in politics. Individuals, corporations and unions may now legally donate and spend unlimited amounts on independent political speech; they may also donate unlimited amounts to groups that make independent expenditures.[3][4][5]
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs spent more than $345 million in the 2014 election cycle.[6]
Distinction between PACs and super PACs
Super PACs are not political action committees, as their common name implies. The two types of groups are legally distinct, and different rules govern each. Super PACs are legally known as independent expenditure-only committees.[1][7]
| “ | Independent expenditures represent spending by individuals, groups, political committees, corporations or unions expressly advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified federal candidates. These expenditures may not be made in concert or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, the candidate's campaign or a political party.[7][8] | ” |
| —Federal Election Commission | ||
Unlike super PACs, traditional PACs have a $5,000 per person cap on donations and cannot accept money from corporations or unions. On the other hand, regular PACs may contribute directly to a politician or political party, whereas super PACs are limited to spending independently of such campaigns.[5]
Super PACs are also exempt from requirements to immediately report funding sources.[9]
Super PAC fundraising
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs raised a total of $696,011,919 in the 2014 election cycle. As of September 2015, they had raised a total of $300,643,954 in the 2016 cycle. The graph below compares super PAC fundraising from the 2012 to 2016 election cycles. The table below the graph provides further details.[6]
| Super PACs total funds raised, 2010-2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Total raised | Registered super PACs |
| 2016 | $300,643,954 | 1,170 |
| 2014 | $696,011,919 | 1,360 |
| 2012 | $828,224,700 | 1,310 |
| 2010 | $89,179,271 | 83 |
| Note: 2016 figures are accurate as of September 2015. Source: OpenSecrets.org, "2016 Outside Spending, by Super PAC," accessed September 28, 2015 | ||
Super PAC spending
Spending by political ideology
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs spent $345,117,042 in the 2014 election cycle. As of September 2015, super PAC spending for the 2016 election cycle totaled $22,487,428. The graph below compares spending by conservative and liberal super PACs from the 2010 to 2014 election cycles. The table below the graph provides further details for additional years.[6]
| Super PAC spending by political ideology, 2010-2016 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Political ideology | ||
| Conservative | Liberal | Other | |
| 2016 | $21,500,000 | $873,300 | $92,300 |
| 2014 | $151,100,000 | $176,800,000 | $17,200,000 |
| 2012 | $406,800,000 | $195,500,000 | $7,100,000 |
| 2010 | $36,700,000 | $24,600,000 | $1,300,000 |
| Source: OpenSecrets.org, "2016 Outside Spending, by Super PAC," accessed September 28, 2015 | |||
Post-candidacy
There is no law regarding the disposal of leftover money once a super PAC terminates or a related candidate is no longer running for office. In 2015, with the suspension of Rick Perry's and Scott Walker's presidential campaigns, super PACs supporting these candidates were left with significant sums of money. Perry's Opportunity and Freedom PAC, along with the related Opportunity and Freedom PAC 1 and 2, collectively received $13 million, which went mostly unused. One donor, Darwin Deason, who contributed $5 million, anticipated that the Opportunity and Freedom PAC would return his money and terminate. Although there are no laws that require super PAC money to be returned, in the case of Opportunity and Freedom PAC, the money was returned to the donors. In 2012, Newt Gingrich's super PAC, Winning Our Future, returned $5 million after Gingrich left the presidential race. According to Politico, the contributions to pro-Walker super PACs in 2015 were also expected to be returned to their original donors.[10][11][12]
Concerns about super PACs
Close connections to candidates and parties
Some, including Senator John McCain, have raised concerns that many super PACs are not truly independent of candidates or parties. Sometimes, a super PAC will be founded by a former associate of a candidate the super PAC supports. As Trevor Potter of the Campaign Legal Center said, "The candidate Super PACs, what Mitt Romney has referred to as 'my super PAC,' are created by people closely associated with the candidates."[13][14]
Lack of disclosure
With the Federal Election Commission requiring only periodic reports from super PACs, donors to a super PAC's ad campaign may be hidden until after an election takes place. A super PAC must submit a pre-election report 20 days before a primary it will be involved in, but between that report and the election, the super PAC can wait until the next quarter ends before disclosing its finances. Super PACs of all political bents say they are not trying to hide donor sources but merely complying with the FEC rules; however, a number of super PACs have received the bulk of their contributions after the 20-day mark, meaning those donors will not be revealed until after the relevant primary.[15]
Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice has argued, however, that after the reports do come in, "even among large-dollar donors, there are few surprises."[16]
Court decisions
Because of the complexity of campaign finance laws, analysts disagree about which court decision was responsible for the rise of super PACs. Some, like columnist George Will, point out that citizens—including wealthy individuals like George Soros—have long been permitted to spend unlimited sums on political speech. Others, like election law professor Richard Hasen, hold that the 2010 Citizens United ruling set the precedent for massive collaborative spending on elections, a precedent that was soon explicated in SpeechNOW.org v. Federal Election Commission.[1][3][5]
Buckley v. Valeo
- See also: Buckley v. Valeo
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to spend unlimited sums of money on political speech. The court upheld limits on contributions to campaigns, but it stated that restrictions on spending "relative to a clearly identified candidate" were unconstitutional.[17]
Citizens United
See also: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot ban political spending by corporations or unions. Because these entities are "associations of citizens," the First Amendment right to free speech also applies to these groups.[18]
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court considered federal laws that prohibited "corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate."[19]
In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following:
| “ | [W]ealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. ... Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens--those that have taken on the corporate form--are penalized for engaging in the same political speech. When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.[19][8] | ” |
| —Anthony Kennedy | ||
Corporate spending after the decision
A 2013 survey of 151 staffers of corporate and trade association PACs found that election spending and direct political spending did not increase dramatically in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision. The survey concluded that 93 percent of corporations did not direct super PACs or other political efforts. Trade associations engaged more in political spending, with 74 percent of trade associations not having any super PACs or political activity through their association PACs.[20]
Speechnow v. FEC
- See also: SpeechNOW v. Federal Election Commission
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that individuals can contribute unlimited sums of money to political committees that make independent expenditures.[21]
A Federal Election Commission advisory opinion states the following:
| “ | Following Citizens United and SpeechNow, corporations, labor organizations, and political committees may make unlimited independent expenditures from their own funds, and individuals may pool unlimited funds in an independent expenditure-only political committee. It necessarily follows that corporations, labor organizations and political committees also may make unlimited contributions to organizations such as the Committee that make only independent expenditures.[22][21][8] | ” |
| —Federal Election Commission | ||
See also
- Political action committee
- Federal Election Commission
- Republican presidential election super PACs, 2016
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Atlantic, "The New York Times' Disingenuous Campaign Against Citizens United," February 24, 2012
- ↑ The New York Times, "Who's Financing the 'Super PACs?" May 7, 2012
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Slate, "The Numbers Don’t Lie," March 9, 2012
- ↑ Fred Wertheimer, "Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs: A Little History Is in Order," February 21, 2012
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 George Will, "Super PACs can't crown a king," February 29, 2012
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 OpenSecrets.org, "2016 Outside Spending, by Super PAC," accessed September 28, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Federal Election Commission, "Independent Expenditure-Only Committees," accessed May 12, 2012
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Outside Spending," accessed May 11, 2012
- ↑ Politico, "Scott Walker, Rick Perry show limits of super PACs," September 22, 2015
- ↑ NPR, "What Happens To All That SuperPAC Money When A Candidate Drops Out," September 21, 2015
- ↑ Politico, "Rick Perry megadonor wants his $5 million back," September 14, 2015
- ↑ Brookings Institution, "Campaign Finance in the 2012 Elections: The rise of the Super PACs," March 1, 2012
- ↑ The Daily Beast, "McCain Rips Super PACs," March 27, 2012
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Stealthy Super PACs Influenced Primaries Without Disclosing Donors," July 2, 2012
- ↑ The Washington Times, "SHERMAN: Time to relax about super PAC disclosure," February 27, 2012
- ↑ Cornell University Law School, "Buckley v. Valeo," January 30, 1976
- ↑ The New York Times, "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit," January 21, 2010
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Supreme Court, "Opinion 08-205," accessed May 11, 2012
- ↑ Politico, "Survey: Corporations still shun super PACs," accessed June 21, 2013
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 The New York Times Blog, "Big-Dollar Individual Campaign Giving and the Tie to Citizens United," March 2, 2012
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Advisory Opinion 2010-11," July 22, 2010
| |||||||||||
