Super PAC

Last updated

Independent expenditure-only political action committees, better known as Super PACs, are a type of political action committee (PAC) in the United States. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are legally allowed to fundraise unlimited amounted of money from individuals or organisations for the purpose of campaign advertising; however, they are not permitted to either coordinate with or contribute directly to candidate campaigns or political parties. [1] Super PACs are subject to the same organizational, reporting, and public disclosure requirements of traditional PACs. [2]

Contents

History

A Facebook post made by Elizabeth Warren during her 2020 presidential campaign criticizing Super PACs Reject Super PAC Support 49717389.png
A Facebook post made by Elizabeth Warren during her 2020 presidential campaign criticizing Super PACs

Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions in 2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, Speechnow.org v. FEC. In Speechnow.org, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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". [3] In an open meeting on July 22, 2010, the FEC approved two Advisory Opinions to modify FEC policy in accordance with the legal decisions. [4] These Advisory Opinions were issued in response to requests from two existing PACs, the conservative 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 "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" (emphasis in original). [5]

The term "super PAC" was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney. [6] 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 June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers' Voices, that it was a kind of "'super PAC' that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world." [7]

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. [8] [9]

In 2024, a Federal Election Commission ruling eased the restrictions on super PACs. Super PACs were allowed to coordinate with campaigns for the purposes of canvassing, which was deemed not "public communications." [10]

Disclosure rules

By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications. [11] These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations. [12] [13] Contributions to, and expenditures by, Super PACs are tracked by the FEC [14] and by independent organizations such as OpenSecrets. [15]

Yet despite disclosure rules, political action committees have found ways to get around them.

The 2020 election attracted record amounts of donations from dark money groups to political committees like super PACs. These groups are required to reveal their backers, but they can hide the true source of funding by reporting a non-disclosing nonprofit or shell company as the donor. By using this tactic, dark money groups can get around a 2020 court ruling that attempts to require nonprofits running political ads to reveal their donors. [16]

It is also possible to spend money without voters knowing the identities of donors before voting takes place. [17] In federal elections, for example, political action committees have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis. [18] [19] [20] This allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent and votes cast before the report is due and the donors identities' are known.

In one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding the donor's name. [21] 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. [22] However, campaign finance experts have argued that this tactic is already illegal, since it would constitute a contribution in the name of another. [23]

Pop-up super PACs

A "pop-up" super PAC is one that is formed within 20 days before an election, so that its first finance disclosures will be filed after the election. [24] [25] [26] In 2018 the Center for Public Integrity recorded 44 pop-up super PACs formed on October 18 or later, a year when the Federal Election Commission pre-general election reports covered activity through October 17. [24] [27] In 2020 there were more than 50. [25]

Pop-up super PACs often have local-sounding or issue-oriented names. [28] However they can be funded by much larger party-affiliated PACs. [26] [29] In 2021 the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the FEC, listing 23 pop-up Super PACs which had failed to disclose their affiliation to other PACs mostly affiliated with leaderships of the two major parties. [29]

Super PACs in elections

2012 presidential election

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 primaries. [30] 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. [31] Some Super PACs are run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates. [32]

In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs came from wealthy individuals, not corporations. [30] According to data from OpenSecrets, 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, [33] while less than 0.5% of the money given to "the most active super PACs" was donated by publicly traded corporations. [34]

As of February 2012, according to OpenSecrets, 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. [35]

Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads. [36]

The 2012 figures do not include funds raised by state level PACs.

2016 presidential election

In the 2016 presidential campaign, super PACs were described (by journalist Matea Gold) as "finding creative ways to work in concert" with the candidates they supported and work around the "narrowly drawn" legal rule that separated political campaigns from outside groups/super PACs. "Nearly every top presidential hopeful" had "a personalized super PAC" that raised "unlimited sums" and was "run by close associates or former aides". [37] Not only did the FEC regulations allow campaigns to "publicly signal their needs to independent groups", political operatives on both sides "can talk to one another directly, as long as they do not discuss candidate strategy." [37] Candidates are even allowed by the FEC "to appear at super PAC fundraisers, as long as they do not solicit more than $5,000". [37]

Representative David E. Price (D–NC) complained "The rules of affiliation are just about as porous as they can be, and it amounts to a joke that there's no coordination between these individual super PACs and the candidates." [37] As of mid-2015, despite receiving 29 complaints about coordination between campaigns and super PACs, "FEC has yet to open an investigation". [37]

2020 presidential election

According to Open Secrets, in the 2019–2020 cycle (as of October 29, 2022) 2,415 groups organized as super PACs; they had reported total receipts of a little over $2.5 billion and total independent expenditures of a little under $1.3 billion. [38]

2024 presidential election

In the 2024 election cycle, there were 2,458 Super PACs that raised $4,290,768,955 and spent $2,727,234,077. [39] Because super PACs were able to coordinate with campaigns on canvassing for the first time, Donald Trump's campaign relied on Elon Musk's America PAC, a super PAC, to lead his get-out-the-vote efforts in swing states. [40]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance reform in the United States</span> United States efforts to regulate fundraising for democratic election campaigns

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a tax-exempt 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition. At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Independent expenditure</span> Type of political campaign communication in the US

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified political candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with – or at the request or suggestion of – a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party. If a candidate's agent, authorized committee, party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600, while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million to $26.53 million.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations including for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, as well as other kinds of associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Crossroads</span> Republican political organization in the US

American Crossroads is a US Super PAC that raises funds from donors to advocate for certain candidates of the Republican Party. It has pioneered many of the new methods of fundraising opened up by the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Its president is Steven J. Law, a former United States Deputy Secretary of Labor for President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Board of Directors is former Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan. Advisers to the group include Senior Advisor and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colbert Super PAC</span> American satirical political action committee

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow was a United States political action committee (PAC) established by Stephen Colbert, who portrayed a character of the same name who was a mock-conservative political pundit on Comedy Central's satirical television series The Colbert Report. As a super PAC the organization could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals. Speaking in character, Colbert said the money would be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

The term corporate donation refers to any financial contribution made by a corporation to another organization that furthers the contributor's own objectives. Two major kinds of such donations deserve specific consideration, charitable as well as political donations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trevor Potter</span> Lawyer and member of the United States Federal Election Commission

Trevor Alexander McClurg Potter is an American lawyer who served as the former commissioner and chairman of the United States Federal Election Commission. He is the Founder and President of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization which works in the areas of campaign finance and elections, political communication and government ethics. A Republican, he was the General Counsel to John McCain's two presidential campaigns. Potter is a vocal critic of unlimited corporate spending and dark money in politics allowed by the Supreme Court of the United States' Citizens United v. FEC ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark money</span> Undisclosed American political contributions

In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Committee to Defeat the President</span>

The Committee to Defeat the President was first established as the hybrid Stop Hillary PAC in 2013. The PAC changed its name to the Committee to Defend the President in 2017. Ted Harvey, a former Colorado state senator, chairs the committee.

Shadow campaigns refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not publicly disclosed or is difficult to trace. United States campaign finance law has been regulated by the Federal Election Commission since its creation in the wake of the Watergate Scandal in 1975, and in the years following Citizens United v. FEC, there has been a rise in outside special interest groups spending money on political campaigns in the United States. Dark money leaves voters uninformed about important political information and it can obscure potential conflicts of interest for judges and legislators alike.

A hybrid PAC is a political committee classification in the United States. It is used by the Federal Election Commission to describe a committee with certain spending and contribution limitations.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a hub of undisclosed political spending on the American Left. The group serves as a fiscal sponsor for other organizations, incubating and financing various progressive projects. According to The New York Times, "The Sixteen Thirty is part of a broader network of progressive nonprofits that donors use to fill specific spaces on the political chessboard." The Sixteen Thirty Fund is administered by Arabella Advisors, a for-profit consulting firm.

MAGA Inc., also called Make America Great Again Inc. is an American Super PAC that supports Donald Trump. It was founded on September 23, 2022. As a Super PAC, it can raise unlimited money for campaigns and spend it freely to support Trump, but it is barred from coordinating directly with presidential campaigns.

References

  1. ↑ "Super PACs". OpenSecrets . Retrieved 1 August 2023.
  2. ↑ Briffault, Richard (2012-01-01). "Super PACs". Minn. L. Rev. 96: 1644.
  3. ↑ Cordes, Nancy (June 30, 2011). "Colbert gets a Super PAC; So what are they?". CBS News . Retrieved 2011-08-11.
  4. ↑ "FEC Approves Two Advisory Opinions On Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committees". FEC. July 22, 2010. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
  5. ↑ "Advisory Opinion: Statement of Commissioner Steven T. Walther" (PDF). FEC. July 20, 2010.
  6. ↑ Corley, Matt (March 14, 2012). "Political Scientist Morris Fiorina Used The Term Super PAC In 2002". Component Parts.
  7. ↑ Levinthal, Dave (January 10, 2012). "Genesis of a super name". Politico.
  8. ↑ Grier, Peter (January 18, 2012). "Will Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert's super PAC?". The Christian Science Monitor.
  9. ↑ McGlynn, Katla (January 18, 2012). "Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Expose More Super PAC Loopholes Without 'Coordinating'". The Huffington Post.
  10. ↑ Goldmacher, Shane (June 10, 2024). "A Democrat, Siding With the G.O.P., Is Removing Limits on Political Cash at 'Breathtaking' Speed".
  11. ↑ "Unknown" . Yale Law School. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
  12. ↑ Briffault, Richard (2010). "Campaign Finance Disclosure 2.0". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 9 (4): 273–303. doi:10.1089/elj.2010.9408.
  13. ↑ Krishnakumar, Anita S. (February 18, 2007). "Towards a Madisonian, interest-group-based, approach to lobbying regulation" (PDF). University of Alabama School of Law. p. 10.
  14. ↑ "Campaign finance data". Federal Election Commission.
  15. ↑ "Super PACs". OpenSecrets.org.
  16. ↑ Massoglia, Anna; Evers-Hillstrom, Karl (17 March 2021). "'Dark money' topped $1 billion in 2020, largely boosting Democrats". Open Secrets. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
  17. ↑ Chaddock, Gail Russell (February 2, 2012). "Who funds Super PAC? FEC looks into powerful influence". Alaska Dispatch. Archived from the original on March 8, 2012.
  18. ↑ Garrett, R. Sam (December 2, 2011). ""Super PACs" in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service" (PDF). FAS.org.
  19. ↑ "Timely Tips Archive". Archived from the original on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
  20. ↑ Blake, John (4 February 2012). "Forgetting a key lesson from Watergate?". CNN. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
  21. ↑ King, Colbert I. (13 January 2012). "How D.C. interests sidestep campaign finance limits". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
  22. ↑ Luo, Michael (7 February 2012). "The Caucus: A Secret Donor Revealed". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 February 2020.
  23. ↑ "The strange case of W. Spann, LLC". Center for Competitive Politics. 2011-08-05. Archived from the original on July 14, 2017. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
  24. 1 2 Balcerzak, Ashley (2018-11-02). "Pop-up PACs are spending big in Election 2018's final days — but they're hiding their bankrollers". Center for Public Integrity . Retrieved 2022-12-03.
  25. 1 2 Newhauser, Daniel (October 29, 2020). "Mysterious 'pop-up PACs' targeting races throughout country in final days of campaign". Ohio Capital Journal . Retrieved 2022-12-03.
  26. 1 2 Lee, Michelle; Narayanswamy, Anu (November 6, 2018). "Mysterious anti-Ted Cruz super PAC spends $2.3 million in final stretch". Washington Post . Retrieved 2022-12-03.
  27. ↑ "2018 Reporting Dates: Pre- and Post-General Reports". FEC . Retrieved 2022-12-03.
  28. ↑ Markay, Lachlan (2022-09-13). "Establishment Republicans hide fingerprints with carefully timed primary spending". Axios . Retrieved 2022-12-03.
  29. 1 2 Quinn, Brendan (July 15, 2021). "CLC Complaint Seeks to Address Bipartisan Usage of Deceptive "Pop-Up" Super PACs" (Press release). Campaign Legal Center . Retrieved 2022-12-03.
  30. 1 2 Noah, Timothy (29 March 2012). "Crankocracy In America. Who really benefitted from Citizens United?". The New Republic.
  31. ↑ Farley, Robert (July 25, 2012). "Winning Our Future". FactCheck.org.
  32. ↑ "Who's Financing the 'Super PACs'". The New York Times. February 20, 2012.
  33. ↑ Riley, Charles (March 26, 2012). "Can 46 rich dudes buy an election?". CNN Money.
  34. ↑ Palmer, Anna; Phillip, Abby (2012-08-03). "Corporations don't pony up for super PACs". Politico.
  35. ↑ "Super PACs". OpenSecrets.org. OpenSecrets . Retrieved 2012-02-04.
  36. ↑ Mooney, Brian C. (February 2, 2012). "Super PACs fueling GOP attack ads". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2012-06-09.
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 Gold, Matea (6 July 2015). "Politics It's bold, but legal: How campaigns and their super PAC backers work together". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
  38. ↑ "Super PACs". Open Secrets. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
  39. ↑ "Open Secrets 2024 Election Outside Spending". Open Secrets. 6 November 2024. Retrieved 7 Nov 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  40. ↑ Schleifer, Theodor; Craig, Susanne (November 6, 2024). "Trump's Victory Is a Major Win for Elon Musk and Big-Money Politics". New York Times . Retrieved November 8, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.