TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Explainer: The ‘Super PAC’ and how it’s changing US elections forever

We explain the origin of the ‘Super PAC’ – and how their unlimited clout threatens to rewrite the political rule book.

Democratic senators Charles Schumer and Al Franken criticise the secretive nature of donations to so-called 'Super PACs'.
Democratic senators Charles Schumer and Al Franken criticise the secretive nature of donations to so-called 'Super PACs'.
Image: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

WITH MITT ROMNEY having now all but secured his place on the ballot paper, focus in the US presidential election now turns to the national stage where Romney will face Barack Obama in November’s head-to-head.

The 2012 election will be the first presidential ballot to be dominated by the so-called ‘Super PACs’, bodies which act almost as decoy campaigns for candidates – doing the negative work while candidates themselves concentrate on the positives.

But what is a ‘Super PAC’, and how did they emerge?

A big business, without the Big Business

It’s well known that US politics is an expensive business. Members of the House of Representatives spend around $1m on every congressional campaign. This puts major strain on incumbent politicians, who are up for re-election every two years: they have to raise almost $10,000 a week if they stand a chance of keeping their jobs at the next election.

In order to try and tackle the surging costs of politics, two leading Senators – Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – brought forward new legislation in 2002 which put an outright ban on corporate donations, and banned third parties from running ads naming an election candidate within a certain period of a ballot taking place.

Conservative think-tank Citizens United challenged the legislation in 2008, going all the way to the Supreme Court, which in 2010 ruled that the ban on trade union and corporate spending was unconstitutional.

A subsequent case two months later, taken by another conservative group SpeechNow.org – whose stated goal is to protect the First Amendment (the right to freedom of speech) – saw a lower court in Washington D.C. rule that limits could not be put on the spending of those apolitical groups.

The combined result of the two cases was that the rights of trade unions, corporations, or other vested interests to spend money on political causes could not be restricted at all – leaving the door open for anyone to throw as much money as they wanted on a campaign. This opened the door for what we today call the ‘Super PAC’ (or Super ‘Political Action Committee’).

An open door

Most PACs are essentially tantamount to what we know in Ireland as a constituency organisation. They’re bound by laws which limit the amount they can take from individuals ($2,500), and stop them from taking any direct financial support from companies or unions.

Thanks to the various court rulings, however, ‘Super PACs’ are not bound by such laws. They can accept as much cash as they can get, and spend it however they choose.

The only rule is that they have to act independently of a candidate’s campaign, and that any ads they run need to specifically declare who is paying for them. In some cases, laws can be exploited so that the Super PAC itself doesn’t even have to disclose who’s providing its money.

Their essence, in short, is to exploit the Supreme Court’s rulings by taking out unlimited advertising denouncing the actions of whoever they like – with the sole purpose of discrediting and attacking the opponents of candidates they favour.

The 2012 elections aren’t the first where they’ll have made their clout known. In the 2010 mid-terms, predominantly conservative groups such as American Crossroads poured millions into TV advertising in areas where Congressional elections were getting close, attacking the credentials of Democratic candidates and swaying opinion back to their Republican opponents.

2012, however, is the first time they’ll have had a presence in Presidential campaigns. Already they’ve held sway: one such group, Restore Our Future, is credited with helping Mitt Romney to see off the challenge of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the Republican primaries.

Figures from earlier this month show Restore Our Future as having spent over $40 million so far, mostly on ads hyping up Romney and attacking his Republican rivals for the Presidential nomination. (By comparison, Romney’s official campaign had raised $73m.) A Gingrich-supporting group Winning Our Future had spent $16 million, compared to the ‘official’ Gingrich campaign which had collected $20.6m in donations.

Here’s one example of an ad run by Restore Our Future, trying to make the point that Gingrich was not a capable opponent for Barack Obama. See if you can spot Mitt Romney’s name anywhere in the ad.


‘Independent’ campaigns

It takes a certain degree of naivety, however, to assume that these groups are totally independent from the original candidates. Many of the leading Super PACs (including the Obama-supporting ‘Priorities USA Action’) are led by people who formerly worked for the candidates they support.

In Obama’s case, founder Bill Burton used to be Obama’s deputy White House press secretary. Romney, meanwhile, has openly supported the Super PAC that’s doing his attacking for him – founded by the political director of his failed 2008 bid for the Republican bid, Charles Spies. American Crossroads, which we mentioned earlier, was founded by Karl Rove, a former senior aide to George W Bush.

This point was best made by comedian and satirist Stephen Colbert, who set up a Super PAC late last year before “officially” joining the race for the Republican nomination.

As an official candidate, he then had to sign over control of his PAC – to his Comedy Central buddy Jon Stewart – who renamed his Super PAC “The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC”.


(YouTube credit: )

Stewart pointedly ascertained that although Super PACs are not permitted to co-ordinate their actions with a candidate’s official campaign, they can study the political climate just as anyone else would, and act accordingly if they feel it would help their preferred candidate.

As Stewart then pointed out in a press release:

Stephen and I have in no way have worked out a series of morse-code blinks to convey information with each other on our respective shows.

The Super PAC, therefore, is changing US elections forever. With the Supreme Court having copperfastened the rights of corporations and individuals to donate in unlimited amounts, Super PACs are free to exploit the rules that politicians can’t and demolish their opponents, leaving the candidates to run the more ‘positive’ campaigns.

Read: Santorum suspends campaign for Republicans’ Presidential nomination

In full: TheJournal.ie’s coverage of the US election 2012

Read next:

Comments (14 Comments)

  • America has the best “democracy” money can buy.

    Reply
  • From ancient Greece and Rome, to Mahon Tribunals to Washington, politics has remained the same.
    Big business will pay politicians for access and influence.
    We will always have the likes of Bertie, Lawlor or Romney, as long as the public accept it.

    Reply
  • “they have to raise almost $10,000 a week if they stand a chance of keeping their jobs at the next election.”

    Listening to the This American Life podcast “Take the Money and Run for Congress”, the amount required was $10,000 a day – It’s $70,000 dollars a week.

    Reply
  • The spin scum and public relations take up so much time and money leads to one question who is running things really? Politics seem to be just a live “reality show”, making decisions based upon popularity ratings.

    Reply
  • Hi Colm, thanks for that. I checked out the TAL story and it seemed to back up the $1m-per-campaign figure, which over 104 weeks (with elections every two years) would mean about $10,000 a week. If it’s closer to the TAL figure that would out the overall campaign cost at well over $5m.

    Reply
    • Thanks Gavan. There was a mention in the podcast of a congressman who had to pull in 10 to 15,000 a day. He might have been something of an exception of course.

      It’s some story. Utterly depressing.

      Reply
    • Gavan; do me favour and just type the name Ron Paul. Go on you can do it if you try. Its not hard. Even though he is pulling in crowds of thousands for his speeches it seems even you guys can’t bring yourself to give him a mention. You are doing democracy and journalism a disservice. Will you still ignore him right IP until the election? I can see links to everyone but him after the article. Santorum isn’t even running now. I hope you don’t have some sort of hidden agenda. You sure your not a fox subsidiary?

      Reply
    • Ron Paul is charismatic, but insane. That’s why no-one mentions him.

      Reply
    • What an infantile response. Insane for wanting stop bailouts, end the fed, bring troops home, end the police state. You honestly think the current situation is remotely sane. See how things improve under the two bank sponsored puppets on offer. More TSA, an Iran war, more money printing etc. Time for people to stop making the same old mistakes and picking from the two puppets offered up by the banks. The Irish should have realised that by now.

      Reply
    • Not sure why you seem to be confusing Irish and US issues in your rant Ed, but here goes:

      Ron Paul believes in pure libertarianism and isolationism which, by any measure of modern society, is insane. If you pick and choose some of his policies then he makes some valid points, especially regarding intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.
      Unfortunately by looking only at these issues you are missing out on a few potential problems- reducing government, getting rid of the EPA and allowing corporations to pollute to their heart’s content. No problem.
      How about the legalization of all drugs? That’s fine with Ron!
      Get rid of the Department of Education! Superb- let the southern states teach creationism in class.
      Abolish income tax- well that sure sounds great! Directly fund the services you need, makes sense! Oh, wait- what about the disabled, mentally ill or those who generally might not be able to provide for themselves? Well, they’re screwed!

      That’s why he’s insane.

      Reply
    • Cliff, your forgetting one thing. The adherence to the constitution which legally binds all people and corporations to respect the property and personal rights of everyone else. Companies cannot pollute Willy Nilly as they are in breach of the constitution whereas now they just get lobbyist to buy exemptions. You obviously have no real knowledge or understanding on liberterianism other than what you hear on fox news. As for Isolationism. What do you find so wrong with that. Ireland is an isolationist neutral country. Do you think invading every Muslim country based on fabricated scare mongering boogie men stories is a good strategy. The US is more broke than Ireland and is destroying itself because of their interventionist policy.

      Legalizing drugs is a damn site more promising than the current failed war on drugs, so I personally have no issues with that. So your premise is that he is Insane because he isn’t doing what all the other guys want to do. And he is proposing getting rid of Federal government departments, not state departments. You will soon find the states changing their tunes when people start moving to other states, if they are doing it wrong. You have no faith in people doing what’s right for themselves as opposed to government
      regulating everything.

      Another 4 years of the same thing will be the end of the Dollar and US as a major economic super power. All they will have left will be bombs

      Reply
    • Hey Ed, whereabouts does the US constitution mention these property and personal rights? I’m planning to take the Steel Industry to court in a couple of years and it’d really help me out if I had constitutional backing for my case.

      Reply

Add New Comment