In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court passed the Super PAC (super political action committees), which sought to constitutionalize the right of individuals and corporations, whether for-profit or non-profit, to invest unlimited millions on election spending. In supporting their demand, the Super PAC advocates argue that free spending of candidates on elections is a means to protect the freedom of speech.
Just as many others, I not only find the Super PAC a ridiculous notion but also one of the best ways to induce corruption. Although the super PAC needs to be reported in time, and cannot coordinate with the candidate(s) or campaign(s) (because otherwise the donations would be considered as bribes), investigations are rare and there are loopholes for the Super PAC to conceal the identities of donors. With such a huge reward and relatively small risk, it is reasonable to believe that the Super PAC, soon or later, will cause corruption.
Meanwhile, despite I agree that free speech should be constitutionally protected, I have a hard time seeing the linkage between the freedom of speech and the freedom to spend (or the freedom to receive donations). To me, adding the idea of “freedom to spend” into the electoral system only means reinforcing the economic and hence political inequality in the United States. This is because candidates who lack the networks and whose proposals do not align with the interests of powerful interest groups, would now be disadvantaged by lacking the financial resources, but not competence, to compete with their Super PAC rivals.
Proponents of the Super PAC argue that although candidates may now have more money for their campaigns, it does not mean the election is biased towards the riches. This is because eventually the voters are the ones who decide whom to vote for. While this argument is logically correct, it fails to address the fact that long period of exposure to these campaigns, and particularly negative ads by the Super PACs, would undoubtedly impact one’s attitudes. Here, the question becomes: “Would such election still be considered as democratic if only its processes, but not means of competition, follow the democratic standards?”
Tags: 1 Comment
1 response so far ↓
Stephen Colbert (and Jon Stewart) are recently playing with this idea of the Super PAC by forming their own: “the Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC”. While part of it is comedy, the rest of it is a sober look at the extent of this legislation.
I’ve also written about Super PACs in some of my blog posts. It’s one of the things that are really catching my interest!