The
campaigns for president are being run by things being called super PAC’s. One company
or individual can donate an unlimited amount of money to a political action committee
with no stipulations. The only requirement by law is that the PAC cannot
coordinate with the candidate they are supporting. This term coordinate is very
loosely defined and even so not well regulated by law.
The reason
corporations can give an unlimited amount is because in 2010 the Supreme Court
found it as a violation against their first amendment to limit their free
speech on the donation of to political action committees that are independent
of political candidates. Many believe that this is giving corporations an
unfair advantage in the election process. These super PAC’s are controlling the
media and television ads and making the campaign more about the bashing of
their competitors rather than about the election.
The super
PAC’s so far this election race have raised over 10 million dollars. This is a ridiculous
amount of money that can be better spent elsewhere than on the election races. If corporations have that much extra money to
give just to get a certain candidates in the federal office then they could
donate more money to charities and help out our economy. Many of the candidates
and their PAC’s are not even following the only law of no coordination between the
PAC and the candidate.
Romney
shares consultants with his campaign and the super PAC his is not involved in.
Members of his staff are also married to members of the super PAC. The leaders
of his super PAC were his strategists for the 2008 campaign. Romney has also
shown up for fundraisers for the super PAC. If that was not enough all of their
offices are in the same suites. This just seems a little fishy to me that they
are not supposed to be coordinating yet they use the same consultants, work in
the same suites, were once his campaign advisors and they know when to show up
for fundraisers.
With all of
this money floating around there is bound to be a scandal just when it comes
out is the question. Many critics believe that this new ruling by the Supreme
Court have opened the doors for wide spread corruption in politics. With
corporations leading the choice in the nominations for the republican primary
we might have to get stuck with a candidate that we don’t like. The candidates
need to get back to worrying about the election and what is best for our
country not about the money. They need money to win, but not 10 million
dollars. The Supreme Court needs to revise their ruling and put a limitation on
how much corporations can donate to a PAC, if not we will soon have
corporations running our country and not the people.
I agree that super PAC's are a bad idea. I think a great point is brought up in your 4th paragraph about the ins and outs of the super PAC's for Romney's campaign.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to bring up that Whoever/whatever is supporting a candidate with millions of dollars through a super political action committee must have a lot of money.
My thoughts are:
1. This support money is coming from somewhere
2. There must be people that support the group behind the super PAC
3. And these people probably have a lot of power.
But: how much power? And how many people?
The question is, is this money supporting the general population as a whole or is this money supporting a group of rich people that are using their money to get what they want? There is a possibility that this money is coming from a smaller group of people who have donated a higher amount which would be just as powerful as a large group of people donating smaller amounts.
My point: these super PAC’s don’t support democracy. Every person has a right to just as much power as the next, and with these super PAC’s, it makes it easier for a rich person to control what happens to our country than someone with great ideas and not much money. This system needs a lot of work before it should be involved in deciding the President of the United States.