tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/super-pacs-2537/articlesSuper PACS – The Conversation2024-01-16T18:49:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2212642024-01-16T18:49:52Z2024-01-16T18:49:52ZDeSantis-linked super PAC broke new ground in pushing campaign finance rules in Iowa in support of a 2nd-place finish<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569595/original/file-20240116-27-akw4hz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis greets an audience in West Des Moines, Iowa, on caucus night on Jan. 15, 2024.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-florida-gov-ron-desantis-news-photo/1936462663?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/never-back-down-inc/C00834077/summary/2024">Never Back Down, the Ron DeSantis super PAC</a>, played an outsized role in the Iowa caucuses campaign of the Florida governor. Its impact on the results, in which <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/16/us/iowa-caucus-election-news">DeSantis came in second</a> to former President Donald Trump, will likely remain an open question. </p>
<p>But one thing is sure: It mocked the already weak regulatory framework governing money in campaigns. </p>
<p>A PAC, or political action committee, is a group that is formed to support a candidate by <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/what-is-a-pac">raising and spending money on various activities</a>; it is not supposed to coordinate with the candidate it supports, nor should it be controlled by that candidate. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2022">Super PACs</a> have been a force in caucus politics since 2012. That year featured the first nomination cycle after <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/2/9/18088962/super-pacs-and-dark-money">the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision opened the floodgates</a> for unregulated contributions and spending by outside groups. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2022">The only limits</a> currently imposed are that super PACs can’t contribute directly to federal candidates’ campaign funds, and they can’t coordinate with campaigns. Since 2012, super PACs have spent freely on advertising, <a href="https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases-012920/">dominating broadcast airwaves</a> in 2016 and 2020.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A yard sign promoting Ron DeSantis." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569613/original/file-20240116-27-q6ic9i.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yard signs promoting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in Sioux Center, Iowa, financed by Never Back Down, the super PAC promoting DeSantis for president in 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2024IowaDeSantis/ffd5f056a7b54a77856a811aab26c7b0/photo?Query=Never%20Back%20Down%20DeSantis&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=3&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Tom Beaumont</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the 2024 Iowa caucuses campaign, the <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00834077/">DeSantis-backing super PAC</a> staked out some new territory by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/ron-desantis-2024-super-pac.html">largely funding the candidate’s ground game</a>, recruiting and training organizers in Iowa and <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2024/01/15/ron-desantis-iowa-caucuses-republican-party-gop/72067254007/">sending them out</a> early to engage Iowa Republicans face-to-face.</p>
<p>But the new territory didn’t stop there. Never Back Down appeared to disregard that ban on coordination with the campaign. Super PACs and campaigns have developed <a href="https://campaignlegal.org/update/new-clc-report-unchecked-coordination-between-candidates-and-outside-groups-undermines">methods</a> to allow them to coordinate while preserving the image of independence. Yet, strangely, Never Back Down and the campaign seemed determined to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-big-bet-door-knocking-iowa-never-back-down-rcna131057">make their coordination transparent</a>. </p>
<p>The super PAC <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/us/politics/desantis-debate-strategy.html">boldly posted online its memo</a> laying out a proposed strategy for the candidate before the first GOP debate in August. The intent was never perfectly clear, but it succeeded in sending advice to the campaign.</p>
<p>Never Back Down appears to have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/05/desantis-plane-super-pac/">helped pay for the candidate’s air travel</a>, according to The Washington Post.</p>
<p>The super PAC has <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/25/the-super-pac-frenzy-redefining-campaign-operations-00103483">recruited donors to contribute directly</a> to the campaign. It sponsored candidate events <a href="https://events.neverbackdown.org/e/Cedar-Rapids-Drop-By-with-Special-Guest-Ron-DeSantis">where it picked up the food tab for registered attendees</a>. The candidate arrived on the bus with the can’t-miss “Never Back Down” slogan plastered on the side. And the super PAC touted that the <a href="https://neverbackdown.org/press/never-back-down-reaches-3-million-doors/">candidate’s wife went door to door</a> with Never Back Down canvassers. </p>
<p>In December 2023, the <a href="https://campaignlegal.org/about-clc/our-mission-and-vision">Campaign Legal Center</a>, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group, filed a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, charging that the campaign and the super PAC engaged <a href="https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/DeSantis%20Coordination%20Complaint%20%28Final%29.pdf">“in an illegal coordination scheme.”</a> A DeSantis spokesman <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/18/complaint-desantis-campaign-never-back-down-00132325">called the charges “baseless</a>.”</p>
<p>This might not be the biggest story to come out of Iowa. But it sends a notable and disturbing message to federal candidates, Democratic and Republican: Don’t let the law stand in your way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221264/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara A. Trish does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In Iowa, the Ron DeSantis super PAC Never Back Down seemed intent on mocking the dividing line federal regulators set between campaigns and the PACs that support them.Barbara A. Trish, Professor of Political Science, Grinnell CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2107762023-08-04T12:28:28Z2023-08-04T12:28:28ZTrump’s political action committee wants a $60 million refund on paying his legal fees – 3 key things to know about PACs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540535/original/file-20230801-21-mmzd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of Donald Trump's PACs has nearly dried up its resources by paying his legal fees.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/campaign-buttons-on-top-of-hundred-dollar-bills-royalty-free-image/486249544?phrase=Super+PAC&adppopup=true">iStock/Getty Images Plus </a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Save America, one of former President Donald Trump’s political organizations, is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/us/trump-pac-legal-fees.html">seeking a US$60 million refund</a> from Make America Great Again, Inc., another Trump political organization that is less strictly regulated by federal rules.</em> </p>
<p><em>Save America has paid Trump’s legal fees connected to multiple investigations into alleged criminal activities and is now down to less than $4 million in its account, The New York Times reported on July 31, 2023. It <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/us/politics/trump-pac-filing.html">started 2022 with $105 million</a> in the bank.</em></p>
<p><em>Trump’s use of political action committees, often known as PACs, to pay his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/29/trump-lawyers-pac-deoliveira-loyal/">mounting legal fees</a> has raised questions about these organizations and how they spend money.</em> </p>
<p><em>First, what’s a PAC, anyway?</em></p>
<p><em>We <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/us/politics/trump-pac-filing.html">asked Richard Briffault,</a> a scholar of campaign finance law, to explain what is behind PACs and whether using them to pay for personal legal expenses is permitted. Here are three key points to understand:</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People walk through Times Square, in front of a large poster that says 'Super Trump' and shows Trump's face on a Superman body, flying." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People walk past a Times Square digital billboard created by a pro-Trump super PAC in 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-walk-at-the-corner-of-47th-street-and-7th-avenue-as-news-photo/605881900?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. PACs are not all made equal</h2>
<p>PACs are organizations that raise and spend money on federal elections. A PAC may contribute money to a candidate or political party, or spend independently to promote or attack a candidate or party. </p>
<p>Corporations, labor unions and other ideological groups <a href="https://issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Leadership-PACs-Inc.pdf">originally set up PACs</a> many decades ago as a way to participate in federal elections. Most PACs today are either connected to a sponsor organization or <a href="https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-21-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2021-2022-election-cycle/">have a particular issue agenda</a>. These PACs typically donate to or spend money in support of multiple candidates. </p>
<p>Some PACs, however, are directly created by candidates or their supporters.</p>
<p>Trump’s situation involves two particular kinds of PACs: a leadership PAC <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/save-america/C00762591/summary/2022">named Save America</a> and a super PAC named <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/make-america-great-again-inc/C00825851/summary/2022">Make America Great Again, Inc.</a> </p>
<p>Leadership PACs, which date <a href="https://issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Leadership-PACs-Inc.pdf">back to the late 1970s</a>, are created by candidates or officeholders to support other candidates for federal office, but not the <a href="https://www.fec.gov/campaign-finance-data/leadership-pacs-and-sponsors-description/">candidate’s own campaign</a>. They allow candidates to help fellow party members, strengthen their party’s position and boost their own efforts to win leadership positions. </p>
<p>A super PAC, meanwhile, is a PAC that does not contribute to candidates directly at all, but instead spends money independently to <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-pac-reports/registering-super-pac/">promote or oppose candidates</a>. Like other PACS, a super PAC can pay for advertising, polling, opposition research and get-out-the-vote efforts. But the super PAC cannot coordinate its activities with the candidate it is supporting.</p>
<p>Super PACs emerged in 2010 following a controversial <a href="https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/speechnoworg-v-fec/">court of appeals decision</a>. The ruling found that if a PAC does not directly contribute to or coordinate with a candidate, the ordinary limits on money contributions to PACs do not apply. </p>
<p>Federal law caps individual donations to most PACs, including leadership PACs, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/contribution_limits_chart_2023-2024.pdf">at $5,000 per year</a>.</p>
<p>The lack of caps on donations to super PACs is what merits the modifier “super.”</p>
<p>The case that gave rise to super PACs involved an independent organization not connected to any campaign or candidate. But some super PACs, <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hates-lobbyistsexcept-the-ones-running-his-super-pac">including Trump’s,</a> are also created by people closely associated with a candidate and devote their spending entirely to the support of that candidate. </p>
<p>Because contribution limits do not apply to super PACs, they have become an essential component of <a href="https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Briffault_MLR.pdf">election campaigns</a> over the last 13 years.</p>
<h2>2. PACs can sometimes pay legal fees</h2>
<p>Campaign money is supposed to be used for campaign purposes and not for what election law refers to as <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">“personal use,”</a> such as a political candidate’s home mortgage. </p>
<p>It is illegal to use campaign money to <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">pay for personal expenses</a> that would have occurred whether or not the candidate was running for office. </p>
<p>The Federal Election Commission <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">has ruled that campaign</a> funds can be used to pay a candidate’s legal fees if an investigation relates directly to the election or the candidate’s time in political office. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man looks at a wall covered in photos and text, including one plaque that says 'welcome to the big, beautiful Trump museum.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Democratic super PAC, American Bridge, created a Trump museum in Cleveland, showcasing parts of the former president’s life he would rather keep quiet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-visits-exhibits-at-a-so-called-trump-museum-in-news-photo/577714990?adppopup=true">William Edwards/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Trump’s case enters murky territory</h2>
<p>The Federal Election Commission ruling means that election funding laws could allow Trump to use money from his PAC to pay for legal fees in connection with the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-hush-money-f8ad2bd8845d1295db439719b4987e54">New York hush money</a> case – which relates to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign – as well as the federal and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/us/trump-georgia-prosecutor-election.html">Georgia investigations</a> of Trump’s role in challenging the results of the 2020 election. </p>
<p>But money raised for a campaign could probably not cover the Department of Justice’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190619704/trump-charged-with-additional-count-in-mar-a-lago-documents-case">Mar-a-Lago documents case</a>, which does not involve either Trump’s campaign or his time in office. </p>
<p>The FEC has, in some cases, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">also determined that a politician</a> may use campaign funds to pay for up to 50% of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity.</p>
<p>This is true if the politician is required to provide substantive responses to the media while a candidate, regarding alleged illegal activity. So, campaign money might be used in the Mar-a-Lago case.</p>
<p>What’s unclear – and possibly unlawful – is whether Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, can pay for Trump’s legal expenses. </p>
<p>This is because leadership PACs are supposed to spend money on other political candidates, not the candidate who controls the leadership PAC. And in this case, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Save_America">Save America is controlled by Trump</a>. </p>
<p>It’s also not clear whether the money transfers from the super PAC Make America Great Again, Inc, to Save America <a href="https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Trump%20Save%20America%20PAC%20Complaint%20%28Final%29.pdf">are consistent with the legal requirement</a> that super PACs operate independently of a candidate’s campaign. </p>
<p>The request for refunds only underscores that concern.</p>
<p>The Federal Election Commission monitors any PAC-related legal issues or violations of election law. But given that the commission is facing <a href="https://shpr.legislature.ca.gov/sites/shpr.legislature.ca.gov/files/Ravel%20-%20FEC%20Dysfunction.pdf">“dysfunction and deadlock,”</a> as a former FEC chair has said, there is unlikely to be clarification or enforcement anytime soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210776/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Briffault does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are different kinds of PACs, but it is not clear if Trump’s use of them to pay his large legal fees violates election or campaign finance laws.Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044522018-10-29T10:39:29Z2018-10-29T10:39:29ZMoney in elections doesn’t mean what you think it does<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242489/original/file-20181026-7059-1vsmlw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money in politics? Somebody's got to pay for those signs.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/2016-Election-Florida-Voting/30ff377c698843de8319ffa28b590c51/144/0">AP/John Raoux</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Money is indispensable in American electoral campaigns. Without it, candidates cannot amplify their message to reach voters and it’s harder to motivate people to take interest and vote. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, a <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/">May 2018 Pew survey</a> revealed a bipartisan 70 percent of respondents said individual and group spending in elections should be limited. </p>
<p>But does the American public understand the actual role played by campaign spending?</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://polisci.ufl.edu/suzanne-robbins/">political scientist who studies American politics</a>. Here are the answers to fundamental questions that voters should ask about the role of money in elections.</p>
<h2>How much do elections cost?</h2>
<p>Running for federal office is expensive. According the <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf">Campaign Finance Institute</a>, the cost of winning a U.S. House seat in 2016 was over US$1.5 million. All told, approximately $816 million was spent by 723 major party candidates for the U.S. House. </p>
<p>The average amount a House candidate spent in 2016 was $1.2 million. However, there’s a lot of variation depending on what type of candidate you are. </p>
<p><iframe id="inHfG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/inHfG/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Republicans and incumbents, for example, spent more on average than challengers and those running in open-seat contests in 2016. In fact, the average challenger spent less than half a million dollars, or about one-fourth the amount an incumbent spent. </p>
<p>Those figures don’t include money spent by parties and outside entities to influence the election. Federal law dictates that groups, parties and individuals – including the groups known as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php">super PACs</a> – can make what are called <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/independent-expenditures-nonconnected-pac/">“independent expenditures”</a> for or against a candidate, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidate. </p>
<p>Spending from the major parties and super PACs in House and Senate races more than tripled between 1998 to 2016, growing from $267 million to $978.6 million. </p>
<h2>Can money buy an election?</h2>
<p>Money is necessary for a candidate to be competitive, but it doesn’t ensure success. </p>
<p>A lack of money can eliminate less capable candidates, but having money does not guarantee that a particular candidate’s message will resonate with the voters. As Campaign Finance Institute researchers <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-03-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_GUIDE_TO_MONEY_IN_FEDERAL_ELECTIONS_%E2%80%93_2016_IN_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT.aspx">Michael Malbin and Brendan Glavin write</a>, “If voters do not like what they are hearing, telling them more of the same will not change their opinion.” </p>
<p>So how does money matter?</p>
<p>Money can affect which candidates run. Specifically, early money – or money raised before the primary – matters especially in this regard. </p>
<p>Candidates can prove their viability by raising significant sums before the first advertisements air. Landing some big donors before the first advertisements or primary allows candidates time to build campaign infrastructure. Insiders refer to this as the “invisible primary.” Media stories on the invisible primary for the 2020 presidential election are <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/386823-invisible-primary-has-already-begun-for-dems">well underway</a>. </p>
<p>Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. Decades of political science research demonstrates that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/upshot/a-campaign-dollars-power-is-more-valuable-to-a-challenger.html">more a challenger spends, the more likely he or she is to win</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money helps get citizens engaged in elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-holding-white-loudspeaker-dollars-flying-382771240?src=8rDe_E4BPJZsKG_57JP1FA-1-7">Shutterstock/ImageFlow</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s because incumbents have many advantages, not the least of which is name recognition and free media. So, challengers must spend more to overcome the obstacles they face, from name recognition to formidable incumbent war chests meant to scare off a challenger. Unfortunately for challengers, those barriers are high enough that they rarely raise enough money to compete.</p>
<p>Yet money does not guarantee a victory. Simply looking at the average <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php?cycle=2016&display=A&sort=D&Memb=S">amount spent by winners and losers</a> obscures the fact that many races have no real competition. </p>
<p>In 2016, winning incumbents far outspent their challengers, but the winners in open seat contests spent nearly the same amount as their opponents, while those incumbents who lost outspent their winning opponents half of the time. </p>
<p><iframe id="He1Eq" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/He1Eq/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In short, incumbents who spend more than their opponent in contested races are more likely to be the candidates who are vulnerable and lose. </p>
<h2>Does money buy influence?</h2>
<p>Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. </p>
<p>One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. </p>
<p>Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/secret-money-funds-more-than-40-percent-outside-congressional-tv-ads-midterm-elections/777536002/">in the media</a> and from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/in-tight-senate-races-dark-money-backs-dems-hammers-gop/">reform groups</a>. </p>
<p>Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/outvscand.php?cycle=2016">Center for Responsive Politics</a> notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. </p>
<p><iframe id="SfYcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SfYcu/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is: The <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/the-incredibly-dumb-political-spending-of-2012">2012</a> election provides many examples. </p>
<p>Billionaire Republican donor <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sheldon-adelson-donor-republicans-219598">Sheldon Adelson backed a super PAC</a> supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after Gingrich was no longer a viable presidential contender. It extended the Republican presidential primary at a time when Mitt Romney could have been raising money and consolidating support for the general election. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?utm_term=.f1618de12dd4">libertarian, conservative PAC Americans for Prosperity</a>, founded by the Koch brothers, often ran ads at odds with the Republican message. Other outside groups poured money into races that simply were not winnable. </p>
<p>By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. </p>
<p>For example, in <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2016&id=CA07&spec=N">California’s 7th congressional district</a>, outside groups spent approximately $9.1 million, in roughly equal amounts between the incumbent, Democrat Ami Bera, and challenger, Republican Scott Jones. The vast majority (85.7 percent) of the outside spending came from party organizations – the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congressional Leadership Fund and House Majority PAC – not from interest groups. Bera won re-election with 51.2 percent of the vote. </p>
<p>Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. </p>
<p>For example, wealthy Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott has given his current U.S. Senate campaign <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=FLS1&spec=N">$38.9 million dollars – 71.3 percent of all funds raised</a>. </p>
<p>But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. </p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/11/6/1332017/-Self-Funded-Candidates-The-Track-Record">Daily Kos</a> found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. </p>
<p>Second, this way of improving responsiveness is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office.</p>
<p>Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. </p>
<p>More small donors means <a href="http://prospect.org/article/small-donors-may-soon-be-only-way-fight-big-money">more widespread support, at least in theory</a>, but that theory has limitations. </p>
<p>Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/campaign-finance-fundraising-citizens-united/504425/">In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are <a href="https://psmag.com/news/the-people-who-finance-political-campaigns">more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s so good about money?</h2>
<p>Yes, incumbents can amass huge war chests to scare off opponents, and money can be most effective in competitive races. All that extra spending translates into additional advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. </p>
<p>In the end, what does that mean? </p>
<p>It means more information about the candidates and issues for voters, increased interest in the campaign and increased voter turnout. </p>
<p>That’s good for democracy.</p>
<p>Focusing on the putative evils of money diminishes the importance of other things that may help or hinder a candidate. Other major elements that can influence the outcome of a campaign: candidates who face national political and economic tides and local political concerns; candidates who choose to challenge formidable incumbents; and many candidates who simply aren’t viable. </p>
<p>It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising because money flows to likely winners and competitive races. </p>
<p>But, as scholars like to say, correlation is not causation. In the world of politics and campaigns, money is meaningful. It just may not mean what, and as much as, most people think it means.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Robbins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is money the root of all evil in politics? It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising – money flows to likely winners and competitive races. But correlation is not causation.Suzanne Robbins, Assistant Professor of political science, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/996322018-07-24T10:29:26Z2018-07-24T10:29:26ZMoney, politics and Justice Anthony Kennedy: Revisiting Citizens United<p>The decision in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a>, issued ten years ago, is one of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s most maligned rulings. <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/artificial-persons/">Many condemn</a> the opinion for treating corporations as people, money as speech, and elections as commodities to be sold to the highest bidder. </p>
<p>President Barack Obama <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html">lambasted</a> Citizens United in a State of the Union address. During her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton <a href="https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/08/16/why-clintons-plan-to-scrap-citizens-united-wont-work">promised</a> to nominate a Supreme Court justice who would overturn it. </p>
<p>Citizens United does not deserve such scorn. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.law.fsu.edu/our-faculty/profiles/morley">an election law scholar</a> who has litigated campaign finance cases, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-536">including in the U.S. Supreme Court</a>, I believe Citizens United is a straightforward application of free speech principles and, like Kennedy’s jurisprudence as a whole, reflects a balance of conservative and liberal legal conclusions. </p>
<h2>The history</h2>
<p>Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that received “a small portion of its funds” from for-profit corporations. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227633/original/file-20180713-27024-wqcyyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">David Bossie, leader of Citizens United and producer of ‘Hillary: The Movie’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2008, while Hillary Clinton was seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for President, it released a documentary called <a href="http://www.hillarythemovie.com/">Hillary: The Movie</a>. The film featured numerous interviews with people who, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/">the Supreme Court explained</a>, were “quite critical” of her. </p>
<p>Citizens United wanted to pay a cable company $1.2 million to make the documentary available for free, on demand, to the company’s subscribers. It also wished to air paid advertisements for the movie. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118">Federal law</a>, however, prohibited corporations from spending money to expressly advocate a federal candidate’s election or defeat. This restriction applied to Hillary: The Movie because Citizens United had accepted some corporate funding and the film amounted to express advocacy. </p>
<p>Citizens United sued, arguing these restrictions violated its First Amendment rights.</p>
<h2>The ruling</h2>
<p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963051">Kennedy’s opinion</a> in Citizens United blended conservative concern for free speech with a more liberal focus on transparency. </p>
<p>The conservative majority held corporations have the right to create and distribute political advertisements and other election-related communications such as Hillary: The Movie. </p>
<p>All the justices except Clarence Thomas joined in the final part of the opinion, which held that the government may require speakers like Citizens United to publicly report such expenditures and include disclaimers on their election-related communications, revealing who paid for them. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1047&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1047&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227634/original/file-20180713-27015-1ueb4sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1047&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Citizens United ended unnecessary restraints on political expression and gave voters access to a wider range of election-related information. It also afforded corporations a fair chance to present their perspective on elections that could have tremendous consequences for them. </p>
<p>Corporations are taxed and subject to government regulation. They play vital roles in providing the jobs, goods and services that drive our economy. It is only fair to allow corporations to voice their institutional views about candidates for public office — views that voters, of course, are free to completely disregard. </p>
<h2>Money, speech and collective political action</h2>
<p>Critics claim Citizens United allowed corporate America to buy elections. </p>
<p>The central question in the case, however, was whether corporations could spend money to engage in election-related speech. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118">It remains illegal</a> for corporations to contribute money to candidates, political parties or traditional political action committees (PACs). </p>
<p>Moreover, most of the principles Citizens United relied upon were established in cases decided decades earlier. </p>
<p>The 1976 landmark case <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/424/1.html">Buckley v. Valeo</a> set forth the constitutional principles governing modern campaign finance law. It reaffirmed that election-related speech lies at the heart of the First Amendment. And it recognized that, while money is not literally speech, it is essential to virtually every form of political speech. </p>
<p>Political signs require poster board and markers. Political flyers must be duplicated. Political advertisements cost money to broadcast or publish. </p>
<p>Limiting political spending, the Supreme Court explained, reduces “the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” The government may not limit political expression, the court emphasized, just because it costs money. Rather, such “independent expenditures” remain pure political speech entitled to maximum constitutional protection. </p>
<p>In the decades after Buckley, the Supreme Court held that people retain this right to engage in pure election-related expression when they join together to achieve political goals collectively. Groups such as <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/480.html">political action committees</a>, <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/518/604.html">political parties</a> and <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/479/238.html">certain non-profit corporations</a> have the First Amendment right to spend money to fund election-related speech without government limits. Several liberal justices joined in many of these rulings. </p>
<p>Citizens United extended to for-profit corporations the same constitutional right to advocate for or against candidates that other types of private associations - as well as the corporations’ stockholders, directors, executives and employees - already possessed.</p>
<h2>A trickle, not a flood</h2>
<p>Critics proclaimed that Citizens United would open the floodgates to a deluge of corporate political spending. </p>
<p>They were wrong. </p>
<p>University of New Mexico <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300930">Professor Wendy Hansen and her co-authors discovered</a> that, in the 2012 election, “not a single Fortune 500+ company” made independent expenditures. And only nine Fortune 500 companies made contributions to SuperPACs, totaling less than $5 million.</p>
<p>This trend persisted in ensuing elections. The <a href="https://www.ced.org/pdf/TCB-CED-The-Landscape-of-Campaign-Contributions.pdf">Conference Board’s Committee for Economic Development reports</a> that only 10 corporations made independent expenditures in 2016, and they totaled less than $700,000. </p>
<p>Such results are unsurprising. Most major corporations do not want to alienate up to half their potential customers by spending millions of dollars publicly aligning themselves with a particular candidate or political party. </p>
<h2>What about SuperPACs?</h2>
<p>A more substantial objection is that Citizens United <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.html">paved the way for “SuperPACs.”</a> </p>
<p>SuperPACs are political committees that only fund election-related speech and activities without input from candidates. Because SuperPACs cannot contribute to candidates or political parties, <a href="https://transition.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow_ac_opinion.pdf">people may give</a> unlimited amounts of money to them. </p>
<p>Citizens United didn’t create the principles that led to SuperPACs; Buckley did. SuperPACs simply let people join together to engage in the same political speech and spending they were already free, under Buckley, to perform on their own. </p>
<p>Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United did not cause a corporate Armageddon for our political system. It was a victory for the fundamental First Amendment right of all Americans, individually or collectively through corporations, to engage in pure political speech about federal elections. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 24, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99632/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael T. Morley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Citizens United, issued 10 years ago, is one of the most controversial and scorned rulings in modern Supreme Court history. Is that condemnation undeserved?Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/842652017-09-20T02:52:48Z2017-09-20T02:52:48ZVictoria gets serious on its political donations rules – now it’s the federal government’s turn<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186683/original/file-20170919-22691-1bdcijx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Andrews government's proposed reforms will significantly improve Victoria’s donations system.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mal Fairclough</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/victoria-to-introduce-new-political-donation-reforms/8956102">has announced</a> a suite of reforms to the state’s political donations system. It includes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a cap on donations by individuals, unions and corporations of A$4,000 over a four-year parliamentary term;</p></li>
<li><p>public disclosure of donations above $1,000;</p></li>
<li><p>a ban on foreign donations; and </p></li>
<li><p>real-time disclosure of donations. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Harsh penalties will be imposed on those who breach the rules, with fines of up to $44,000 and two years in jail.</p>
<p>These proposals follow several dubious events, including Liberal Party fundraiser Barrie Macmillan <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/liberal-insiders-plot-to-deliver-donations-to-matthew-guy/8787118">allegedly seeking</a> to funnel donations from a mafia boss to the party after Opposition Leader Matthew Guy enjoyed a lobster dinner with the mafia leader. </p>
<p>According to Andrews, these changes are <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/victoria-to-have-nations-strictest-donation-laws/">intended to</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… help put an end to individuals and corporations attempting to buy influence in Victorian politics.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Are these reforms good?</h2>
<p>The proposed reforms will significantly improve Victoria’s donations system. </p>
<p>The caps on donations will level the playing field and reduce the risk of corruption in the state’s political system. It will prevent rich donors from exerting greater influence over politicians than those who lack the means to do so. Parties will no longer be able to rely on these wealthy donors to fund their election campaigns. </p>
<p>The caps equally target individuals, unions and corporations, meaning that money cannot be channelled through shady corporate structures to evade the rules. However, donations can still be channelled through the federal level, where there are no caps. </p>
<p>Real-time disclosures, which have already been <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2017/2/23/palaszczuk-government-delivers-realtime-donation-disclosure">introduced in Queensland</a>, will improve the timeliness of disclosures. Combined with the lower disclosure threshold of $1,000, these are commendable steps towards enhancing transparency. </p>
<p>The move to ban foreign donations may face <a href="https://theconversation.com/banning-foreign-political-donations-wont-fix-all-that-ails-our-system-73908">constitutional issues</a>.</p>
<p>The tough penalties may deter people from breaching the rules. But proper enforcement by the Victorian Electoral Commission is still essential for the laws to be effective.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/banning-foreign-political-donations-wont-fix-all-that-ails-our-system-73908">Banning foreign political donations won’t fix all that ails our system</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>How will elections be funded?</h2>
<p>Election campaigns are currently funded by a mix of public funding and private donations. As there will be caps on private donations, public funding of Victorian elections from taxpayers’ pockets will need to increase. </p>
<p>There will be debate as to the level of public funding that should be given. Public funding should adequately compensate parties, but not be overly generous or allow them to rort the system.</p>
<p>Detractors may argue that, in the age of social media, there may be cheaper ways for political parties to get their messages across, so less public funding would be needed. </p>
<p>It is tricky to work out how to allocate public funding between established political parties, minor parties and new parties. There is also a question of whether public funding should cover activities such as policy development and party administration.</p>
<p>But public funding is already part of Australia’s system. In the <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/2016/08/17/election-funding-payments-2016.html">2016 federal election</a>, $62.8 million of public funding was provided, which is about half of federal campaign costs.</p>
<p>Victoria’s move toward more public funding is not unprecedented. New South Wales <a href="http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/fd/political_donations">already has caps</a> on political donations of $5,800 per party and $2,500 for candidates, as well as a ban on donations from property developers and those in the tobacco, liquor and gambling industries. This was accompanied by an increase in public funding of elections, <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/why-we-need-full-public-funding-of-election-campaigns/">amounting to</a> about 80% of campaign costs.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/nsw-is-introducing-full-public-funding-of-major-political-parties-by-stealth-33028">NSW is introducing full public funding of major political parties – by stealth</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>In Europe and Canada, there are <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/why-we-need-full-public-funding-of-election-campaigns/">high levels</a> of public funding: between 50% and 90% of costs. </p>
<p>Another worry is that enterprising people and businesses might still circumvent the rules through creative means. </p>
<p>In the US, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-election-what-are-super-pacs-and-what-role-does-money-play-in-the-race-65559">super PACs</a> (political action committees) are special interest groups involved in fundraising and campaigning that are not officially affiliated with political parties. These groups can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, and then spend this money to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.</p>
<p>If this possibility is not regulated in Australian jurisdictions, then our system will remain broken. </p>
<h2>How can we improve our national system?</h2>
<p>Australia’s political donations system <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-our-political-donations-system-work-and-is-it-any-good-60159">remains fragmented</a>. Ideally, we would have a uniform system with tough rules at both the federal and state levels, so that donors cannot easily evade the rules by channelling their money through more lax jurisdictions. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-our-political-donations-system-work-and-is-it-any-good-60159">Explainer: how does our political donations system work – and is it any good?</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>The time is ripe for reform. A federal parliamentary committee is <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Political_Influence_of_Donations">looking into</a> how to improve the federal donations rules. The committee will issue its report by December 2017. </p>
<p>Victoria has thrown down the gauntlet – and it’s now time for the federal government to take heed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s political donations system remains fragmented, but proposed reforms in Victoria are a good step forward.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/686422016-11-17T03:37:52Z2016-11-17T03:37:52Z2016 presidential advertising focused on character attacks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146267/original/image-20161116-13509-1v8rr2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Advertisements Screenshots/Hillary for America and Donald J. Trump for President</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The general election ads from the 2016 presidential campaign represented a referendum on each candidate’s character. And in this ad race, there were no winners. </p>
<p>Both the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump campaigns featured the takeaway message that their opponent is not fit to lead. Even though Trump won the election, he will face significant obstacles in reestablishing the credibility he needs to lead a very divided electorate. Fear and anger were the key emotions of TV ads from both campaigns and two Super PACS. Trump must now find a way to mitigate national anxieties in the wake of a polarizing election.</p>
<h2>Ad research</h2>
<p>Our research team with the <a href="https://parc.umd.edu/">Political Advertising Research Center</a> at the <a href="http://www.umd.edu/">University of Maryland</a> studied the political advertisements produced during the general election – from July through the end of October. Our team studied ads produced by the Clinton campaign and the Trump campaign. We also studied ads from two Super PACs: one Clinton-leaning (<a href="http://prioritiesusaaction.org/about">Priorities USA Action</a>) and the other pro-Trump (<a href="https://rebuildingamericanow.com/">Rebuilding America Now</a>). </p>
<p>In order to gain a comprehensive picture of the ads, our team examined the ad spending and ad strategies of the general election and produced <a href="https://parcumd.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/parc-report-2016-v-21.pdf">A Report on Presidential Advertising and the 2016 General Election</a>.</p>
<p>Our team coded the content of each ad using four tenets: 1) whether content was positive, negative or comparative, 2) whether ads focused on issues, character or a combination of character and issue, 3) the emotional appeals used based on six primary emotions: anger, fear, sadness, joy, love and surprise, and 4) the subject matter. Together, these tenets helped reveal the broader strategy of each campaign – a strategy that focused more on the weaknesses of the opponent rather than the strengths of the candidate. </p>
<p>We also studied where the money was spent during the ad cycle of the general election. </p>
<h2>Ad spending</h2>
<p>The Clinton campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign in terms of TV ad buys. As of Oct. 25, 2016, Clinton’s campaign had spent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/television-ads.html?_r=0">between US$142 and $172 million</a> on TV and radio during the general election. In addition to Hillary for America’s spending, Super PACs and other outside support groups spent <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-nearly-3-1-ad-spending-edge-n672766">$103 million</a>. </p>
<p>Although the Trump campaign increased its ad spending in the final weeks of the campaign, it didn’t top the Clinton budget in terms of overall spending. As of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-tv-ads/">Nov. 2, 2016</a>, Clinton had spent $211.4 million in TV ads, while Trump had spent only $74 million. </p>
<p>The Clinton campaign spent three times more money on TV and radio advertising than the Trump campaign, yet Clinton’s final total was still far less than we have seen in the last two elections. Clinton’s spending seems almost modest when compared to Obama’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/">$404 million</a> budget in 2012. </p>
<p>One reason for the general drop in spending is that the 2016 candidates focused more energy on electronic ads and social media than television spot ads. According to <a href="https://www.borrellassociates.com/industry-papers/papers/2016-u-s-political-ad-spending-update-march-16-detail">Borrell Associates</a>, a market research firm, digital spending for 2016 was estimated at $1.6 billion - a 576 percent increase since 2012. </p>
<p>Despite an increase in ad spending on social media, which caters to younger voters, TV remains the most dominant platform for political ads with a <a href="http://www.advertisingweek.com/360/article/-us-election-2016-marketing-the-next-president">70 percent share</a> of ad revenue. The target audience for political ads is not clear-cut. TV ads often target older voters, yet most TV ads are also uploaded to YouTube and other social networks that are predominantly used by younger audiences.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"727932354883248129"}"></div></p>
<p>While Clinton launched her <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA">first general election ad</a> in July 2016, Trump’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAavbxpjok">first general election ad</a> came out in the third week of August. Both campaigns heavily targeted <a href="http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/map-top-markets-clinton-trump-johnson-TV-radio-ads/305697/">battleground states</a>: Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Clinton campaign also focused on Arizona, Nevada, Nebraska and Texas while Trump invested much of his resources in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, California and Colorado.</p>
<h2>Clinton’s ad strategies</h2>
<p>Clinton’s campaign organization, <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/">Hillary for America</a>, produced 38 televised ads between July 7 and Oct. 25. Over half of Clinton’s ads overtly attacked Trump, frequently using the words and images of Trump as ammunition. </p>
<p>An additional 24 percent of the ads represented an implicit attack on Trump, juxtaposing him as the negative counterpart to Clinton’s positive character. Ads such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8SVxwPhy0">“Myself,”</a> “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBwMuD0D0sU">Families First</a>” and “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_96IIc0AEgg&feature=youtu.be">General Allen</a>” serve as part of a series of comparative attack ads questioning Trump’s fitness. </p>
<p>In another ad, titled “<a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/787982885844385793">America’s Bully</a>,” Clinton tells a young girl, “We shouldn’t let anybody bully his way into the presidency.” The ads addressed Trump’s temperament and intelligence, contrasting him with Clinton’s moral character, government experience and steady nature. In attacking Trump, the ads primarily appealed to emotions of fear, sadness and anger.</p>
<h2>Trump’s ad strategy</h2>
<p>Trump relied on character attacks as the subject matter for approximately 35 percent of the TV ads he released. Of the 17 ads released by his campaign from August through late October, six were categorized as character attacks. In “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAavbxpjok">Immigration</a>,” “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ii8d7TZ8u4&list=PLKOAoICmbyV28I5IxfRo_JTbZiaQxQV-R&index=6">Economy</a>,” “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTylz2WToXw&feature=youtu.be">Dangerous</a>” and “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPZmDVZZYKU">Change</a>,” the Trump campaign contrasted the character of the candidates. But by the end of October, Trump released three <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNC5Alx8u8&list=PLKOAoICmbyV28I5IxfRo_JTbZiaQxQV-R&index=5">positive character</a> ads in a row that featured more “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1EuZ5ObQp8&list=PLKOAoICmbyV28I5IxfRo_JTbZiaQxQV-R&index=1">campaign biographies</a>” of the candidate. In these commercials, Trump showboated his success and promised to bring the same leadership of success to the presidency. These ads were aimed at both overcoming his negative image among American voters and demonstrating his ability to govern successfully.</p>
<p>Overall, Trump’s campaign strategy focused on building a more positive image of himself while denigrating Clinton’s character. For instance, in his ad “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj7CLJbyjrk&feature=youtu.be">Deplorable</a>,” the narrator queried: “You know what’s deplorable?” The answer: “Hillary Clinton viciously demonizing hard-working people like you.” The incendiary language that Clinton used (“deplorable”) and Trump applied to Clinton (“demonizing”) exacerbated the anger and fear animating the campaign ads of 2016. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"757012114460569604"}"></div></p>
<h2>Super PAC ad strategy</h2>
<p>The Super PACs echoed the strategies of the candidates’ official campaigns. In fact, for most of the ads produced by Priorities USA Action, the message was that Trump is “dangerous” and “unfit” to be the president. Many of the ads featured the mothers of children who have been <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQTIb0QaDPc">hurt</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBQe83zj7U">killed</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOmyxlFTc9Q">emotionally affected</a> by the types of “hate,” “bullying” or “disrespect” that Trump exhibited during this campaign. The audience was invited to empathize with the grieving mothers and to consider the futures of their own children. </p>
<p>Trump-leaning ads from Rebuilding America Now predominately traded on voter <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFxiBYXgopE">anger</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1ISQAlTqU">contempt</a> for Clinton. Nine of the 11 “negative” ads attacked Clinton’s character in some way, frequently using <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOK4i35BcXA">Bill Clinton’s indiscretions</a> as an index of her own immorality.</p>
<h2>The 2016 takeaway</h2>
<p>While character attacks have <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Mg-Mp_f-THQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=packaging+the+presidency+pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbqLDIjanQAhXK8CYKHWQZBcgQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">always</a> been a feature of campaign advertising, during the 2016 election, these formed the mainstay strategy for both the campaigns. </p>
<p>Between 1952 and 2008, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=pWyf2O-kE0sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=west+air+wars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic6dTPj6nQAhWLMSYKHXbyCJAQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=west%20air%20wars&f=false">31 percent</a> of the general election ads were character-based. In 2016, character ads made up <a href="https://parcumd.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/parc-report-2016-v-21.pdf">76 percent</a> of the television campaign ads from the general election. The Clinton and Trump campaigns, as well as the Super PACs, attacked the opposition through appeals to fear and anger over positive emotions like joy and love. </p>
<p>Our analysis suggests these negative appeals helped deepen the anxiety and cynicism that dominated the campaign climate in ways unmatched in recent memory. The consequence is an electorate openly expressing fear of the other side. As the <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/">Pew Center reports</a>, “[m]ore than half of Democrats (55 percent) say the Republican Party makes them ‘afraid,’ while 49 percent of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party.” </p>
<p>If the campaign of 2008 was known as one of “hope” and “change,” the campaign of 2016 may well go down in history as one of “fear” and “anger.”</p>
<p><em>Additional UMD PARC Research Team Members: Alyson Farzad-Phillips, Nora Murphy, Claudia Serrano Rico, Kyle Stephan and Gareth Williams.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68642/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump must now find a way to mitigate national anxieties in the wake of millions of dollars of TV and radio ads that played on voters’ fear and anger.Shawn J. Parry-Giles, Professor of Communication, University of MarylandLauren Hunter, Ph.D. Student of Communication, University of MarylandMorgan Hess, Ph.D. Student in Rhetoric and Political Communication, University of MarylandPrashanth Bhat, Ph.D. Student, University of MarylandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/655592016-10-11T19:09:53Z2016-10-11T19:09:53ZUS election: what are super PACs, and what role does money play in the race?<p>Ask most people what they think of politics in the US, and one of the first responses you might hear is that it is corrupted by the influence of money.</p>
<p>Super PACs (political action committees) are a concept that has become synonymous with that corruption. Many see these entities as symbols of a broken system – a system with loopholes that allow organisations to lend support to particular candidates or parties.</p>
<p>As the rest of the world watches the circus that has been the 2016 US presidential campaign, questions about how the elections and candidates are being financed continue to be raised – both inside and outside the US. </p>
<h2>What are super PACs?</h2>
<p>The idea of a super PAC is quite simple. Anyone can set one up. And so long as they are not officially affiliated with any political party or candidate, these organisations can raise donations not subject to contribution limits. This is because they are a non-party group that does not give directly to candidates. </p>
<p>They can also spend without limits. This is because they are spending independently of parties or candidates, although what they are spending is in support of, or opposition to, a particular party or candidate. </p>
<p>In effect, what this means is wealthy individuals can peddle influence through these organisations. </p>
<p>Spending on political communications (attack ads on TV, for example) and political mobilisation (such as get-out-the-vote campaigns) is extremely powerful.</p>
<iframe title="New York Times Video - Embed Player" width="100%" height="321" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" id="nyt_video_player" src="https://static01.nyt.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000003778583"></iframe>
<h2>How has the 2016 election been financed?</h2>
<p>Democalypse 2016, as the Daily Show affectionately calls the 2016 presidential election, is a contest between <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/03/us/elections/trump-and-clinton-favorability.html?_r=0">two of the least-liked major party candidates</a> in decades of US elections. </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is an establishment Democrat with decades of public service under her belt. She is pitted against Donald Trump, an egotistical billionaire who has never held public office.</p>
<p>Trump has focused on “Crooked Hillary” and her dubious sources of financing. This includes the <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/">Clinton Foundation</a> and her track record of “selling herself” to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html">special interests</a>. However, it has recently been revealed that the Trump Foundation has been <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12888492/trump-foundation">allegedly misappropriating charitable contributions</a> to pay off debts and finance campaign costs.</p>
<p>When Trump was still only a contender for the Republican Party’s nomination, he frequently touted the fact that he was self-financing his campaign. This, he claimed, would make him less indebted to special interest groups (which, he implied, were the funders of other candidates – both Republican and Democrat).</p>
<p>This is a very different alternative to going down the super PAC route. What does self-financing actually means for the quality of democratic competition in the context of American, or indeed any, elections? </p>
<p>In 2012, the total cost of the election cycle in the US (both the presidential and congressional elections), was <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/03/the-2012-election-our-price-tag-fin/">at least US$6.3 billion</a>. The 2016 election season promises to be even more expensive. Any candidate who is going to be competitive in a race that costs more than $7 billion <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-4">needs to raise a lot of money</a>. Or, in Trump’s case, have a lot of money himself to finance his own race.</p>
<p>Neither option currently in play seems particularly appealing: super PACs and special interest groups that can raise and spend money with little oversight. Similarly, some candidates don’t need to rely on this because they can self-finance (the purview of the very few mega-rich).</p>
<h2>What are the rules governing super PACs?</h2>
<p>In recent years, the US has taken sometimes drastic measures to relax regulations around political financing. However, many – if not most – people fail to recognise that it still has a relatively tight set of laws governing who can give, who can spend, how much, and who needs to be told.</p>
<p>Over the past half a century, the regulation of political finance in the US has passed through three major waves of change. These have increasingly relaxed the regulations on party and candidate financing. </p>
<p>The most recent wave was sparked by the Supreme Court upholding the Citizens United <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html">challenge</a> to the Federal Election Commission’s laws prohibiting corporations and labour unions from <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters">engaging in independent spending</a> in elections. This decision ushered in super PACs.</p>
<p>Money is essential to the proper functioning of democracy and elections. However, the system of financing matters greatly to determine whether or not elections and the political system in general ensures equality of participation (both for political candidates and citizens), transparency and integrity. </p>
<p>However, it is not always the case that more regulation is better. Russia has some of the tightest political financing regulations in the world, but these have allowed Putin’s United Russia Party to <a href="https://theconversation.com/money-makes-world-of-politics-go-round-and-keeping-it-clean-isnt-simple-44888">entrench power</a>.</p>
<h2>How do we achieve a fair, democratic balance?</h2>
<p>Designing a “good” system of political financing will necessarily entail trade-offs between values such as individual freedom of expression, and equitable political competition. </p>
<p>The US is a perfect example of a country that emphasises individual freedoms above almost anything else. The advent of Super PACs and the influence they wield are a direct consequence of this priority, but in turn are the cause of inequitable political competition.</p>
<p>In considering the regulation of money in politics, perhaps most important is the notion that countries should <a href="http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Checkbook_Elections_brief.pdf">not rely on a single policy tool</a> to try to control money in politics. Also, the policy tools they do apply must be done in a consistent way that is enforced.</p>
<p>Since becoming the official Republican nominee, Trump has opened his arms and war-coffers to outside donations too. He has given up his “I’m a self-financed guy” mantle in order to become competitive in an election where his rival has to date <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/">raised more than double</a> what he has (US$373 million versus US$165 million). </p>
<p>The one bit of good news in the midst of the obscene amounts of money being spent is that the US has relatively tight disclosure requirements. You can’t see necessarily who is donating to Super PACs per se. However, you can see exactly which super PACs are giving to which candidates and how much, with only a one-month delay on having this information publicly available.</p>
<p>Obviously, the American system is far from perfect. Yet Australians need to take a long hard look in the mirror before they pontificate over money in politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Abel van Es does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the rest of the world watches the circus that has been the 2016 US presidential campaign, questions about how the elections and candidates are being financed continue to be raised.Andrea Abel van Es, Research Fellow, Institute for Economics and Peace, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/451472015-07-29T10:21:17Z2015-07-29T10:21:17ZWhat the Scott Walker fundraising controversy means for 2016<p>The Wisconsin Supreme Court <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/16/scott-walker-2012-campaign-inquiry-ended-by-wisconsin-court/">dismissed</a> a criminal investigation on July 16 that threatened Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s political ambitions. </p>
<p>The court’s ruling spares Walker’s <a href="https://www.scottwalker.com/">presidential campaign</a> from what could have been a devastating political scandal. In the process, the case demonstrates the extent to which state and federal courts now permit candidates to coordinate their campaign activity with nominally “independent” political advocacy groups and super PACs.</p>
<h2>A two-tiered system of campaign finance</h2>
<p>Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">decision</a> in 2010, political candidates have operated in a two-tiered system of campaign finance. </p>
<p>Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an individual donor may contribute only a maximum of US$2,700 to a candidate’s campaign in <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm">federal elections</a>. Many states impose similar limits on contributions to <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/legismgt/elect/ContributionLimitstoCandidates_2015-2016.pdf">state campaigns</a>. </p>
<p>But since Citizens United, private donors may contribute an unlimited amount to “independent” <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/super-pac-short-history/story?id=16960267">super PACs</a> and other outside groups that support state and federal candidates.</p>
<p>Freed of contribution limits, outside groups have raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on federal and state campaigns <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S">across the country</a>. </p>
<p>In 2012 alone, outside groups spent about <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/outside-spending-on-2012-elections-reaches-1-billion/">$1 billion</a>. </p>
<h2>The Scott Walker criminal investigation</h2>
<p>While Citizens United created a huge new pool of campaign money, it left a critical question unresolved: At what point do candidates cross the line into illegal coordination with “independent” groups?</p>
<p>The Walker case shows just how far candidates can go in working with PACs. </p>
<p>After winning the governor’s office in 2010, Walker unveiled a <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/supreme-court-to-rule-thursday-on-union-law-voter-id-b99321110z1-269292661.html">controversial plan</a> to sharply restrict collective bargaining by public employees. Walker’s agenda divided the state so profoundly that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/us-wisconsin-protests-idUSTRE72B2AN20110313">100,000 people gathered</a> at the State Capitol in Madison to protest the governor’s policies.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89863/original/image-20150728-7665-fbzdmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesters gather at the Wisconsin State Capitol for a rally to protest passage of Wisconsin’s Budget Repair Bill in 2011.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2012, Walker faced a gubernatorial <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/walker-survives-wisconsin-recall-effort.html">recall election</a>. To rally public support, the Walker campaign <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-wanted-funds-sent-to-wisconsin-club-for-growth-b99336519z1-272364371.html">encouraged supporters</a> to donate to the <a href="http://wicfg.com/">Wisconsin Club for Growth</a> (WCFG), an independent issue advocacy group that supported Walker’s legislative agenda.</p>
<p>WCFG did not run advertisements expressly endorsing Walker. But the group did advocate on behalf of <a href="http://wicfg.com/issues/">policies</a> that Walker supported, such as smaller government and deregulation. </p>
<p>Walker <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/walker-survives-wisconsin-recall-effort.html">won</a> the recall election in 2012 and later won a <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walkers-burkes-political-futures-hang-in-balance-with-vote-b99382151z1-281512301.html">second term</a> as governor in 2014. </p>
<p>In the meantime, in 2013, a group of county prosecutors in Wisconsin launched a criminal <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/19/scott-walker-prosecutors-criminal-probe/10891057/">investigation</a> into the Walker campaign’s relationship with WCFG and other issue advocacy organizations. The prosecutors suspected that Walker’s 2012 campaign had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/us/scott-walker-wisconsin-governor.html">violated state law</a> by coordinating its advertising strategy with the outside groups. </p>
<p>However, the investigation ended on July 16 2015, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/wisconsin-court-ends-investigation-into-scott-walkers-recall-election-bid-1437062374">dismissed</a> the case against Walker. </p>
<p>In a 4–2 opinion, <a href="http://wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144527">the court held</a> that the Walker campaign’s contacts with WCFG and similar organizations did not violate the law because the outside groups only engaged in issue advocacy and never expressly endorsed Walker’s candidacy. </p>
<p>The Wisconsin Supreme Court <a href="http://wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144527">ruled</a> that “issue advocacy, whether coordinated or not, is beyond the reach” of campaign finance laws.</p>
<h2>What the Wisconsin case means for 2016</h2>
<p>The political implications of the Wisconsin case are significant.</p>
<p>The court’s dismissal of the WCFG investigation represents a crucial political <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-campaign-finance-laws-no-violation-wisconsin-supreme-court-120220.html">victory</a> for Walker. It frees him from the specter of a political scandal that would likely have haunted his presidential campaign.</p>
<p>The case also demonstrates how narrowly the courts have defined the term “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scott-walkers-wisconsin-and-the-end-of-campaign-finance-law">coordination</a>.” </p>
<p>Although it applies only to Wisconsin state elections, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling provides a striking example of how candidates can find ways to “legally” coordinate campaign activity with outside groups. </p>
<p>Many presidential candidates are already using <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways-super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work-together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html">similar strategies</a> to get around federal campaign finance laws. </p>
<p>For example, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush delayed the official announcement of his presidential campaign so he could continue to discuss campaign and fundraising strategies with Right to Rise, his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/17/top-republican-strategists-in-talks-to-join-jeb-bushs-super-pac/">super PAC</a>. </p>
<p>The tactic paid off. In the first six months of 2015, Right to Rise <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bush-and-allied-super-pac-raise-an-unprecedented-114-million-war-chest/2015/07/09/652e1206-2651-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html">raised $103 million</a>, a staggering total that far exceeded the $11 million raised by Bush’s “official” campaign committee. Indeed, Bush places so much importance on his super PAC that he has reportedly assigned <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bushs-man-in-hollywood/2015/06/12/febca268-0584-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html">Mike Murphy</a>, one of his most trusted campaign advisers, to run Right to Rise. </p>
<p>Bush is not alone. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/02/super-pac-raises-15-6-million-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/">Hillary Clinton</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways-super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work-together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html">other major candidates</a> have made super PACs a key feature of their fundraising strategies. </p>
<p>Walker himself is among them. Pro-Walker super PACs have raised over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-scott-walkers-20-million-push-to-get-ready-for-a-presidential-run/2015/06/22/f89cdac0-15d2-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html">$20 million</a> and are led by some of Walker’s closest political advisers. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that super PACs and other outside groups are “independent” in name only. To a remarkable degree, super PACs have become an essential component of every serious presidential campaign. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, as the Wisconsin case demonstrates, the courts have thus far shown no interest in tackling the problem of blatant campaign coordination between candidates and outside groups. The inevitable result is that outside groups will loom larger than ever in the 2016 campaign.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J Gaughan is a registered Republican.</span></em></p>A court has dismissed a criminal investigation into Wisconsin Governor and presidential candidate Scott Walker. The decision will encourage closer relationships between candidates and PACs.Anthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410092015-05-13T10:18:02Z2015-05-13T10:18:02ZCash is not king: Jeb Bush’s Super PAC problem<p>Although Jeb Bush has yet to officially join the increasingly crowded field of Republican presidential wannabes, the former Florida governor’s Super PAC has firmly established him as the leading candidate of the Republican establishment in 2016. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php">Super PACs</a> are a double-edged sword for Bush. If he ultimately fails to win the Republican nomination, Super PACs will be a major reason why.</p>
<p>By historical standards, Bush’s fund-raising success is astounding. <a href="https://righttorisepac.org/">Right to Rise,</a> the Bush Super PAC, has <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/jeb_bush_s_massive_fundraising_the_former_florida_governor_s_huge_campaign.html">raised more money</a> in the first quarter of 2015 – nearly $100 million – than any Republican campaign organization in history, at least, according to Bush himself. The $100 million figure shatters the previous record, held, ironically enough, by Jeb’s older brother, George W Bush, who in the first quarter of 1999 raised a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/26/jeb-bush-tells-his-donors-theyve-helped-make-history/">then-record</a> $36 million.</p>
<p>But George’s $36 million meant a lot more 16 years ago than Jeb’s $100 million means today. In 1999, George Bush’s fund-raising prowess dissuaded other major candidates from running against him, including <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/12/us/alexander-after-6-year-run-is-short-on-time-and-money.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm">Lamar Alexander</a>, Jack Kemp and Dan Quayle. The only serious primary challenge Bush faced came from <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm">John McCain</a>. Bush’s financial advantages ultimately overwhelmed McCain, who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/10/us/2000-campaign-arizona-senator-mccain-quits-race-but-stops-short-endorsing-bush.html">dropped out</a> in early March 2000.</p>
<h2>What Jeb Bush faces in today’s presidential race</h2>
<p>Jeb Bush faces a far different political landscape. Today, the Republican field is rapidly expanding even as Bush sets new fund-raising <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-campaign.html">records</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-long-shot-candidates-reach-for-the-holy-grail-of-higher-office-41474">Six Republicans</a> have already announced their candidacies: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul. And several others are expected to announce soon, including Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham and Bobby Jindal.</p>
<p>The 2016 election has given rise to one of the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/26/usa-today-suffolk-poll-2016/22344379/">largest</a> fields of viable candidates in Republican Party history.</p>
<p>Why hasn’t Jeb Bush’s financial <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/jeb_bush_s_massive_fundraising_the_former_florida_governor_s_huge_campaign.html">head start</a> cleared the field for him like it did for his brother in 1999? </p>
<p>The answered is summed up in two words: <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/">Citizens United.</a></p>
<p>When George W Bush ran for president, contribution limits established by the <a href="http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf">Federal Election Campaign Act</a> (FECA) regulated the great majority of campaign donations. FECA permitted party officials to solicit uncapped contributions known as “soft money,” but such funds could only be spent on <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2004/jan04.pdf">party-building</a> activities such as voter registration drives. </p>
<p>Accordingly, a candidate needed a broad base of support among thousands of contributors to fund a competitive presidential campaign. When George Bush raised tens of millions in 1999, he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-the-2016-gop-race-may-be-more-like-2012-than-the-party-hoped/2015/04/26/fff662c8-e9f9-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html">locked up</a> a critical mass of wealthy contributors and thus denied other Republican contenders the financial resources necessary to mount a viable primary campaign.</p>
<h2>Citizens United has changed everything</h2>
<p>But in January 2010, the campaign finance system changed dramatically when the Supreme Court decided <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">Citizens United v Federal Election Commission</a>. Citizens United turned on the question of whether the FEC could restrict campaign advertisements by independent political committees that do not coordinate their activities with candidates or parties. In a deeply divided opinion, a narrow majority of the justices ruled against the FEC. The ruling effectively exempted Super PACs and other independent groups from FECA’s contribution limits. </p>
<p>Campaign expenditures have skyrocketed ever since. The 2012 election cost an all-time record of <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/7-billion-spent-on-2012-campaign-fec-says-87051.html">$7 billion</a>. The 2016 campaign will undoubtedly surpass that record. </p>
<p>The massive influx of Super PAC money has severely eroded the influence of the party establishment. Super PACs enable candidates to mount well-funded primary campaigns without any establishment support whatsoever. Indeed, in a post-Citizens United world, all a candidate needs in order to run for president is a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/28/newt-gingrich-says-wealthy-donors-like-sheldon-adelson-have-too-much-influence/">billionaire </a>willing to fund a Super PAC on the candidate’s behalf.</p>
<h2>The new kingmakers in Republican politics</h2>
<p>It’s no coincidence, therefore, that the 2016 campaign has attracted a record number of both candidates and <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/a-guide-to-the-billionaires-bankrolling-the-gop-candidates/391233/">billionaire-backed Super PACs</a>. For example, the hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer has reportedly given $31 million to Super PACs supporting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/hedge-fund-magnaterobert-mercer-emerges-as-a-generous-backer-of-ted-cruz.html?_r=0">Ted Cruz</a>. Home Depot founder <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/ken-langone-throws-his-weight-behind-chris-christie-in-2016-1422415854">Ken Langone</a> has committed to raising millions of dollars on behalf of a Chris Christie Super PAC.</p>
<p>Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who gave <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/25/sheldon-adelson-spent-93-million-on-the-2012-election-heres-how/">$93 million </a>to Republican Super PACs in 2012, has voiced his support for <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-takes-lead-in-sheldon-adelson-primary-117268.html">Marco Rubio</a> in 2016. The wealthy investor Foster Friess is backing a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/14/gop-donor-foster-friess-launches-new-effort-to-boost-rick-santorum/">pro-Santorum</a> Super PAC.</p>
<p>Most notable of all, Charles and David Koch have announced that they intend to spend almost <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html">$900 million</a> on the 2016 election. Early signs indicate they like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/20/koch-brothers-signal-support-for-scott-walker/">Scott Walker</a>.</p>
<p>Thus, while Jeb Bush’s fund-raising numbers sound impressive by previous standards, his campaign war chest doesn’t scare anyone today. No candidate will monopolize Republican fund-raising in 2016. The flood of money unleashed by Citizens United means there is plenty to go around for everyone, including candidates openly hostile to the GOP establishment. </p>
<p>If Jeb Bush is to win the nomination, he’s going to have to do it by winning over rank-and-file Republican voters. The days when the party establishment could use its fund-raising powers to control the nomination process are long gone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J Gaughan is a registered Republican.</span></em></p>Likely presidential hopeful Jeb Bush may be first among equals in support from mega-rich Super PACS but dough alone is not enough to get to the front of the pack in Republican politicsAnthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/330392014-10-22T05:27:36Z2014-10-22T05:27:36ZColorado curriculum kerfuffle showed activism can beat vested interests<p>Students in Jefferson County, Colorado, popularly known as JeffCo, have learned an important civics lesson about their power to influence policy. In late September, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/-sp-colorado-ap-history-curriculum-protest-patriotism-schools-students">hundreds of students organized</a> to oppose the JeffCo school board’s attempt to restructure the district’s history curriculum. As a result, on October 3 the school board <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/us/after-uproar-colorado-school-board-retreats-on-curriculum-review-plan.html?_r=0">decided to back down</a>, although students are still dissatisfied with its conservative majority. Their efforts reflect a consistent theme in US history: that peaceful resistance has an important place in democracy.</p>
<p>At issue was a proposal by a conservative school board member to create a “review committee” to assess the district’s US history curriculum. In general terms, the proponent of the committee believed recent revisions to the <a href="http://advancesinap.collegeboard.org/english-history-and-social-science/us-history">Advanced Placement history curriculum</a> (which occurred at the national level) did not portray the US in a good light.</p>
<p>But the proposed review committee had a particular task that students found problematic. Specifically, the committee would ensure that history materials promoted, among other things: “patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights”. It would also prohibit the adoption of materials that condoned civil disorder, social strife and disregard of the law. </p>
<h2>Peaceful opposition</h2>
<p>The school board engendered precisely the reaction they wanted to prevent: civil disobedience. In reaction to the proposal, hundreds of students left their high schools, taking to the streets to protest the review committee. Broadly speaking, students contended that the proposal was part of a larger plan to “whitewash” history. The result would be a glossy portrayal of the nation that would conveniently overlook defining struggles for equality.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that political activism was the most effective route for the students to challenge the proposal. Had students sued, they would have lost. The school board did not act on any proposal, so parents and students did not suffer any injury that courts could have remedied. In other words, the students were wise to exercise their free speech rights in the court of public opinion, rather than a federal courthouse.</p>
<h2>Symbol of a larger struggle</h2>
<p>This issue should not be seen in isolation. Rather, it reflects continuing struggles in education policy that are being played out across the nation. JeffCo is a microcosm of these debates. Indeed, in the course of the last few months, controversy has developed around almost all areas of contested policy at the national level. These <a href="http://co.chalkbeat.org/topics/jeffco-public-schools-interrupted/">include</a> the use of test scores in evaluating teachers, the role of unions in education, different forms of teacher compensation, and control over curriculum.</p>
<p>But the protests in JeffCo reflect something else: the collision of outside interests with local grassroots political activism. The recent election of several conservative members to the board <a href="http://action.americansforprosperity.org/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=47748">has been linked</a> to a larger efforts by a national interest group, <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/">Americans for Prosperity</a>, with close ties to the influential Koch Brothers. </p>
<p>The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have devoted considerable resources to promoting their conservative agenda at the national level. <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=465AB626-A4C2-41F6-8790-0A41197593F4">More recently</a>, they have focused on local elections and policy formation. For the moment, the power of outside influences may have met their match in the form of students who actually attend the schools where the policies would take effect. </p>
<h2>Youth democratic spirit</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21">Tinker v Des Moines</a>, the seminal 1960s case concerning student First Amendment rights, the US Supreme Court cautioned that our children are not “closed-circuit recipients” of “official” knowledge. </p>
<p>In that case, the Supreme Court was asked if school officials violated the First Amendment by disciplining students for wearing black armbands to school. In finding that in fact they did, the Court recognized that the vitality of democracy depends on the ability of our youngest citizens to think independently and transfer their rights into political action. When young people disagree with the government, they should know how to translate that sentiment into action. That’s exactly what happened in JeffCo.</p>
<p>At the risk of being too optimistic, these events offer encouraging signs. To begin with, young students empowered themselves. They used their constitutionally guaranteed right to speak. To be sure, the school board did not completely scuttle the plans for a committee, but they have reconstituted the proposal to include a broader base of people reviewing the curriculum. </p>
<p>At the moment, this has not appeased the teenage students, some of whom cannot vote. The students are <a href="http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/10/11/jeffco-students-at-rally-flirt-with-recall-effort/#.VD683-fzjoo">currently discussing</a> whether they will attempt a recall election of the conservative school board members. A <a href="http://kdvr.com/2014/10/11/jeffco-students-continue-protests-against-changes-to-ap-curriculum/">recent rally</a> attracted the attention of the state’s lieutenant governor, Joe Garcia.</p>
<p>These events may also reflect the limits of outside, non-local interest groups based in Washington DC on local issues. As local policy may be more transparent and subject to focused public attention, especially when compared to what transpires in Washington DC, the influence of outside organizations may be reduced. That could be one explanation, at least so far, of why the school board proposal was thwarted or, at the least, came to public light.</p>
<p>No matter how this story ends, JeffCo students have learned the most valuable lesson of their public schooling: they can influence their government. With all due respect to the teaching profession, no class experience could have simulated this lesson.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33039/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Paige does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Students in Jefferson County, Colorado, popularly known as JeffCo, have learned an important civics lesson about their power to influence policy. In late September, hundreds of students organized to oppose…Mark Paige, Assistant Professor, UMass DartmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/106222012-11-14T19:35:03Z2012-11-14T19:35:03ZSuperPACs and bags of cash fail to halt Obama’s ground game<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17620/original/6qrwwqyx-1352866731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Obama's superior organisation outweighed the money stacked against him.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fear of Big Money swamping the 2012 federal election cycle in the United States was borne out in sheer dollars, with <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6.html">$US6billion</a> in spending, including $2.7 billion on the presidential race alone. </p>
<p>Whether major donors receive the commensurate bang for their bucks remains open to doubt, although we can say more definitively that the system is screwed.</p>
<p>In 2008, Obama became the first presidential candidate to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html">refuse public funding</a>, which would have placed limits on the amount he could raise privately. </p>
<p>In 2012, both candidates opted in favour of unlimited private funding. Apart from the huge spending by political parties and candidates, a significant new wrinkle is the emergence of nominally independent “Super PACs” and “politically active non-profits”, which spent nearly <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-02/super-pacs-kept-romney-obama-even-in-1-billion-ad-race.html">$1billion</a>: an estimated two-thirds of which went to conservative causes and candidates.</p>
<p>The big bucks campaign was the predictable legacy of the judicial savaging of bipartisan congressional efforts to restrain campaign spending and force greater disclosure of private donations. </p>
<p>In 2010, the US Supreme Court delivered one of its most preposterous judgments in <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a> - certainly its worst decision since Bush v. Gore halted the vote count in the 2000 federal election and handed the presidency to George W Bush. While these decisions have had far-reaching consequences for the political process in America, each rested on a slender 5-4 majority.</p>
<p>In Citizens United, the Court overturned the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the culmination of a long effort to reform campaign financing by tightening the many loopholes employed by corporations and special interest groups. <a href="http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml">McCain-Feingold</a> prohibited broadcast communications (TV, cable and satellite) paid for by corporations or trade unions in the period before a presidential primary or general election if the message was “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate”.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional on the novel basis that corporations should enjoy the same largely unfettered right of free speech accorded to natural persons - or, as Mitt Romney later <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A">put it</a>, “Corporations are people too!” </p>
<p>In providing the decisive vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">argued</a> that the First Amendment equally “prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech”. Kennedy added, contrary to common sense and experience, that allowing corporations to directly enter the political fray “will not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption”.</p>
<p>John McCain and Russell Feingold described the decision as <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/feingold-calls-supreme-court-corporate-political-contributions-decision-a-terrible-mistake">“a terrible mistake”</a>, reflecting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1352815855-/P/uJi5zLKrGFcZgNX9yig">“extreme naïveté”</a> in underestimating the corrosive effect of special-interest money on the legislative process. </p>
<p>President Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">called it</a> “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans”.</p>
<p>Soon after, the Federal Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) <a href="http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml">ruled that</a> PACs that did not directly make contributions to candidates, parties or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations for the purpose of making “independent expenditures”.</p>
<p>Connecting the dots about what corporations could and could not do in this new environment spawned the creation of this new species of SuperPACs. </p>
<p>Unlike traditional PACs, SuperPACs can receive unlimited contributions from corporations (but not foreign corporations), but the “independent expenditures” requirement means that they are prohibited from donating funds directly to a political candidate or party, or planning or coordinating strategy or expenditures with a candidate or party.</p>
<p>Super PACS must report quarterly to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which means they can effectively shield the identity of a donor for only three months. A much larger loophole exists, however, since the reporting requirements do not cover corporate donations made to a tax-exempt charitable trust or “social welfare organization” (under s 501(c)(4) or (6) of the US Income Tax Act), and nothing prevents that kind of body from passing those funds on to a Super PAC. </p>
<p>According to a recent study by the non-partisan <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/">Sunlight Foundation</a>, at least $300 million of election spending in 2012 was by groups that are not required to disclose their donors, and 80% of this so-called “dark money” was used to support Republicans.</p>
<p>Interests associated with the insurance, pharmaceutical, financial and resources industries contributed many millions of dollars to the US Chamber of Commerce (a tax-exempt charitable trust), which in turn made large donations to “pro-business” SuperPACs that are officially unaligned with the Republican Party, but share values, goals and even personnel. </p>
<p>For example, Restore Our Future is run by two former aides of Mitt Romney, and long-time Republican campaign strategist Karl Rove heads up Crossroads and its dark money brother Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies. The Club for Growth and FreedomWorks have arch-conservative track records, including funding Tea Party activists and causes.</p>
<p>On the other side of politics, Priorities USA is the main pro-Obama Super PAC, and the Majority PAC, House Majority PAC and a swag of others associated with large trade unions spent big in support of Democratic candidates. </p>
<p>There are also Super PACs associated with the LGBT community, funding sympathetic candidates as well as the effort to pass marriage equality referenda in a number of states. Similarly, there are Super PACs associated with the environmental movement, ranging from the mainstream Sierra Club to more radical campaigners.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senator John McCain has attempted to reform campaign finance funding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jamal Nasrallah</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are currently 1,115 Super PACs registered with the FEC, and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">according</a> to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics they collectively raised over $US660 million in 2012, and spent almost all of it on the primaries and the general election. </p>
<p>Only 200 or so Super PACs raised as much as $50,000, and a high proportion are inactive or serving as placeholders for future use. Others, such as “Zombies for Tomorrow”, “Raptors for Jesus” and “We Just Want Colbert to Come to Our College”, probably just seemed like a good idea at the time.</p>
<p>Obviously, the most worrying aspect of the SuperPAC phenomenon is the disproportionately large voice—and presumably outsized influence—afforded to a small number of extremely wealthy donors. Half of all SuperPAC funding this year was provided by only 22 individuals and corporations. The top 100 donors represented less than four percent of all contributors, but accounted for over 80% of the total funds raised.</p>
<p>For the Republican camp, the major contributors included casino mogul Sheldon Adelson (over $60 million); billionaire oil and gas tycoons David and Charles Koch, the principal funders of the Tea Party movement; and Wall Street financiers - 16 of Romney’s top 20, despite the industry having been controversially bailed out by President Obama post-GFC. Left-leaning SuperPACs were best supported by Hollywood and large trade unions—such as the United Auto Workers, the National Education Association and the Service Employees International Union, although Obama has famously raised enormous amounts by accumulating large numbers of small donations, driven by effective use of social media.</p>
<p>But was it money well spent? The jury is still out on whether these riches ultimately provided some electoral advantage for candidates and a “return” for donors in the form of added influence, or whether all or most of this money was squandered in screening the relentless negative attack ads that bombarded voters in key swing states. What we know for certain is that after burning through $6billion, the election more or less restored the status quo, with President Obama re-elected, Democrats continuing to control the Senate and Republicans continuing to control the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>This masks some churn below the surface, however. The fact that a significant part of the conservative spend was controlled by SuperPACs and true believers, rather than by more pragmatic GOP operatives, helped contribute to the selection of some extreme and unattractive candidates and for the Republican message to skew even more sharply to the right. </p>
<p>Party discipline is difficult to maintain when it is divorced from the allocation of precious resources. For example, the GOP tried to distance itself from Missouri Senate candidate Todd Aikin after his infamous “legitimate rape” remarks, but outside money allowed him to remain in the race, and to be defeated in an otherwise very winnable Senate seat for the Republicans.</p>
<p>While Romney was catching his breath, Obama used his war chest early and wisely to help define Romney in negative terms in the voters’ minds. Democrats were defending 23 of the 33 Senate seats being contested this year, yet managed to gain a couple of seats. Voters in Minnesota, Maryland, Maine and Washington <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-same-sex-marriage-implications-for-australia-from-the-us-election-and-abroad-10672">approved referenda</a> in favour of same sex marriage, the first time this has been achieved in the US through popular votes rather than judicial decision.</p>
<p>And some recipients used this largesse much more effectively than others. Karl Rove’s two SuperPACs are estimated to have spent about $US176 million, but Mitt Romney nevertheless lost his race—as did ten of the twelve Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates that the Rove groups supported. The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association also fared poorly despite large expenditures. Unless this was some form of covert stimulus spending, it has to be seen as a major strategic failure.</p>
<p>Election analysts have partially attributed the Democrats’ success to their early spending, which helped define the issues and the candidates before the public got turned off by the later onslaught. Even more importantly, however, the Democrats used their resources to nurture a much stronger grassroots organisation—Obama’s vaunted “ground game”, which set about registering new voters and focusing on the critical “get out the vote” effort. As a result, the Obama campaign had three to four times the number of campaign volunteers in key battleground states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Nevada and Colorado.</p>
<p>There has been some suggestion that the failure of the conservative SuperPACs to turn their financial advantages into votes might harm their fundraising efforts in 2016. However, the prize of electoral success will be even more valued after another four years in the political wilderness, without the added challenge of an incumbent president to unseat, and influence will be no less keenly sought. </p>
<p>The bigger question is whether Republican strategists, and especially their proxies in the conservative Super PACs, will learn from 2012 and resist the shock and awe of TV advertising in favour of “boots on the ground” and the long hard slog of grassroots campaigning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Weisbrot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The fear of Big Money swamping the 2012 federal election cycle in the United States was borne out in sheer dollars, with $US6billion in spending, including $2.7 billion on the presidential race alone…David Weisbrot, Professor of Legal Policy, United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/94432012-09-10T23:38:41Z2012-09-10T23:38:41ZExplainer: what is a Super PAC?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15242/original/zjrvxzyr-1347239589.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With the rise of "SuperPACs", Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a fundraising advantage over President Barack Obama.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/CJ Gunther</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>David Weisbrot of the University of Sydney explains where the money comes from with the rise of Super PACs in the US presidential elections, in collaboration with SBS Online.</p>
<figure>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G_hD6z9Cj3s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">SuperPAC explainer.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9443/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Weisbrot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>David Weisbrot of the University of Sydney explains where the money comes from with the rise of Super PACs in the US presidential elections, in collaboration with SBS Online.David Weisbrot, Professor of Legal Policy, United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/57282012-03-13T03:09:52Z2012-03-13T03:09:52ZRevenge of the PACMan: how corporations are eating away at US democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8542/original/sbq5ckq8-1331597969.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the US, corporate personhood has enabled corporations to exercise undue influence on the electoral process.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">takomabibelot</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A Supreme Court ruling in 2010, designed to clarify the parameters of free speech, has created a monster. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission?utm_source=Info-Jao+Turismo+Eng&utm_campaign=52602d747d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a> made much of corporate rights. It paid significantly less attention to corporate responsibilities. In enabling a literal reading of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court voided precedent and has allowed corporate entities to circumvent already flimsy campaign finance restrictions. In doing so, it has reduced transparency and accountability. </p>
<p>Concern over the capacity of corporate power to influence electoral outcomes has long exercised Congress. Legislative restrictions date back to 1907. Each reform, culminating in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act">McCain-Feingold Act</a>, limit the amount any one individual or corporation can contribute in a given electoral cycle. The system is augmented by the provision of capped federal financing. Already weakened by the decision by Barack Obama to withdraw from federal financing in 2008 because of his campaign’s spectacular grassroots funding success, the system was completely destroyed by the Supreme Court’s decision. </p>
<p>In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that so-called independent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee">Super political action committees</a> (Super PACs) can raise unlimited funds from corporate interests or trade unions as long as there is no formal link to political campaigns.</p>
<p>The decision has transformed the electoral landscape. As <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21548244">The Economist noted on February 25</a> this year, Super PACs linked to each of the remaining Republican contenders for the forthcoming presidential election raised more than the campaigns themselves. By no means is this a phenomena linked to the Republican Party; President Obama’s campaign is equally indebted to the structure. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court had intended to protect free speech. The majority opinion was set out by Justice Kennedy. “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for simply engaging in political speech,” he argued. “Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy and this is not less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” </p>
<p>Far from strengthening free speech, the decision in Citizens United has contributed to its erosion. To make matters worse, the consequences were foreshadowed in the dissenting opinion. </p>
<p>“Unregulated corporate electioneering can drown out the voices of real people. It can decrease listener’s exposure to relevant viewpoints. It can generate cynicism and disenchantment. It can chill out the speech of those who hold office and it decrease the willingness and capacity of citizens to participate in self-government,” argued Justice Stevens. </p>
<p>Nowhere is that cynicism more justified than in the battles over the implementation of the <a href="http://www.clmr.unsw.edu.au/category/dodd-frank">Dodd-Frank Act</a>, the legislation introduced in the aftermath of the sub-prime crisis. </p>
<p>As I noted on <a href="https://theconversation.com/risks-or-rewards-what-the-volcker-rule-means-for-wall-street-5503">these pages last month</a>, the financial services industry has used the Super PAC as an opportunity to advance its agenda -surreptitiously. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.restoreourfuture.com">Restore our Future</a>, the Super PAC most associated with Mitt Romney, is dominated by the financial services industry. You would not know this from its website. No information is provided on financing or purpose, thus transacting around disclosure obligations. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hjD_IFclRro?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The stated rationale of the Super PAC is that “it is time that we restore our future by supporting candidates who have worked in the private sector and created jobs, who understand the economy, and who believe in America, American workers, and American values.” Only one candidate is mentioned: Mitt Romney. Restore is careful to note that it is “not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee”. The focus on values is equally deliberate. It obfuscates the real arena for change for many of those providing funding. </p>
<p>As former republican pollster Kevin Phillips noted in his political history of the American rich, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Wealth_and_democracy.html?id=sPHP4uUFQgEC&redir_esc=y">Wealth and Democracy</a>, the Achilles heel in American politics is its reliance on the financial sector. “Patriotism and rage militaire are a second track along which Middle American radicalism and frustration can vent itself. But the economics will out,” he noted with prescience.</p>
<p>The situation has worsened with time. The stakes for the financial services industry have heightened. The Super PAC allows the agenda to be set in less than transparent ways. The result is a debasing of democracy. </p>
<p>The issue was brought into clear focus in a recent edition of <a href="http://www.economist.com">The Economist</a>. The newspaper devoted its <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21548907">entire letters page</a> recently to the impact of Dodd-Frank. Christopher Dodd complained that “critics of Dodd-Frank have had ample opportunity to craft changes to the legislation. Instead they tried to kill it. Now, as its implementation begins, those critics have the choice of working with regulators to make the system safer, or simply roll back sensible reforms”. Separately, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Neal Wolin took The Economist to task for questioning the cost of the reform agenda. “Counting the pages in a bill (or comment pages from an industry resisting reform) is a silly way to measure cost,” he wrote.</p>
<p>Allowing corporations to hide behind financing models that allow political agendas to be forged that safeguard their own narrow self-interest but masquerade as protection of values is an insult to the very democracy the First Amendment was designed to protect. It corrupts those values and, ultimately, the political system itself. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5728/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin O'Brien receives funding from the Australian Research Council for three grants associated with the regulation of financial services - 'Corporate Governance, Regulation and Accountability,' 'The Future of Financial Regulation: Embedding Integrity through Design' and 'The Limits of Disclosure: Private Rights, Public Duties and the Search for Accountable Governance.' </span></em></p>A Supreme Court ruling in 2010, designed to clarify the parameters of free speech, has created a monster. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission made much of corporate rights. It paid significantly…Justin O'Brien, Professor of Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.