Against super PACs Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Against super political action committees - establish ExampleThe next presidential election leave aloneing be bingle like no one has ever seen before in experimental conditions of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races be already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. This paper will delve into the committees history and the reasons behind the globe outcry against the existence of tops(predicate) political action committees. A super PAC is an independent - expenditure only committee that has the legal power to raise unlimited sums of money in campaign contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other (lobbyist) groups. The committee was the result of a landmark Supreme Court Decision (Citizens coupled vs. Federal Election Committee) that dictated that campaign contributions to third party groups cannot be limited. The term Super PAC can be attributed to Eliza Newlin Carney, a repo rter who worked for CQ Roll Call. She was the first person to scram used the term Super PACs in the context of the word definition (Wetheimer, Citizens United and Contributions to Super PACs A Little account Is in Order). Although Super PACs were not meant to openly support any single candidate, the committee has move a force to reckon with this campaign season. Its power and financial backing of particular candidates can be seen and felt in the negative ads that candidates like Mitt Romney have run, all amounting to tens of millions of dollars. That is one reason the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging grammatical case of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable org anizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impingement upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinate with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and light of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party. In other words, Super PACs gives a voice to people with money. any corporations that have money to give are giving millions and millions of dollars to the candidates across the board. Inde pendent voters do not have that money to donate, so their candidates are not as prominent in ground of connecting with voters. Such is the imprint of the Super PAC. It makes it seem like only certain candidates have a right to be in the political race because they are the ones with the (lobbyist group) backing and financing. However, ordinary citizens also find themselves scratching their heads in terms of wrapping their brains around the idea of a Super PAC not being a unified group founded by the political figure. Take for example the case of Newt Gingrich and the Winning Our Future group. Disclosures later on in the campaign proved that he was the very person who founded the group and his close friend Becky Burkett worked for the group. His personalised