Superpacs Pros And Cons

984 Words4 Pages
In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number…show more content…
While there is a limit to the amount an individual, group, or corporation can give directly to a political candidate, there is no limit to the amount of money one can give to a super PAC. These super PACs work closely with a candidate’s campaign and pay for many of the candidate’s expenses. Super PACs spend a lot of money on expensive television advertisements to endorse their candidate and degrade their candidate’s opponents. While candidates often have to disclose their direct campaign contributions, super PACS do not. Super PACs are able to keep the sources of most of their funds hidden from the public. Some Senators and Representatives have been working on passing legislation to remove the cap on individuals’ direct campaign contributions. This would allow candidates to campaign without super PACs, making the sources of campaign funding more clear (Price…show more content…
This means they will likely raise money in any way possible to increase their chances of winning. This leads many members of Congress to give less consideration to the needs of low-income individuals when developing legislation. Since these low-income individuals do not have the means to give large amounts of money to re-election campaigns, their views are often ignored. Many members of Congress endorse legislation that would benefit their largest donors. This leads to a Congress that is not a true representative of the broad interests across the United States (Flavin 2015). The increasing importance of big money in campaigns has also heightened the polarization within Congress. Candidates have been forced to develop strong views on the most polarizing topics, such as abortion, LGBT rights, and gun regulations. If a candidate does not express strong views on these topics, wealthy Republican or Democratic super PACs are not likely to back them. This has caused more gridlock in Congress as many members are not willing to compromise on these important topics (La Raja

More about Superpacs Pros And Cons

Get Access