There is no doubt that the influence of Super-PAC’s in the 2012 election thus far has reached heights previously unseen. Almost $40 million has been spent by various Super-PACs in the Presidential race alone. This money has been spent mainly to influence the Republican primaries through the buying of TV airtime in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida either to support or to bash the reputation of a candidate.
Before 2010 and Citizens United, individuals were allowed to donate only $5,000 to a presidential candidate, thus preventing wealthy individuals from having a large effect on politics. However, now thanks to the Super-PAC, these individual groups can accept unlimited amounts of money from individual citizens and corporations alike and use it to influence voters through by running ads constantly.
Super-PACs, a relatively new form of political committee, are a result of the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling, which prohibits the government from putting a limit on the amount of money that corporations and unions can spend on independent political expenditures. This ruling now allows Super-PACs to receive unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals and to use this money in order to influence the political process. The only “catch” to these Super-PACs is that they are not allowed to directly coordinate with the candidates that they are supporting.
However, this rule has not stopped Super-PAC’s like Restore Our Future (Pro Mitt Romney) and Winning Our Future (Pro Newt Gingrich) from spending millions of unrestricted funds on television ads attacking the opposing candidate. Super-PAC’s act independently of the candidates that they support, and the people and corporations who support them remain anonymous; as a result, corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals now have the ability to strongly influence elections and the democratic process. Adelson’s contribution to Winning Our Future is a prime example of how Super-PACs can allow a single individual to have a large influence on the democratic process. If it were not for his donation, Gingrich would have had slim chances of winning in South Carolina and would have most likely dropped out of the race by now.
One such example of the flawed system employed by Super-PACs is that right before the South Carolina Primary in mid-January when Newt Gingrich’s campaign was saved from disaster by Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner, who within the month of January alone has donated over $10 million to the Winning Our Future Super-PAC. These donations are arguably what kept Gingrich in the race as the South Carolina primary approached, and because of Mitt Romney’s win in the Florida Primary earlier this week, it’s very likely that Winning Our Future will receive many more donations from Adelson and his family in the near future.
Should wealthy individuals and groups with large sums of money be allowed to have such a large influence in politics? If yes, then what is there to be gained from those who support a candidate should he win the election? What is certain is that the significance of what the average American has to say is being diminished in significance compared to those with wealth and power, so the most important question that remains is whether democracy can function properly with so much money being involved in politics?