Momich 1

Jessica Momich
Mr. Rogers
Government 5
1 November 2015
Campaign Finance Reform
Super PACs are vehicles for corruption that threaten the institution of democracy this
nation was founded on. For numerous decades, campaign finance reform has been a topic of
contention in the political arena. There remains a struggle between the protection of freedom of
speech and the regulation of corporate influence in public elections. In 2002, the McCainFeingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act tackled the use of soft money, which is money
donated to a particular political party, but only a year later it was challenged in the Supreme
Court. Even today, in the midst of presidential campaigning for the 2016 election, there
continues to be much controversy surrounding the limits of federal campaign regulations. More
specifically, arguments pertaining to the constitutional authority of the federal government to
eradicate political action committees, otherwise known as super PACs, have arisen. Super PACs
should be eliminated because they bypass federal campaign regulations, threaten the bedrock of
American democracy, and allow corporations to influence public officials.
Super PACs undermine previous campaign election laws enforced by the Federal Election
Commission (FEC). The FEC was established in 1975 by Congress to oversee the enforcement
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (The FEC). The Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 placed limits on campaign spending and mandated that campaigns disclose expenditures.
However, as a result of the 2010 ruling, Citizens United, corporations can directly fund political
advertisements, allowing for anonymity of funding (Garrett). This Supreme Court ruling

Momich 2
undermined previous laws and safeguards set by the FEC and upheld for decades. Moreover,
corporations are allowed to establish PACs and contribute unlimited donations in support of
political parties and federal candidates during elections through these super PACs (Federal
Campaign Law). Further, politicians use buffers, such as employees or business contacts, to
manifest an appearance of nonpartisanship, while the politician can remain in contact with the
super PAC through alternative sources in order to maximize contributions. In all, super PACs
inhibit the governments ability to regulate and monitor campaigns, while threatening the voice
of the common man.
Super PACs are a threat to democracy for they allow corporations to spend copious
amounts of money to elect the particular candidate they want in office. One example of this is
the decision of Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam to give more
than $10 million to the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrichs campaign for the Republican
presidential nomination (Barnes). The common man, the American citizen, loses his voice
amidst billionaire contributors. The 2012 Mitt Romney super PAC named Restore Our Future
raised approximately $966,667,002 dollars (Goodwin). The largest contributor of this super PAC,
billionaire Sheldon Adelson, contributed millions. Moreover, donations, as dictated by federal
law, are limited to $5,000 to a super PAC if it is deemed a contribution; if a candidate coordinates
with a super PAC greatly impacts the legality of said donation (Smith 605). Therefore, it is
necessary for candidates not to coordinate with their super PAC contributors in order to allow
larger donations. When one person is allowed to donate millions to their candidate, it is almost as
though they decide the outcome themselves. Money should not have this large of an effect on the
outcome of campaigns, especially because money influences public policy in numerous ways.

Momich 3
Political agendas are likewise affected by the preponderance of political action
committees. Money has a large affect on legislation because corporations use donations during
elections to earn favors with politicians. One way in which campaign contributions affecting
legislation occurs is that Citizens United allows, foreign nationals to clandestinely circumvent
the Congressional ban on their influencing American elections (Sparks). Through donations,
candidates are greatly influenced by the agendas of organizations that support them. For
example, coal, oil, and natural gas companies use super PACs to influence policy and affect
change favorable to their industry (Fulks). Super PACs support candidates who support their
agendas, which has a large impact on who gets elected and the flow of money during campaigns.
Additionally, Once in office, a senator needs to raise more than $10,000 every week to fund his
or her re-election campaign, and much of that money ends up coming from political action
committees (PACs) and other special interests (Power of Money). When corporations and
millionaires fund candidates through super PACs, the politician can become focused on reelection, rather than public policy. Once in office, the candidate needs to appease donors and
contributors to secure their reelection. Ultimately, super PACs compromise the integrity of
campaigning, despite the fact that some argue the elimination of super PACs is a violation of the
First Amendment.
The opposition argues that campaign finance reform thwarts liberties provided in the First
Amendment and does not promote equal opportunity. Those against the elimination of super
PACs state that by preventing people from donating to super PACs they are not being guaranteed
the freedom of speech, which was stipulated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.
Opponents also urge that getting rid of super PACs does not promote equality because
contributions are believed to have no real effect on legislation. Citizens United v. Federal

Momich 4
Election Committee reinforced the idea that corporate speech was protected under the First
Amendment, allowing for the uninhibited use of political advertisements (Supreme Court
Decisions). This theory is erroneous for citing the First Amending does not justify a
malfeasance. If this theory was applied to other circumstances, then racism, libel, and slander,
should be considered legal under the First Amendments protection of freedom of speech. In
addition, making super PACs illegal does in fact have a large impact on the amount of corruption
during campaigns. Citizens United significantly hinders the power of Congress to regulate
corporations and the landscape of campaigns (Gerkin). It is doubtful that millions of dollars in
donations does not come at a price, a political favor. If Congress does not have jurisdiction to
regulate campaigns, specifically in deeming super PACs illegal, then corruption is much more
likely to occur. When safeguards and regulations are not implemented, no one is held
accountable for their actions. In addition, equal opportunity is not promoted through super PACs
because It does not take many donors to make a successful Super PAC in terms of money
raised. Those planning on Super PACs for future presidential races will aim for donors in two
categories: first the mega donor whos contribution of $5 million or more can instantly make the
Super PAC a player (Magleby).These sizeable donations are bound to influence public policy
when the majority of the populations vote is significantly less influential. With advertisements,
television commercials, and other modes of campaigning, moguls and companies affect the
outcome of elections more so than the average American voter. When this occurs, the rule of one
man, one vote, does not apply. In fact, this basic principle is undermined. Even though the
elimination of super PACs faces much opposition, it is a step in the right direction.
Congress should declare super PACs illegal for they weaken federal regulation, undercut
the democratic ideals of equality, and allow for rampant corruption. As seen in the aftermath of

Momich 5
Citizens United, corporations and billionaires have increased their hold on public officials. For
example, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, contributed over $10 million to presidential hopeful Newt
Gingrich. Oil and natural gas companies likewise exploit the use of super PACs to earn favors
with candidates in promotion of their own specific agendas. Corporations and the one-percent
should not determine the fate of America. Elections are democratic in nature. However, they are
undemocratic when certain candidates already have monetary advantages. Super PACs foster
inequality and corruption. The American campaign system is corrupt, but the American people
have the chance to tackle the issue of super PACs. In allowing super PACs to thrive, we threaten
our democratic society. Money is power, however it should not influence campaigns as it has
over the course of the past decade. Billionaires should not decide the outcome of an election. The
American people need to prevent their celebrated democracy from transforming into a classist
oligarchy.

Works Cited
Barnes, Robert. "Super PAC Mania." Super PAC Mania. Columbia Law School. Web. 17 Sept.
2015. <http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/621141>.
"The FEC." Caltech University. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~mathog/fecfeca.html>.

Momich 6
"Federal Campaign Law." Federal ElectionCommission. Federal Election Commission. Web. 01
Nov. 2015. <http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml>.
Fulks, Corey. "Experts Analyze Impact of Super PACs on the Election Landscape." Emory News
Center. Emory University. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://news.emory.edu/stories/2012/02/upress_election_money_and_politics/campus.ht
ml>.
Garrett, Sam. "The State of Campaign Finance Policy." Congressional Research Service: n. pag.
22 Apr. 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.
<http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc287930/m1/1/high_res_d/R41542_2014
Apr22.pdf>.
Gerkin, Heather. "The Real Problem With Citizens United.": n. pag. Marquette Law.
Marquette University. Web. 17 Sept. 2015. <https://law.marquette.edu/assets/marquettelawyers/pdf/marquette-lawyer/2014-summer/2014-summer-p10.pdf>.
Goodwin, Matthew. "Super PACs and Elections." Northern Arizona University. Northern
Arizona University, 12 Oct. 2012. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.
<https://nau.edu/PPI/_Forms/Super-PACs-and-Elections/>.
Magleby, David. "A Classification of Super PACs Into Three Types: Candidate, Party and
Interest Group.": n. pag. University of Akron. University of Akron, 7-8 Nov. 2013. Web.
17 Oct. 2015. <http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/a3e3f402-9001-420d-88844b1564109c40.pdf>.
"Power of Money." The Power of Money. Santa Clara University. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/money.html>.
Smith, Bradley. "Super PACs and the Role of 'Coordination" in Campaign Finance Law."

Momich 7
Willamette Law Review (2013): 605. Print.
Sparks, Corey. "Foreign Influence in American Elections." College of Law Library. Cleveland
State University. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
<http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3800&context=clevstlrev>.
"Supreme Court Decisions." Columbia. Columbia Law School. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/interactive/55569/go-beyond-supreme-courtcampaign-finance-decisions-timeline>.