3 Reasons Not to Get Worked Up Over Super PACs

Everybody and their brother -- even Stephen Colbert - is freaking out about "super PACs," which are an outgrowth of the Citzens United decision in 2010.

Traditional political action committees (PACs) are subject to federal limits on how much money donors can give in specific election cycles. Super PACS allow groups such as nonprofit corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political speech as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the official campaign of a given candidate.

But for all the bellyaching, here are three good reasons not to get worked up over super PACS.

1. Billionaires don't need them to influence elections.

In the wake of an anti-Mitt Romney documentary from Winning Our Future, a group tied to billionaire Sheldon Adelson, The New York Times fretted that the film -- which has had little or no effect on Romney's candidacay -- "underscores how [Citizens United] has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election."

Actually, it's always been legal for rich people to spend what they want as long as they make "independent expenditures" that aren't coordinated with official campaigns. Billionares don't need super Pacs to get their message out. But super PACS may just let the rest of us have our say.

2. Super PACS Go Negative -- and That's a Good Thing!

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose campaign finance legislation was rendered moot by Citizens United, complains that super Pacs not only flood elections with money but flood it with negative messages. McCain, who lost a run for presidency, admits that negative campaigning works, but doesn't like the tone.

Yet study after study shows not only that negative advertising works with voters, but that negative ads actually contain more information than gauzy paeans to American and the virtues of the candidates who pay for such spots.

3. Super PACS Take Power Away From the Parties.

There's no question that super PACs seek to benefit some candidates by taking aim at others. Adelson, the moneybags behind the anti-Romney documentary, is known to be a Newt Gingrich fan.

But as long as super PACs don't coordinate with candidates or official party apparatchiks, they take messaging out of the hands of party leaders and spread it around elsewhere in a way that has got to be more representative of more views of more voters.

Super PACs are the latest casus belli in the push for controlling specifically political speech in the name of making elections fairer. There's no doubt that they are a loophole arising from the last round of campaign finance reform and the attempt to limit the amount of money politicians would have to raise to get their message out.

It's time to recognize that the only way to stop creating new loopholes is by ending the always ineffective laws designed to lower the cost office-seekers need to spend to buy our votes.

About 3 minutes long. Written and narrated by Nick Gillespie. Produced by Meredith Bragg.

Go to to http://reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos. And go to http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/26/super-pacs for links documenting the claims made above.




Reason on campaign finance.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reason
• reason.tv
• reason.org
• reason.com
• reason magazine
• reason foundation
• nick gillespie
• stephen colbert
• super pacs
• PACs
• colbert pac
• election 2012
• 2012 election
• libertarian
• campaign finance
• Stephen Colbert
• Stephen Colbert (character)
• romney
• gingrich
• santorum
• paul
• mitt romney
• newt gingrich
• rich santorum
• ron paul
• Newt Gingrich
• Rick Santorum
• barack obama
• meredith bragg

[PissedFechtmeister]

@sfafasfasfsa So stop voting for the politicians who write tougher laws on victimless crimes.

[iainmac2]

Limiting SuperPacs = Limiting Free Speech. Who says when free speech begins and ends? Either you have free speech or you don't.

[L1b3rta]

The guy in the video is right. We shouldn't pay attention to super PACs, except when it involves pro Ron Paul!

RON PAUL 2012!

[Violent2aShadow]

@jessedogden Hmm...let me see if I can dumb it down a quite a bit:

By treating spending money as absolute freedom of speech, and by treating freedom of speech as an "absolute" right, you get a situation where bribery (aka corruption) becomes legal.

In my second point, corporations could then legally bribe politicians too bail them out, thus increasing the size of the government. I believe libertarians would agree that this is a BAD thing.

Got it? Am I going to fast?

[jessedogden]

@Violent2aShadow Is there an argument here, or are you just slinging together a bunch of non-sequiturs and hoping that the right buzz words come out?

How is money not speech? If I spend my money to create an advertisement to express an opinion on a political figure, and you try to limit me in some way, how is that not censorship?

I'll be suitably impressed if you can make an actual argument that doesn't hinge on 1%/99% gibberish.

[jessedogden]

What part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" do liberals not understand? It's not okay to censor other people or election-themed documentaries because of your misplaced sense of sanctimony.

[Violent2aShadow]

What a great idea Reason! Let's all just do away with anti-bribery laws all together! Spending money is free speech after all.

Now let me go spend some "speech" on some of my elected officials.....my corporation needs to be bailed out and somebody else needs to pay for my mistakes!

[PissedFechtmeister]

@cyrusfx1 The SuperPacs compete with each other over the message so that more information about the candidates gets out to the public.

[PissedFechtmeister]

@Shonenut213 Thinking is hard. It's so much easier to let other people think for us.

[Maragriz]

A super PAC is only as "good" as the people in it.