| URL | https://Persagen.com/docs/super_pac.html |
| Sources | Persagen.com | Wikipedia | other sources (cited in situ) |
| Source URL | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs |
| Date published | 2021-07-20 |
| Curator | Dr. Victoria A. Stuart, Ph.D. |
| Curation date | 2021-07-20 |
| Modified | |
| Editorial practice | Refer here |
| Summary | Super PACs, officially known as "independent expenditure-only political action committees," may engage in unlimited political spending (on, for example, ads) independently of the campaigns, but are not allowed to either coordinate or make contributions to candidate campaigns or party coffers. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size. |
| Key points |
|
| Related | |
| Keywords | Show |
| Named entities | Show |
| Ontologies | Show |
Super PACs, officially known as "independent expenditure-only political action committees," may engage in unlimited political spending (on, for example, ads) independently of the campaigns, but are not allowed to either coordinate or make contributions to candidate campaigns or party coffers. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.
Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions in 2010: the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and - two months later - SpeechNOW.org v. FEC. In SpeechNOW.org v. FEC, the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.
The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNOW.org decisions was the rise of a new type of political action committee in 2010, popularly dubbed the "Super PAC." In an open meeting on 2010-07-22, the FEC approved two Advisory Opinions to modify FEC policy in accordance with the legal decisions. These Advisory Opinions were issued in response to requests from two existing PACs, the conservative group Club for Growth, and the liberal Commonsense Ten (later renamed Senate Majority PAC). Their advisory opinions gave a sample wording letter which all Super PACs must submit to qualify for the deregulated status, and such letters continue to be used by Super PACs up to the present date. FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther dissented on both opinions and issued a statement giving his thoughts. In the statement, Walther stated (emphasis in original):
"There are provisions of the Act and Commission regulations not addressed by the court in SpeechNOW that continue to prohibit Commonsense Ten from soliciting or accepting contributions from political committees in excess of $5,000 annually or any contributions from corporations or labor organizations".
The term "Super PAC" was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney. According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, "made the first identifiable, published reference to 'Super PAC' as it's known today while working at National Journal, writing on 2010-06-26, of a group called Workers' Voices, that it was a kind of "'Super PAC' that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United v. FEC world."
According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.
Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, Super PACs played a major role, spending more than the candidates' election campaigns in the Republican Party primaries. As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future - a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney's presidential campaign - had spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro-Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million. Some Super PACs are run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates.
In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to Super PACs came from wealthy individuals, not corporations. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual Super PAC donors in 2011-2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised, while less than 0.5% of the money given to "the most active Super PACs" was donated by publicly traded corporations.
As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.
Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.
The 2012 figures do not include funds raised by state level PACs.
In 2019, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren self-imposed fundraising restrictions, including "swearing off PAC money." While they do not accept direct financial contributions from either connected or non-connected PACs, both Sanders and Warren were supported by at least one Super PAC.
By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications. These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations. Contributions to - and expenditures by - Super PACs are tracked by the FEC and by independent organizations such as the Center for Responsive Politics.
Yet despite disclosure rules, it is possible to spend money without voters knowing the identities of donors before the election. In federal elections, for example, political action committees have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis. This allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent and votes cast before the report is due.
In one high-profile case, a donor to a Super PAC kept his name hidden by using an limited liability company (LLC) formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name. One Super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed. However, campaign finance experts have argued that this tactic is already illegal, since it would constitute a contribution in the name of another.
[ExposedByCMD.org, 2022-02-22] Billionaires Bet Big to Influence 2022 Elections.
... Hedge fund manager
Return to Persagen.com