It is election year in the US and in the run-up to the vote, Republican candidates are head-to-head in the race to become their party's nominee. This campaign however, has seen the emergence of a new media strategy in the form of the Super PAC (Political Action Committee). Super PACs are funded by American individuals, corporations and unions, who are legally allowed to donate as much money as they want to supposedly independent organisations but which are linked to a particular candidate. These Super PACs then unleash a slew of political TV ads that are not designed to support their candidate but rather take down the opposition. And so far they seem to be working.
Citizens United ruling
In 2010, the landmark case filed by Citizens United changed the rules regarding corporate campaign expenditures. This ruling made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures. Direct corporate and union contributions to federal campaigns, however are still prohibited.[3] Thus corporations or unions seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC.
Super PACs
The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals.[5] The super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. The first was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which held that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditures about politics. Soon after, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited.[6] Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. They are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.[7] However many exploit a technicality in the filing requirements in order to postpone disclosure until well after the elections they participate in.[8] Even absent a formal connection to a campaign, Super PACs openly support particular candidacies. In the primary season before the 2012 presidential campaign, for example, the Restore Our Future Super PAC benefited Republican Mitt Romney while attacking rival Newt Gingrich.[9] In the same election, the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future Super PAC attacked Romney.[10] Each Super PAC was run by former employees of the candidate it supported, and each attracted money from that candidate's associates.[9][10] The status of super PACs in Montana is in dispute. The Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana (Dec, 2011) upheld that state's law prohibiting corporate spending in political races. Directly addressing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, it concluded that "Montana has a compelling interest to impose the challenged rationally-tailored statutory restrictions" to prohibit "independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate."[11] The plaintiffs (since renamed American Tradition Partnership) have announced plans to appeal the decision
Super PACS are living up to their early billing as potential game-changers in the 2012 elections. Free to flood a campaign with as much money as they can, these souped-up political action committees have already had an impact on the Republican presidential contest. Newt Gingrich saw his sudden surge in Iowa squashed when super PAC allies of Mitt Romney spent millions on negative ads against the former speaker of the House of Representatives. Gingrich finished fourth in both the Iowa caucuses and in the New Hampshire primary. But a $5 million pledge from a Las Vegas casino mogul and friend of Gingrich to a super PAC run by his supporters could help him make a stand in South Carolina's Republican primary on Jan. 21. That PAC, Winning Our Future, intends to spend $3.4 million on an ad campaign attacking Romney's role in eliminating jobs when the private investment group he once led - Bain Capital - bought and sold companies. Gingrich backers hope that will hit home in a state where unemployment is nearly 10 percent.
No comments:
Post a Comment