Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Super PACs influencing races

January 25, 2012

Advertisement

Over the past few weeks the results, many of them unintended, perhaps, of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have become apparent. In Citizens United the Supreme Court held unconstitutional those portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that restricted what the law called “electioneering expenditures” by corporations and labor unions, i.e. expenditures on political messages in the media. Interestingly, the court did not overturn the McCain-Feingold restrictions on direct contributions to candidates or to their parties.

The effect of this decision has been the rise of what are now called “super PACs,” political action committees established by private individuals and corporations to which corporations and unions may make unlimited gifts. As a result, we now have numerous super PACs controlled by wealthy corporations and unions with virtually unlimited funds to spend on campaigns while candidates and traditional party institutions like the Democratic and Republican National Committees have far less money to spend.

The presence and power of the super PACs have been manifest in the Iowa caucuses and in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Millions of dollars have been poured into media campaigns, many of them negative. Virtually all of the candidates have suffered from these negative media blitzes and all have complained of the power of the super PACs.

Whether these have been honest complaints by the candidates is hard to judge. There is no doubt that some candidates exercise some degree of control over the super PACs.  Regardless of who is actually in control, the power of the super PACs has been significant.

For instance, I think that it is likely that one effect of the super PACs’ power was reflected in Newt Gingrich’s shift from disavowing negative campaigning to accepting the necessity of such negative media campaigns because of the massive negative advertising that he faced, negative advertising paid for by several super PACs. Indeed, one may argue that it was an infusion of cash into a super PAC supporting Gingrich that gave his campaign the boost necessary to win the South Carolina primary.

Certainly, the rise of super PACs has significantly changed the nature of political campaigns and made them far more expensive.  It has also created a new dynamic in political campaigns. Traditional party organizations generally do not run media campaigns against their own party members in primaries. Many candidates are also hesitant to run negative campaigns directly for fear of alienating voters. But super PACs, because they are not officially part of any party or technically controlled by candidates, can run as many negative advertisements as they wish. Party organizations and candidates then have “deniability” and can say that they do not support negative campaigning while still benefiting from it. Therefore, a candidate like Gingrich is forced to be part of a negative campaign in order to be competitive.

One might ask whether the super PACs will play a significant role in Kansas politics in 2012. The fact is that they already are significant in our state and will continue to be so. It was only a short while ago that seven moderate Republican members of the Kansas Legislature, including Steve Morris and John Vratil, were announced as targets to be defeated in the upcoming election by a super PAC. Can anyone doubt that super PACs will throw millions of dollars into Kansas campaigns to ensure that the candidates they support will be victorious?

With unlimited money to spend, super PACs may very well buy control of Kansas politics. Perhaps they already have. What has happened recently in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will, almost certainly, happen here in Kansas.

Whether or not one agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, no one can deny that it has significantly shifted political power in this country and in this state. Just as certainly, we can expect super PACs to attempt to dominate and control the 2012 elections in Kansas. The targeting of moderate Republicans in the primaries is surely not all that will happen.

Is there any way to lessen the influence of all the money the super PACs will inject into our political campaigns? The answer is yes. The key to defeating the power of the super PACs, in Kansas and throughout the U.S. is for the voting public to ignore the media advertising placed by the super PACs. If we don’t let those millions of dollars influence us, then the money will be wasted and the super PACs will have little or no influence. The alternative is unpleasant to contemplate.

— Mike Hoeflich, a distinguished professor in the Kansas University School of Law, writes a regular column for the Journal-World.

Comments

grammaddy 2 years, 10 months ago

Somebody finally gets what Stephen Colbert has been trying, for months, to show us.We need campaign reform!

jhawkinsf 2 years, 10 months ago

What's sad is that so many Americans can be influenced by a 30 second sound bite. What's sad is that so many American cannot name the three branches of government. What's sad is that so many Americans don't know who represents them in the House or Senate. What's sad is that so many Americans have become so apathetic about their democracy. What's sad is that the one vote of people described above equals the one vote of the people not described above.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

And the agenda of the super pacs and the corporate powers that control them is to make sure that this doesn't change.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 10 months ago

You can't teach someone what he doesn't want to know.

scott3460 2 years, 10 months ago

Sadly, this is also the agenda of a corporate media which profits, handsomely, from the influx of ad revenue necessitated by the horse-race climate it creates and perpetuates.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 10 months ago

When I said that many Americans don't know what the three branches of government are, or who represents them in Congress, I said that not because it's some deep dark secret that would take time and effort to research. That information is easy to get. Very easy. It doesn't take a college education. It doesn't take a high school education or even a fifth grade education. It takes a desire to get that information. Desire and about 1 minute of your time. Sadly, many Americans simply lack the desire, hence my comment about apathy.
It's not Democrats or Republicans that are the greatest threat to our democracy. It's not corporations or a welfare state. It's not the rich or the poor. It's apathy. Huge numbers of Americans don't vote and another large number who do vote are doing so with little or no real information. The 30 second sound bite isn't the problem, it's the people that believe them.

Getaroom 2 years, 10 months ago

And what's sad is that the Tea Party plays directly into the hands of the Corporate America/Super Wealthy that is/are killing the working class and playing influence peddling to the tune of billions to make government bend to their wishes. And the Tea Party is helping them do it! But then again there are lots of super wealthy who continue to pay for lies to be continuously perpetrated in the sound bite media that are just the right size for lazy and sometimes racist minds to consume - so yummy this poverty ridden mindedness. President Obama could have said anything last night, even if his speech had been straight down the Republican Party line, the same criticisms would have been leveled, ready to meet the press, and the shadowy Super PACS right there behind them to do what the Plutocracy bound Corporations desire. So, since when was it the purpose of the US Government and the US Constitution to serve the Super Wealthy and the collective agenda of big corporations? And what does this mean: of the people, for the people, by the people? Through the power invested in The Supreme Koch, Corporations are "a person" too. Can anyone else see Alito's head swaying "NO" two years ago during President Obamas speech? And look how far we have come. Now that is sad!
Rejoice oh ye of small minds, for you too shall inherit the scorched earth policies of the "take it and use it up now, to hell with the future party". You know, the party who loves to hate Obama and says NO to any and everything he puts forward, that is Some Tea Party alright. Some people simply like to poke themselves in the eyes over and over again, so it will feel better when they stop. All sorts of ways to be and go blind.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.