World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

Political action committee

In the election laws.

  • Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising;
  • Union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members;
  • Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.

Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:

  • $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);
  • $15,000 to a political party per year; and
  • $5,000 to another PAC per year.
  • PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party

In its 2010 case 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".[19] In an open meeting on July 22, 2010, the FEC approved two Advisory Opinions to modify FEC policy in accordance with the legal decisions.[20] These Advisory Opinions were issued in response to requests from two existing PACs, [21]

The term "Super PAC" was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney.[22] 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.'"[23]

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.[24][25]

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.[26] 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.[27] Some Super PACs are run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates.[28]

In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs came from wealthy individuals, not corporations.[26] According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, 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,[29] while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.[30] Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.[31]

As of February 2012, according to

  • FEC.gov - Political Action Committees (PAC)
  • FEC.gov - Speechnow.org v. FEC
  • OpenSecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics
  • FactCheck.org Players Guide 2012
  • FactCheck.org Players Guide 2014
  • PoliticalMoneyLine dot-com company that offers some free information; detailed info requires a subscription
  • Sunlight Foundation

External links

  1. ^ Janda, Kenneth; Berry, Jeffrey M.; Goldman, Jerry (2008-12-19). The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World (10 ed.).  
  2. ^ "Kentucky: Secretary of State - Civics Glossary". Sos.ky.gov. 2010-12-20. Retrieved 2012-01-04. 
  3. ^ "Federal Campaign Finance Laws" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. April 2008. p. 1: §431. Definitions (4). Retrieved 2012-01-04. 
  4. ^ Ely, Jr., James W. (2012) [2005].  
  5. ^ 2 U.S.C. § 441b
  6. ^ http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-637/4637-21.pdf
  7. ^ Murse, Tom. "What is a Super PAC?". About.com U.S. Politics. Retrieved December 9, 2012. 
  8. ^ a b "News Release: Number of Federal PACs Increases", March 9, 2009, Federal Election Commission
  9. ^ Kurtzleben, Danielle (September 27, 2010). "DeMint's PAC Spends $1.5 Million in Independent Expenditures". U.S. News and World Report.
  10. ^ Stern, Marcus; LaFleur, Jennifer (September 26, 2009). "Leadership PACs: Let the Good Times Roll".  
  11. ^ "Leadership PACs and Sponsors". Federal Election Commission.
  12. ^ "Congress 101: Political Action Committees". Congressional Quarterly.
  13. ^ "Leadership PACs". OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics. 2010. 
  14. ^ FBI raids Abramoff-linked congressman’s home, NBC News, Joel Seidman April 19, 2007
  15. ^ "Political Action Committees". OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved 2012-01-04. 
  16. ^ Weisman, Jonathan;  
  17. ^ "Pelosi PAC fined $21,000 by federal elections officials". USA Today. February 11, 2004. Retrieved May 22, 2010. 
  18. ^ "Outside Spending (2010)". OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics. 
  19. ^  
  20. ^ [1]
  21. ^ [2]
  22. ^ "Component Parts", Matt Corley, March 14, 2012
  23. ^ "How Super PACs got their name", Dave Levinthal, January 10, 2012
  24. ^ Grier, Peter (January 18, 2012). "Will Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert's super PAC?". The Christian Science Monitor.
  25. ^ McGlynn, Katla (January 18, 2012). "'"Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Expose More Super PAC Loopholes Without 'Coordinating. The Huffington Post.
  26. ^ a b Crankocracy In America. Who really benefitted from Citizens United?. Timothy Noah. 29 March 2012.
  27. ^ Winning Our Future. factcheck.org. 5 July 2012.
  28. ^ "'"Who's Financing the 'Super PACs. The New York Times, February 20, 2012 [February 1, 2012]
  29. ^ Can 46 rich dudes buy an election? By Charles Riley @CNNMoney March 26, 2012
  30. ^ Corporations don't pony up for super PACs By ANNA PALMER and ABBY PHILLIP| politico.com| 3/8/12
  31. ^ Mooney, Brian C. (February 2, 2012). "Super PACs fueling GOP attack ads". The Boston Globe. 2012-02-02
  32. ^ "Super PACs". OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  33. ^ Citizens Informed: Broader Disclosure and Disclaimer for Corporate Electoral Advocacy in the Wake of Citizens United, Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, Page 625 footnote 13, by Daniel Winik Yale Law School, January 1, 2010
  34. ^ Campaign finance disclosure 2.0, Election Law Journal, by Richard Briffault, Page 14 of 31, November 4, 2010
  35. ^ Towards a Madisonian, interest-group-based, approach to lobbying regulation, University of Alabama School of Law, by Anita S. Krishnakumar, Page 10 of 61, February 18, 2007
  36. ^ Who funds Super PAC? FEC looks into powerful influence, By Gail Russell Chaddock, The Christian Science Monitor, Feb 02, 2012
  37. ^ “Super PACs” in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, by R. Sam Garrett, December 2, 2011
  38. ^ Federal Election Commission web site, Sourced: February 5, 2012
  39. ^ Forgetting a lesson from Watergate, CNN, By John Blake, February 4, 2012
  40. ^ In D.C., a mockery of campaign finance laws, Washington Post, By Colbert I. King, Published: January 14, 2012
  41. ^ A secret donor revealed, New York Times, By Michael Luo, February 7, 2010
  42. ^ The Strange Case of W. Spann LLC, by Bradley A. Smith, August 5, 2011

References

See also

  1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $3,344,650
  2. AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
  3. American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,140
  4. National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
  5. Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
  6. International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
  7. International Union of Operating Engineers PAC $2,704,067
  8. American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
  9. Laborers' International Union of North America PAC $2,555,350

In the 2008 election, the top nine PACs spent a total of $25,794,807 (directly, and via their affiliates and subsidiaries) as follows:

2008 election

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 their personal name.[40] 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.[41] However, campaign finance experts have argued that this tactic is already illegal, since it would constitute a contribution in the name of another.[42]

Yet despite disclosure rules, it is possible to spend money without voters knowing the identities of donors before the election.[36] In federal elections, for example, political action committees have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis.[37][38][39] This allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent and votes cast before the report is due.

By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications.[33] These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations.[34][35]

Disclosure rules

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

[32] Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions: the aforementioned

Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.[18]

Super PACs

  • Former Rep. John Doolittle's (R) leadership PAC paid 15% to a firm that only employed his wife. Payouts to his wife's firm were $68,630 in 2003 and 2004, and $224,000 in 2005 and 2006. The Doolittle home was raided in 2007.[14] After years of investigation, the Justice Department dropped the case with no charges in June 2010.
  • One Leadership PAC purchased $2,139 in gifts from Bose Corporation.[15]
  • Former Rep. Richard Pombo (R) used his leadership PAC to pay hotel bills ($22,896) and buy baseball tickets ($320) for donors.[16]
  • Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) leadership PAC, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by federal election officials "for improperly accepting donations over federal limits."[17]

Controversial use of leadership PACs

Between 2008 and 2009, leadership PACs raised and spent more than $47 million.[13]

Under the FEC rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from individuals and other PACs. Since current officeholders have an easier time attracting contributions, Leadership PACs are a way dominant parties can capture seats from other parties. A leadership PAC sponsored by an elected official cannot use funds to support that official's own campaign. However, it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses.[10][11][12]

Elected officials and political parties cannot give more than the federal limit directly to candidates. However, they can set up a Leadership PAC that makes independent expenditures. Provided the expenditure is not coordinated with the other candidate, this type of spending is not limited.[9]

Leadership PACs

Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form "non-connected PACs". These organizations may accept funds from any individual, connected PAC, or organization. As of January 2009, there were 1,594 non-connected PACs, the fastest-growing category.[8]

Non-connected PACs

Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are "connected PACs" established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class", generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. As of January 2009, there were 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 related to labor unions and 995 to trade organizations.[8]

Connected PACs

Federal law formally allows for two types of PACs: connected and non-connected. Judicial decisions added a third classification, independent-expenditure only committees, which are colloquially known as "Super PACs".

Categorization

Contents

  • Categorization 1
    • Connected PACs 1.1
    • Non-connected PACs 1.2
      • Leadership PACs 1.2.1
      • Controversial use of leadership PACs 1.2.2
    • Super PACs 1.3
      • 2012 presidential election 1.3.1
      • Disclosure rules 1.3.2
  • 2008 election 2
  • See also 3
  • References 4
  • External links 5

[7]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.