Question

INSTRUCTIONS: In this activity, you assume the role of a senator who has received a memo about the vote on a bill to eliminate super PACs. You will review arguments for and against super PACs, cast your vote and then provide a written explanation of your decision.

INTRODUCTION: To: Senator Brian Paul

From: Nicoletta Luciana, legislative analyst

Subject: Vote on bill to eliminate super PACs

In the wake of the 2010 Citizens United and several other decisions, super PACs (independent expenditure-only committees) have become a major source of campaign financing in recent years, spending almost $350 million in the 2014 election—more than the Democratic and Republican Parties’ campaign committees combined. Concerns over this record spending have led your colleagues to introduce a bill to ban such super PACs.

To Consider:

Given record levels of spending by super PACs in recent elections, some in Congress are calling for a ban on super PACs. Some argue that banning these organizations would reduce public concerns about corruption and lessen the role of the wealthy in the political process, but critics charge that such restrictions would violate the First Amendment and harm voters.

Arguments for:

1. These groups allow the wealthy (and corporations and unions) to have too much say in the political process. They can outspend other groups and shape the messages voters hear in the election.

2. There is no evidence that super PACs cause corruption, but they produce the appearance of corruption or a quid pro quo. This weakens citizens’ trust in our government.

Arguments against:

1. Political spending is a form of political speech and is protected by the First Amendment. This includes spending by super PACs.

2. By sponsoring political ads, super PACs can inform voters and provide them with information they need to make a choice between candidates.

Will you vote to ban or not to ban super PACs? Why?

Answer 1

I will vote to ban super PAC for certain reasons which I feel will be beneficial for the election process and government formation. Super PAC allows support and promotion of one party or candidate from wealthy donors which makes them put a greater impact on public than others and this affects the decision making of the voters. Such impact making doesn't look justified for conveying messages in such elections. It lowers the voice of the candidates with no support from such donors in the election campaign process even though they may be deserving candidates.

Moreover, with this impression being created, even if the candidate being promoted with good money is deserving he will be seen by non-supporters of PAC with the negative image in mind because of the surplus funds he is being supported with. Hence the non-supporters of PAC will not be able to elect in the process in an unbiased manner. Following which if the elected candidate is the one supported by PAC, the citizens have less faith in the candidate and the government. Hence the better way of getting funds is to let the campaigns raise the money they need for the process than get support from these super PACs.