What are Super PACs?
Super PACs are a new, supercharged breed of political action committees — organizations that raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. While PACs have been around for decades, Super PACs came into existence only recently, as the result of a landmark Supreme Court case in 2010, Citizens United. In that bitterly contested, 5–4 ruling, the court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, saying it infringed on the First Amendment rights of "independent" organizations, corporations, and unions to express opinions about elections. In fact, a federal appeals court ruled that year, these entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech. Super PACs sprang up to serve as conduits of this spending. In 2010, these organizations poured a total of $65.3 million into the congressional elections. That was just a start. For the 2012 elections, about 250 Super PACs will spend from $600 million to $1 billion, as Republicans and Democrats battle over the presidency and the future direction of the country. "The campaign-finance story of 2010 was big money," says Republican campaign-finance lawyer William McGinley. "The 2012 story will be even bigger money."
Why do Super PACs bring in so much money?
Because they provide a way to circumvent campaign-finance law. Individuals are still limited to giving $2,500 to any federal candidate, while PACs set up by corporations, unions, and other organizations are limited to $5,000 per candidate. But Citizens United effectively makes those limits moot: Individuals or organizations can write checks of any amount to a Super PAC. The only limitation is that Super PACs, as outside organizations, are not allowed to directly coordinate their efforts with a candidate's campaign. But that separation is largely cosmetic, and many Super PACs appear to be virtual extensions of the campaigns. Mitt Romney's Restore Our Future PAC is run by his head lawyer in the 2008 campaign. A former press secretary for President Obama heads his Priorities USA group of Super PACs.
Who contributes to Super PACs?
Mostly rich people with strong, partisan agendas. Jeffrey Katzenberg, the liberal DreamWorks
CEO, has given $2 million to Priorities USA Action, a Democratic Super PAC. The libertarianminded Koch brothers' Super PAC, Americans for Prosperity, has pledged to spend $200 million in 2012. In some cases, it's unknown who contributes to certain Super PACs. Under federal rules, Super PACs that set up an "educational" or charitable arm do not have to disclose the names of contributors. That loophole is now being widely exploited.
How do Super PACs spend their cash?
The emphasis is on attack ads of every kind. Take, for example, the current political ads of a Democratic Super PAC that calls itself Rethink, whose goal is to oust Sen. Scott Brown (RMass.). The $150,000 ad campaign portrays Brown as a heartless tool of corporations and Wall Street who has voted to scuttle financial regulations and end unemployment checks to constituents. In response, Karl Rove's Super PAC, called Crossroads GPS, is paying for $600,000 worth of ads that portray Brown's Democratic opponent, consumer crusader Elizabeth Warren, as an out-of-touch professor who favors the "radical redistribution of wealth" and is responsible for the violence and drug use at Occupy Wall Street protests.
In a sense, yes. The court's majority ruled that it is not the business of government to decide how much or what kind of political speech is appropriate, and that more speech ultimately means a more informed electorate. Corporations, the court said, have the same right to speech as any individual. Free-speech advocates also argue that campaign-finance laws, while well intentioned, serve to protect incumbents, who usually get the bulk of political contributions. Why not let everyone speak, and let the public decide? "Given the premises of democracy," Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, "there is no such thing as too much speech."
How will Super PACs affect democracy?
There will certainly be more political speech than ever. As November 2012 approaches, no one will be able to turn on a TV without seeing a political ad featuring ominous music, unflattering photos of candidates, and alarming rhetoric. Super PAC ads tend to be the most negative of all, because they aren't directly sponsored by candidates, so there is plausible deniability when the ads cross the line into deception and character assassination. That kind of ad may sometimes backfire. But in the long run, allowing deep-pocket contributors to write checks for unlimited amounts — sometimes anonymously — will inevitably add to the growing partisan bitterness in politics, and give well-funded vested interests even greater influence. Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a good-government advocacy group, said one Capitol Hill staffer explained the influence of Super PACs to him this way: "How do I say no to a corporate lobbyist with deep pockets, knowing that the corporate client can spend unlimited money to unseat my boss?"
The dirtiest Super PAC attack
Even in a country where attack ads are an art form, the ad produced by Turn Right USA against emocratic congressional candidate Janice Hahn of California may have set a new low standard. The ad, which never aired on TV but went viral on YouTube, superimposed Hahn's face on the body of a stripper, and used black actors to portray gang members. While rap music played, and images of criminals (including Charles Manson) floated by, "gangstas" plucked dollar bills from the stripper's panties, singing, "give us your cash, bitch," as a narrator said that Hahn helped gang members get out of jail "so they can rape and kill again." Hahn blamed her Republ can opponent, wealthy Tea Partier Craig Huey, "and his cronies" for using a Super PAC to create the ad. But Huey said he had nothing to do with it, and Turn Right said the ad was "definitely not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee." The ad may have created sympathy for Hahn, who cruised to an easy victory. In the final frames of the ad, which can still be seen on YouTube, the Super PAC got the last word: "Suck it, McCain-Feingold."
Do you think the number of political ads should be limited? Why? Why not?
What reforms to the election process would you suggest?
Arguments Against Corporate Funding of Political Campaigns
Arguments for Corporate Funding of Political Campaigs
The Week 12/16/2011
The new, supercharged political action committees are raising unlimited funds to sway
the 2012 elections. How will that affect democracy?
What are Super PACs?
Super PACs are a new, supercharged breed of political action committees — organizations that raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. While PACs have been around for decades, Super PACs came into existence only recently, as the result of a landmark Supreme Court case in 2010, Citizens United. In that bitterly contested, 5–4 ruling, the court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, saying it infringed on the First Amendment rights of "independent" organizations, corporations, and unions to express opinions about elections. In fact, a federal appeals court ruled that year, these entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech. Super PACs sprang up to serve as conduits of this spending. In 2010, these organizations poured a total of $65.3 million into the congressional elections. That was just a start. For the 2012 elections, about 250 Super PACs will spend from $600 million to $1 billion, as Republicans and Democrats battle over the presidency and the future direction of the country. "The campaign-finance story of 2010 was big money," says Republican campaign-finance lawyer William McGinley. "The 2012 story will be even bigger money."
Why do Super PACs bring in so much money?
Super PACs bring in a lot of money because they can bring in a lot of contributions. I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow Super PACs because it is unfair. A political candidate may have a surplus of supporters but still be against the odds of winning compared to the candidate with fewer supporters who happen to be mostly rich. I think the number of political ads should be limited because after too much ads against or even for a certain person, they tend to get annoying and make people look down on all of the candidates. To make the election process better, I would suggest that Super PACs not be allowed.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of PAC's are that they are large corporate businesses which will spend money promoting a certain campaign that will in the long term benefit them. These PAC's are now investing extremely large amounts of money into presidential and political leader’s campaigns in hope that they will receive benefits or help from supporting them. Because of this the topic has been brought up that presidents and political leaders are being bought out by these businesses. And instead of helping the greater good and tending to citizen's needs and wants, they are focusing to much on helping these big businesses.
ReplyDeleteNot to long ago a trial went on in the supreme court deciding if PAC’s should be legal. The court had ruled in favor of these large corporations, stating that they deserve the same rights and privileges that everybody else gets. However, there are many problems with allowing PAC's. First, since these corporations give such large amounts of money to these campaigns, the campaign leaders are being bought out. Meaning that they make laws that will help these PAC's because they feel in debt to them. Also, these companies are putting money into promoting campaigns without consulting with share owners. So, investor’s money might be going towards something they don’t believe in or want to put their money into. Along with these one of the worst things is that these large companies donations to the campaigns are drowning other citizen’s voices and taking control over the majority. As a U.S. citizen I believe that the majority should have the most power and voice, and that these current PAC’s are unfair to the people and should be illegal.
In summary current PAC’s contain an excessive amount power and money. Not only does this cause the majority to be over run, but also makes these corporations hard to control. With PAC’s, political officials get bought out which leads to a lack of effort to tend to what the citizens want and focus more on the well being of these large corporate businesses. Unfortunately this causes unfair taxes and laws that are passed. Since these are so unfair to the people, PAC’s should be illegal in the U.S. which will result in an improved society and country.
-Ben Sachs
PAC's or political action committees have been around for many years. What these groups do is basically raise and give money to political candidates that have policies or ideas that are good for that group. In recent years new super charged PAC’s have come around and are able to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates for campaigns as long as the money in not directly given to a candidate. The Supreme Court made this decision. Who said, that corporations have the same right to speech as any other person can spend as much money as the want on voicing there opinions, and the government should not restrict that. This is giving a lot of power to big companies who have loads of money and are able to spend millions of dollars on political speech. Political speech includes TV advertisements that "talk trash" about other candidates and other things that can be done cosmetically to make the chosen campaign look better. This is a concern for many Americans and leads us to ask our self’s, is this fair?
ReplyDeleteThese new uses of a super PAC is out of line and has been taken to the extreme were it is almost un-democratic. One of the main arguments that the Supreme Court made was that is was against the first amendment to control the amount of money that corporation can put into political campaigns. At the same time this allows the corporation to control the elections and who wins, and is not allowing the people to really decide their leaders. Which is one of the founding ideas of our founding fathers that this is a country for the people run by the people. The PAC's should be limited to certain amount of money that could be based on the number of people that are in the organization.
This new use of the super PAC's is un-orthodox and is only hurting the voting system and not giving the people the voting right that they should have.
-Richie Mullen
Super PACs can be given to a politician to support them or, more often, put down another politician. I do not agree with the Super PACs because it would like playing a game hacked with unlimited health and money to buy whatever you wanted. The politicians should not have a number of ads that they can post but I think that they cannot be disrespectful to one another. The ads should be approved by a court system with both republicans and democrats in it. There would be a different court for each level of the system. So the presidential ad would have to go before a different court and different people then a person running for congress.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Super PACs: All the Speech Money Can Buy”, certain aspects of the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding spending allowances are discussed. A super PAC is a Political Action Committee that encourages wealthy upper-class Americans to donate money to create political ads. In my opinion, it is absurd that the Supreme Court approved super PACs and now allows these Committees to spend an unlimited amount of money, especially in a country like the U.S. with a democratic government.
ReplyDeleteOne of the purposes of a democracy is to encourage citizens to reach decisions together and given this principle, I do not think we should be throwing away money by letting large corporations to attempt to persuade Americans who they should vote for. Our government should be more concerned with what the people want, not what corporations want people to want. Super PACs have unlimited funding and put this money toward influencing elections and claim that they deserve the same rights as the people. Though the corporations argue that it is a violation of freedom of speech for our government to prevent them from spending this money, I think that is untrue and wrong. Unlimited spending by PACs not only further damages the U.S.’s current economic instability , but it is also taking away the voices and opinions of the American people. As it is, citizens are not nearly as involved as they should be allowed to be with decisions made by the government that affect the whole nation. That issue, combined with fact that large corporations now have the power to influence and completely overrule decisions with pricey ad campaigns will ultimately lead to Americans having even less of a political influence and voice.
In the article, the author says -“There will certainly be more political speech than ever.” However, this statement doesn’t say anything particular regarding speech from the people. Obviously there will be more speech from PACs because they have achieved what they were hoping for, but as political speech of large corporations and organizations increases, our voices are just going to become completely silent. We have to stop these corporations before they take over completely and our government must make a real effort to listen to the opinions and concerns of individual Americans and address their needs.
-Rachel Ward
After reading this article, my understanding of PACs is that they are committees which raise/give money to a political candidate or party. In 2010 the Supreme Court decided to pass the law that allows this. Their reason for it is that corporations are individuals and they are entitled to freedom of speech. This means that limiting the amount of money they contribute is violating their freedom of speech and therefore going against the 1st amendment. I agree that this is not fair treatment. Individuals are only allowed to donate a certain amount of money.If I were part of the Supreme Court, I would ban this law.
ReplyDeletemy understanding from this article is that Super PAC's are basically PAC's but on steroids. they have no limit on how much money they can give to a candidate, to help them run for a position. they can spent loads of money on ads to take down the competition. But that these ads aren't always positive. that some of them are more attacks to other candidates running for the same office. And, unfortunatly, the person running doesn't have control over what the Super PAC's do to help candidates win the office position.
ReplyDeleteSuper Pacs have the ability to generate enormous revenue simply due to the fact that they are able to circumvent the $5,000 donation amount to any one candidate. People/other corporations who want to donate more can simply just donate it to a democratic of republican oriented Super Pac and BAM! the 5,000$ limit is worthless.This is bad for our voice as a the people of the USA because these super pacs now have high influence over the elected official because unless they want to loose major funding for the re-election, they are inclined to support the wants of the Super pac maybe even more than the wants of the people
ReplyDeleteSuper PACs are a great way to bring in money because it is simply a way to donate not only just 5000 dollars, but any donation of your liking to any one candidate. Easy enough, anyone or any company that wishes to donate money to a certain candidate or a democratic or republican party can easily just donate how ever much money they would like. These ads that are posted to influence people to donate money aren't always positive. They are basically just a way to make money, and now-a-days that is what everyone is looking to do. This can always be a really bad turn out because candidates and any party may take too much time focusing on receiving these donations, and rolling in the cash that they may not really care or take into consideration what the people of America would like to see as a new country leader comes to power.
ReplyDeleteSuper PACs or Political Action Committees, are political committees organized to raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. Within the past few years, these committees have grown significantly and are giving more money than they have ever given, for the upcoming election. The people that are contributing to these PAC organizations are obviously wealthy, and give an immense advantage to the candidate that they support. In my opinion, I believe that this is reasonable. The whole goal of somebody that is running for president is to gain economical support from the wealthier percentage of America. That would include getting a lot of support from PAC organizations. It’s something that they have to work for, and I’m sure it pays off in the end. Having support from these groups of people gives you an edge over opponents that are in the race as well.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article “Super PACs: All the Speech Money Can Buy” I disagree with the Supreme Courts decision to allow Super PACs. Super PACs stands for Political Action Committee and they most certainly should not be allowed. In America, our government is a democracy and therefore the people decide who and what they want to vote for. The Supreme Court stated that if Super PACs weren't allowed, then that would not be following the first amendment signed by our founding fathers, but I disagree. The first amendment had intentions for the people of the United States of America, not the companies in it. Their playing with the wording of the constitution to finagle themselves into getting what they want. I believe that the number of political ads should be limited in America because us Americans do not want to have to see a poster or sign or picture of all the candidates running for office. Yes, the president and senators and officials are all important to us but they should not be allowed to post dozens of unnecessary political ads- which sometimes are irrelevant and rude to the other candidates. Super PACs bring in so much money because very wealthy people who want a certain candidate to win will donate money to that candidate, which is another reason it is bad for America. If you're wealthy and very well off, by donating money to the candidate you want to win which provides posters and commercials promoting that candidate, you have an influence on who will be elected. I believe that the Super PACs should not be allowed and that the Supreme Court should not have passed the law allowing them!
ReplyDelete-Vanessa Haas
PACs are big businesses that raise money towards benefiting and obliterating political events and groups. The PACs primarily gather money from many corporations, unions, and even individual people. The U.S. already has regular PACs but, now the Supreme Court recently granted Super PACs. Super PACs are almost just like PACs but, they can provide more money and power. For an example, a Super PAC could now come up with a commercial to explain why or why not to vote for a candidate. Super PACs can be way too risky and that’s why it wasn’t the right decision.
ReplyDeleteWhen coming up with ads against a candidate, it can be really hurtful and should be limited. This can truly hurt someone’s character and can also be unprofessional and stupid. For an example, Turn Right USA posted an ad against candidate Janice Hahn (as stated in “Super PACs: all the speech money can buy”). The ad presented her with a stripper body and her head which caused sympathy for Janice. This also is not the best thing to show the public something inappropriate like this. It ruins the image for our political decisions and people trust.
Super PACs is not the right path for America to take. It ruins the image of our political professionalism from the public. It is a waste of money in investing in something that is truly unbeneficial and a waste of time. It’s not the right decision to increase the public’s interest in political gossip.
Super PACs are a newly created breed of political committees. They stand for the Political Action Committee. They are committees that raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. Wealthy people with strong partisan agendas donate their money.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, these organizations made a total of $65.3 million in the congressional elections. In the 2012 elections, the Super PAC’s will spend about $600 million to $1 billion in campaigning. The Super PAC’s make so much money because they find ways to work around the law. Regular individuals are usually limited $2,500 to unions, and other corporations, whereas the wealthy individuals that donate to PAC’s are limited to $5,000, and they can write personal checks for any desired amount that they wish. This is why the Super PAC organization makes more money.
These Personal checks also help contribute to the amount of money that the PAC’s earn because they are in such generous amounts. Earlier this year, there was a trial to decide how much or what kind of speech is appropriate. The court stated that corporations have the same right to speech as any individual. Free speech advocates say, “why not let everyone speak, and let the public decide?”
I think that these committees are a great way to support a candidate, and make a worthwhile donation. It feel that it also makes the whole campaigning process more interesting and it’s a way to engage the voters. Although these campaign adds are not always positive they are still a way for the committees to make money and that’s what everyone strives for in modern day. After reading the Article Of The Week, I feel that the Super PAC’s are a definite worthwhile organization.
After reading "Super PACs: All the speech money can buy", I believe that it is fair to allow Super PACS. People who are able to afford so should be able to donate as much money as they want to the canidate of their chosing. I agree that it could get ugly when people decide to make not only campains for the canidate they want to win, but hateful and disrespectful videos against other canidates. One thing about the Super PACS I feel uneasy about is that people who aren't able to pay for these PACS, which is most of the population, have less of a say in the election.
ReplyDeleteI think problems can rise with the use of Super PACs because of the sense of democracy that is being taken away from the election. Many citizens will be against independent organizations spending millions to billions of dollars endorsing the canidate of their choosing.
Super PACS may not seem fair to everyone, but I believe that there is no legitimate reason why they should be illegal.
Super PAC's are really just big businesses who take their money to advertise candidates they want to win. Their main interest is to make money and while they block the view and brain wash us citizens with advertisements they win every election and for what. By creating such a barrier between are citizens and the truth, these Big Businesses are actually are taking away the rights of all citizens even though they claim they diverse them also. Tell me, where in the constitution does it say that Businesses have the same rights as people. If it is true that our constitution allows Big Businesses to do what they are doing these days, we seriously need revise the constitution and make some changes because this just does not work.
ReplyDelete-Matthew Brewster
My view of super PAC'S is that its a big corporation that will promote and support certain campaigns and by supporting them economically they might receive any benefit these groups had been always giving money to political candidates that have policies that are beneficial for that group , PAC's are now investing significant amounts of money into political campaigns in hope that they will receive benefits for supporting them. the Supreme Court has approved super PACs to spend unlimited amount,PAC'S is allowed to put this into elections cost, they claim that since united states is a decromatic nation they deserve the same rights as the people, the supreme court argues that they approved PAC'S because if they didn’t they would be following the principles of the united states. in my opinion united states supreme court should not have approved these groups to depend of unlimited money, since the economic crisis is affecting us money should not be wasted in political campaigns, our government should be concerned of what the majority of the people want,not what these corporations wan, and therefore they support politician with their same ideals, expecting benefits after they win the elections, I disagree with campaigns trying to persuade who they should vote for, and I disagree even more with the supreme court by allowing spoil of money during times when money should be invested in profitable ways.
ReplyDeleteSuper PACs are a new, supercharged breed of political action committees organizations that raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. First Amendment rights of "independent" organizations, corporations, and unions to express opinions about elections. In fact, a federal appeals court ruled that year, these entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech. Super PACs sprang up to serve as conduits of this spending. In 2010 the super PACS brought in 65.3 million into the congressional elections. In 2012 they estimate they will bring in 600 million to a billion dollars. Surprisingly, the super PACS are getting the money from wealthy people who are allowed to write out checks for 5,000 dollars. The super PACS are taking so much money that it can be hurting our economy and the way things are running right now. If they make the expected 1 billion dollars then I think it could possibly hurt America bye the economy getting worse then it already is. That is why having super PACS should not be allowed to spend unlimited money on speeches.
ReplyDeleteSuper pacs are bad for alot of reasons. The main reason is that they corrupt the system that is set up for people to donate money. The reason that this happens is that people end up abusing the system and can have multiple things in which people can donate. This leads to them acquiring a large sum of money and this is bad because the system was set up so that the amount of money that people can use is limited. This is why the system doesn't work and it is corrupt. The whole point of the system is to have an even system for people to have. that is what i think about the super Pacs. Yes, i think that the amount of ads should be limited because it would make it fair for everyone that runs. No one person would have an advantage because they ran more ads. However, i don't know what i would do to reform the elcections because i don't know all of the facts/data. However it would be good if they made the system less corrupt
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Super PAC’s. Super PAC’s are like a new version of propaganda. Although some tactics that the committees may use are unfair, they are necessary. Some people like myself, simply just need that extra push to make a decision. Seeing an ad that slandered another candidate or questioned that candidate’s credibility would definitely help me make a decision. While Super PAC’s are a great idea, I do believe that the amount of political ads should be limited. Over producing political ads can harm either side’s political campaign. Also, to a viewer an over abundance of ads can make them hesitant to vote either way. I think an over production of ads would be intimidating because I would question myself to the point where I can make a decision. A reform that I would suggest to enhance the election process is to clarify who develops each ad and who donates money in any form to which group. Overall, Super PAC’s are a great addition to the political process.
ReplyDeleteA Super PACs or Political Action Committees, are political committees organized to raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. I disagree with the Supreme Courts decision to allow Super PACs. The money is not good that they are donating because the system was set up so the money is limited. I do not think it is fair for the other people that are running. Plus this could be hurting our economy because we are already in bad ship and donating a lot of money, and this is not good.
ReplyDelete-James Morales
Super PAC's are large corporations ways of getting a bigger say in government then the people. They eliminate any other known competition known to there canidate by posting as many ads to promote there canidate, which is not fair to other canidates. I disagree with the Supreme Courts decision in allowing Corporations to spend as much as they can to support there canidate. The corporations manipulated the first amendment to there advantage saying that they are people too, but are a large sum of people with there pockets filled with cash and do not have limits. By having Super PAC's, it distorts true leaders from power hungry corprate repersentives who wish to work for the government but manipulate it working as a advantage to there corporation. If we keep Super PAC's, it will continue to hurt our economy, government and future.
ReplyDeleteThe number of political ads should be limited because in that way they will give people the opportunity to think about what is better for themselves and for their country. When the political ads are unlimited they could put and show many brilliant things for the nation, just to get as much support as they wanted. The only thing that they really care is to raise their interest. When they get what they want they will not worry about the population needs and they will get rich each day while the population get poor. If this grows farther, it would affect each person because they will not be able to recognize and express what they need and wanted. It also goes against democracy because the population has the right to decide things by themselves and the political ads are just making people confuse about what is true or not. Each person is intelligent and they don’t need anybody who makes decision for them
ReplyDeleteSuper PACs are committees, generally consisting of wealthy individuals from large corporations. These PACs will generally donate tremendous amounts of money to politicians and ultimately sway the opinion of the general public about a certain candidate. In return for this sum of money, these politicians will pass laws to benefit this corporation. These super PACs abuse the 1st amendment, and truly exploit the flaws of democracy. When our founding fathers signed the constitution more than 200 years ago, they did not envision the creation of these large corporations, or the corruption they would cause.
ReplyDeleteTo correct this process, a series of fairly simple and straightforward reforms would have to be put in place. I would completely remove any corporate influence on any political decisions. Every individual in America could give a maximum of 3,000 dollars to a given political campaign. Whether it is the CEO of Exxon, or an average American citizen. It is time to make America the country our founding fathers dreamed of, and remove all PAC.
-Max Everett
Period 9
Super PACs bring in so much money because they understand that money will someday be brought back to them and benefit them tremendously. The Super PACs are 'donating' (investing) large quantities of money into campaigns to help a certain individual become elected, and eventually have that individual re-pay them with passing laws, etc. in their favor. This method will effect the election incredibly. It is simply unfair to donate extreme amounts of money into a political campaign, and increase that candidates chance of being elected without taking into consideration their duties and possible performance in office. I strongly agree with Max Everett from Period 9 as he states "It is time to make America the country our founding fathers dreamed of, and remove all PAC."
ReplyDeleteJack Alexander
Period 1
In a way the super pacs are very helpful because it helps the candidates do good with their campaign, but on the other hand maybe the other candidates aren’t receiving so much help, the campaigns aren’t everything and choosing the president isn’t all about who has what or about who has the best campaign it’s about what they do to help united states make the correct choices, there should be a little bit of a limit even though it is kind of the “constitution" that people should be able to do what they want....
ReplyDeleteDiana Sarmiento period 8
Travis May
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow PAC’s because it brings in thousands of dollars for the government to use where ever it is necessary. Yes the ads should be limited so each person can only acquire a certain amount. This is necessary because if one person is buying too many it will be extremely unfair for the other candidates. I think that the government should regulate how many are allowed but right now during this time the government needs all the money it get with all of the debts we have to China and other places around the world. I think that PAC’s should be allowed but must be looked after.
Super PACS Bring make a lot of money because they aren't worried about making the money right away, they are looking to make the right choices and payments towards candidates short term, so that they money will cycle back and profit them in the end. Also, Super PACS are limited to donating $5000 per candidate, while individuals are only allowed to donate $2500 to candidates. The only limitations Super PACS have is that they can't directly coordinate their efforts with any one candidate. Although individuals are limited to the amount they can directly donate to a candidate, they are not limited to the amount they can donate to Super PAC organizations, so the PACs take in a larger sum of money than any one candidate would from individuals.
ReplyDeleteSuper PACs are an amazing way to bring in a good profit. You don’t have to be the richest person to invest your money and come out with more. Instead, you pool up withy people who are just as wealthy as you and put your money in a pot. This is very effective because there is now a greater amount of money coming from a single organization. Although the PACs don’t directly donate to a campaign, the campaign does get funded by the PACs. Some of the money goes to political ads and that is fine because campaigns have the freedom to do whatever they want with their money. The only reform that I would make to the election process would be that there should more time given to the voters to vote.
ReplyDelete-Matthew Stewart
Period #9
Tattie Petts
ReplyDeleteMr. Hughes
12/22/11
Super PACs
The Super PACs are a political action committee, they are an organization that raise and spends money to help their candidates to be elected. The Super PAC spends millions and millions of dollars on advertisements for their candidates, which I think is unreasonable. I disagree with the supreme courts decision on allowing them, A) to spend so much money and B) things that are not important like on derogatory comments and ads. I believe that the Super PAC should be allowed to collect a certain amount of money for each candidate that is running. I also think that there needs to be a limited amount of advertisement for each candidate. It’s unfair that we are spending so much money by trying to make people think badly about others.
The Super PAC have so much money they are using it unreasonable, for one ad they were going to stream live, they superimposed Hahn’s face on a male striper give people the wrong impression. They used black actors to pretend to be gang members while rap music was playing in the background. This is why I believe that we need to give Super PAC a reasonable amount of money and let them spend it on what they need but not be rude to other candidates. As Justice Antonin said, “why don’t you let everyone speak, and let the public decide?” this means to me that we shouldn’t put words or images in peoples minds that are not true. A candidate shouldn’t have to be under pressure about an ad that he didn’t even agree to.
In 2010 the Super PAC had a total amount of $65.3 million dollars, just imagine how much money they are going to get for 2012. Super PAC will spend at least $600 million dollars to about $1 billion. Our country could really use that money for the greater good like all the countries in poverty or for homeless shelter and the poor. The money these committees are receiving need to be use for different matters. If we raise the amount of money that Super PAC committees do each year are country could do great things like help our home planet with global warming or just people in need.
Finally I believe that we need to limit the amount of money spent and raised in the Super PAC committees. We need to stop slandering other competitors and play fair. We don’t need all that money just for a simple commercial or speech. It is unreasonable and somebody needs to take control. That is why I believe we should take control of the situation immediately.
Super PACs are essentially a committees made up of wealthy individuals who are active in large corporations. Their roles are to provide large sums of money politicians in order for their campaign purposes. These larges amounts of money are used for advertisement so that they can get their message across. In return the money, politicians pass laws in favor of these large corporations. However, these super PACs go against the 1st amendment, and exploit the flaws of democracy. In order to regulate and prevent some of these actions a series of simple reforms have been put in place. The PACs should be removed because it simply isn't fair if certain people have unfair advantages over one another. Especially in terms of advertisement and it's significance of politicians.
ReplyDelete-Torell Nugent