If corporations are people then surely super PAC’s are as well. And if Super PAC’s are people then they likely deserve the distinction as Time’s “Person of the Year.” Forget Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or even President Obama, the year of 2012 is really being dominated by the legal invention known as the super PAC. Last night comedian Stephen Colbert shocked many by announcing that his super PAC had raised over $1 million, and this is from someone who is not even a "serious" candidate. Following the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, super PAC’s have played a large role in the 2010 midterms and in the early primary states in 2012. Super PAC’s are now dominating the airwaves, and will only become prominent in key swing states during the general election. For all intents and purposes, the Super PAC now reigns supreme, with the people behind them effectively deciding who our future leaders will be.
Of course, PAC’s have long played a role in American politics. The super PAC, however, is a much stronger animal which is now wielding unprecedented influence. With the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court allowed PAC’s to receive unlimited amounts of money from anonymous donors. This allows large corporations, who otherwise might not want their name out there, to use their large sums of money to influence elections. In addition, billionaires can single-handily support a candidate’s campaign by donating to their Super PAC.
The one limitation is that the super PAC is not allowed to “coordinate” with the candidate. However, the super PAC managers can still listen to the candidate’s speeches and talking points. If Newt Gingrich starts publicly attacking Mitt Romney over his tax returns the pro-Gingrich super PAC can then run an ad the next day attacking Romney over his tax returns because this does not constitute “official coordination” under the rules. If Gingrich or Romney win the presidency, there is nothing prohibiting the super PAC donors from requesting a meeting with Commander-in-Chief in order to “discuss” their mutual interests in government.
The effect of these super PAC’s has already been dramatic just a few months into the election cycle.
The Jon Huntsman campaign was largely supported by his wealthy farther, who donated over half of the money to Huntsman’s super PAC. The Gingrich super PAC is largely supported by Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire who made much of his riches from the Las Vegas casino industry.
But the true beneficiary of the Super PAC, thus far, is Mitt Romney. There are more millionaires and billionaires supporting Romney than any other candidate. Just a little over one week ago the Romney campaign was floundering. Romney had just loss the South Carolina primary, and found himself trailing by about 8 points to Newt Gingrich in Florida. Since that time, pro-Romney Super PAC’s have spent millions on anti-Gingrich and pro-Romney ads in Florida. Gingrich super PAC’s were outspent by Romney super PAC's by a 5-to-1 margin. Today, Romney holds about a 10-point lead in polls of Florida voters. Romney super PAC’s are already airing ads in the upcoming primary states.
The standard is becoming very clear. If a candidate wants to win a big election, they need a strong super PAC. And if a candidate needs a strong super PAC, they need as many millionaires, billionaires, and corporations as possible. Our elections have essentially been bought under the guise that an uncontrollable super PAC is really behind it all.
Comments