Super PAC
In January of 2010, the Supreme Court made a decision that could potentially change the way campaigns are run. The Supreme Court ruled that Super PACS were legally allowed to raise unlimited money from donors. These donors are often times large corporations and labor unions who are seeking favors and influence. With the increase of money and influence from Super PACs, candidates are changing the very way they operate campaigns. These changes could have further implications than just donations, with even the fairness of elections potentially being compromised. One example of a candidate who yielded to the increasing influence of Super PACs and changed his campaign strategy was Jeb Bush.
In 2016 when Bush ran for president, he turned over some of his central functions to his Super PAC called Right to Rise. In other words, he altered the traditional norms of both campaign committees and Super PACs. Right to Rise broke into new areas for super PACS when they engaged in activities such as data gathering, highly individualized online advertising, and running phone banks. Right to Rise was also tasked with some vital strategies such as the operation to get out the vote and efforts to maximize absentee and early voting on Bush’s behalf.
If this same strategy were to be adopted by future candidates, then it would essentially make the Super PAC the true campaign center that would not be limited under the same regulations that apply to traditional campaigns. This would potentially mean that not as many resources would be devoted to the traditional campaign, and would instead be diverted to independent money machines. While this would alleviate the pressure for a candidate to search for donations, it would mean giving corporations even more influence in our government. There could potentially be a shift in candidates trying to appeal more to corporations than in other areas of their election, like trying to win heavily contested areas.
This new strategy would also favor wealthy candidates over poorer ones. If the amount of money raised by a candidate is determined by specific corporations that contribute to their campaigns, then a candidate with a stronger connection to these corporations will receive more money. And since wealthy candidates would be the ones to have these connections, they would be the people receiving the most money from the corporations. It could be possible to see that strong connections to specific corporations would be a prerequisite for running for office. It could also be possible for the corporations who fund these elections to use their leverage on their indebted candidate to pass more legislation in their favor. Lobbying the president would be a lot easier since the corporation’s money is what got them there in the first place.
The implications of this shift in campaign strategy would heavily favor the corporations who fund the Super PACs while taking away some of the importance of fairness in elections. With the majority of the power resting in Super PACs, candidates could become the puppets of corporations, and only the candidates who appeal to the interest of the corporations would have any chance of running a successful campaign. If it were to become nearly impossible for a candidate to run without the prior approval and assistance of corporations and PACs, then that would mean that elections would be unfair since not everyone has an equal chance of successfully running. The unfairness of elections would cause our popular sovereignty to be in danger and cause our democracy to be under threat.
Sources:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/how-super-pacs-can-run_campaigns.html
- http://chssp.ucdavis.edu/blog/how-does-money-impact-a-presidential-election
- https://apnews.com/409837aa09ee405493ad64a94b8c2c3d/bush-preparing-delegate-many-campaign-tasks-super-pac