So What are the Rules for Super PACs?

• Tweet

• Tweet

Comedian Stephen Colbert makes his point about the corrupting influence of Super PACs with his very own Super PAC!

Introduced by the 2010 Citizens United decision, Super PACs are the embodiment of what unlimited donations — by individuals, corporations, unions or other organizations — to political campaigns look like.

These “expenditure-only independent organizations” have raised $100 million so far this election year, and this does not even include  funds raised by State level PACs, or funds raised by national level non-profit groups that pool “soft-funds”.

According to Justice Ginsberg, Super PACs are also what corruption in politics looks like. The original Citizens United opinion, penned by Justice Kennedy, is starting to lose whatever legitimacy it had: “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” And furthermore, “[t]he appearance of influence or access [coming from unlimited corporate spending] will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”

The only requirement in federal law concerning Super PACs, and the donations they receive, is that the organisations must remain independent. I.e. there should be no direct coordination between the the super PAC and the candidate it supports. Ideally, money is donated to the Super PAC that supports the individual, and not to the individual personally.

But Super PACs are anything but independent. And everyone knows it.

Here are just a few examples:

1. Priorities USA Action, the Super PAC that supports President Obama, was formed by two former White House aides, and Obama administration officials are helping it raise money.

2. A former top aide to Newt Gingrich is helping to run the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future.

3. Foster S. Friess, a major donor to Rick Santorum’s super PAC, often travels with the presidential candidate.

4. Romney has appeared at a fund-raiser for his Super PAC, Restore Our Future, and has publicly encouraged people to donate to it.

and 5. from a New York Times investigation, when Mitt Romney and Restore Our Future need voter research and advice, they both go to TargetPoint Consulting:

TargetPoint is just one of a handful of interconnected firms in the same office suite in Alexandria, Va., working for either the Romney campaign or the super PAC Restore Our Future.

While insisting that the tangle of connections does not violate any laws, Alexander Gage, TargetPoint’s founder, said he understood how it could look “ridiculous.” His own firm had taken steps, he said, to prevent improprieties, including erecting “a fire wall” separating employees who work for the Romney campaign and the super PAC.

But abiding by the law doesn’t mean very much. The law is failing. There were too few regulations put in place, and there is ineffectual enforcement of those that were.

From the New York Times again:

“The campaigns know the F.E.C. isn’t going to enforce the law, and so they’ve decided to do whatever they want,” said Fred Wertheimer, whose watchdog group, Democracy 21, has complained to the Justice Department about the lack of enforcement. “What is going on is just absurd.”

Super PACs have not only become the way for candidates to bypass spending limits, they have become virtual adjuncts of the campaigns.

Stephen Colbert’s tongue-in-cheek Super PAC got it just about spot-on. Temporarily known as The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, it is now officially registered as Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. The Citizens United decision, and the unlimited corporate spending it spawned, are not the right direction for the American democracy, today or tomorrow.

Related articles

• The Road to Citizens United (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)
• Super PACs Overtaking Campaign Fundraising (huffingtonpost.com)
• Fine Line Between ‘Super PACs’ and Campaigns (nytimes.com)