“It's a real public service to have debates that bring top-tier participants together and add the sizzle of prize fight competition to a discussion of issues of first-order importance.”
Meet the Parents of the Super PACs David Keating and Edward H. Crane, Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2012Political spending is good for democracy. It's a shame today's liberals don't trust the wisdom of voters.
Campaign Finance Disclosure Rules Infringe on First Amendment Rights David Keating, U.S.News & World Report, June 21, 2012 In the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court wrote that "compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment." This is happening today with smaller donors.
The Anniversary of SpeechNow.org and the Rise of the Super PAC Zac Morgan, Center for Competitive Politics, March 26, 2012 The Center for Competitive Politics together with the Institute for Justice, represented SpeechNow.org—a group then headed by current CCP president David Keating—in Federal court against a government that was attempting to limit the amount of resources available to SpeechNow.
The Rap Against Super PACs Jacob Sullum, Reason, January 12, 2012 While billionaires like Adelson do not need Super PACs to express themselves, such organizations do enable people of more modest means to pool their resources.
Who Will Save the Poor Incumbents From the Super PAC Onslaught? Jacob Sullum, Reason, March 8, 2012 Today's New York Times tells the heart-rending story of U.S. representatives who run for re-election but don't necessarily win. Who is responsible for this disturbing development?
The Vain Crusade to Purify Politics Jacob Sullum, Reason, January 18, 2012 Wealthy individuals, like wealthy candidates, have always been free to spend as much of their own money on political ads as they please.
Harmann vs. Jacob Sullum—Defending Super PACs Jacob Sullum, Reason, March 14, 2012Thom Hartmann debates Jacob Sullum, who says wealthy Super PAC donors make politics more competitive.
Against: Trevor Potter
Money Talks: OpenSecrets.org’s Interview With Top Campaign Finance Attorney Trevor Potter Trevor Potter and Kathleen Ronayne, Open Secrets, August 3, 2011 In an interview with OpenSecrets Blog, Potter discusses the seriousness of Colbert’s super PAC, how political speech isn’t for “sissies,” and how the U.S. Supreme Court is made up of “theorists” who are “not in touch with reality” when it comes to how money is being raised and spent.
The Colbert Report Video of Trevor Potter’s appearances on The Colbert Report.
Campaign Finance in the 2012 Elections: The Rise of Super PACs Trevor Potter and Anthony Corrado, Brookings Institution, March 1, 2012 On the heels of the FEC's February filing deadline, the Governance Studies program at Brookings hosted a discussion exploring the role of super PACs in the broader campaign finance landscape this election season. Anthony Corrado, a leading authority on campaign finance, and Trevor Potter, nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chairman of the FEC, presented.
McCain-Feingold: A Good Start Trevor Potter, Washington Post, June 23, 2012 The limited goal of the legislation was to remove the obvious corruption of six-figure individual contributions, and corporate and labor donations (increasingly solicited by elected federal officials) to national committee coffers.
Against: Jonathan Soros
Son of Liberal Financier George Soros Launches Anti-Super PAC Super PAC Dan Eggen, Washington Post, July 12, 2012 Jonathan Soros, son of a prominent liberal financier, is helping to launch an independent advocacy group with hopes of spending up to $8 million targeting House lawmakers, primarily Republicans, who oppose public matching funds for elections and other campaign finance reforms.
Jonathan Soros Super PAC Aims To Raise Big Money To Reduce Big Money's Power Paul Blumenthal, Huffington Post, July 13, 2012 The newest super PAC ready to make a splash in the fall elections may be the least likely. Friends of Democracy -- which is headed by Jonathan Soros, son of billionaire hedge funder George Soros; Ilyse Hogue, former MoveOn political and communications director; and David Donnelly, executive director of Public Campaign Action Fund -- seeks to build political power on the issue of reducing the political power of big money.
Super PAC Hits Four House Republicans on Lobbyist Ties Cameron Joseph, The Hill, August 9, 2012 Friends of Democracy, the new super-PAC from Jonathan Soros targeting congressmen who oppose campaign finance reform, is up with $700,000 worth of ads attacking Reps. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.), Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) for the donations they've received from special-interest groups.
ARTICLES FOR & AGAINST
FOR
Super PACs Can’t Crown a King George F. Will, Washington Post, February 29, 2012 Every melodrama requires a villain, and the people currently hysterical about super PAC money in politics blame the 2010 Citizens United decision. The court’s unremarkable logic was that individuals do not forfeit their First Amendment speech rights when they come together in corporate entities or unions to speak collectively.
Here Is What’s So Super About Super PACs Chip Mellor, Forbes, June 26, 2012 This avalanche of negative coverage is frustrating to free speech advocates because it isn’t warranted by the reality of super PACs. At their most basic level, super PACs are just groups of people that pool money to spend on political speech.
Super for Democracy? Economist, February 20, 2012 The Citizens United decision's deregulation of spending on campaign-season political speech certainly did make it simpler for billionaires to throw money at candidates, but it also makes it much easier for the rest of us to pool our resources and talents in the service of saying what we want to say, the way we want to say it, about the politicians bidding to rule us.
Don’t Believe the Hype About Corporate Political Spending James R. Copland, Examiner, June 22, 2012EIt simply isn’t the case, as is often alleged, that corporate dollars flowing into the super-PACs that have dominated this political season are undisclosed. And the inconvenient truth for critics of corporate political speech is that among the largest such committees spending money during the Republican nominating campaigns, less than 1 percent of the funds came from publicly traded corporations.
Super PAC Influence Overblown? The Arena, Politico, June 14, 2012Multiple contributors weigh in on whether reporting on super PAC donors has been fair and balanced.
AGAINST
Follow the Dark Money Andy Kroll, Mother Jones, July/August 2012The down and dirty history of secret spending, PACs gone wild, and the epic four-decade fight over the only kind of political capital that matters.
Million-Dollar Megaphones Blair Bowie and Adam Lioz, Demos and U.S. PIRG, 2012Demos and U.S. PIRG Education Fund analysis of FEC data and secondary sources on outside spending and Super PAC fundraising for the first two quarters of the 2012 election cycle.
A Few Wealthy Donors Fuel Super PACs Fredreka Schouten and Gregory Korte, USA Today, May 3, 2012The concentration of political money in a handful of states illustrates how the free-for-all spending of the 2012 election has changed the campaign fundraising map in ways not seen since post-Watergate laws imposed contribution limits. Individuals and organizations in the securities and investment industry have donated $31 million to super PACs, the most of any sector.
Effects of Citizens United Felt Two Years Later Norman J. Ornstein, Roll Call, January 18, 2012By giving corporations free rein to meddle in politics without any accountability required, just like in the robber baron days, and by defining money as speech, the court dealt a body blow to American democracy.
After “Citizens United”: The Attack of the Super PACs John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, The Nation, February 6, 2012Super PAC advertising is not like traditional campaign advertising. As the scenario that played out in Iowa illustrates, Super PACs allow allies of candidates with the right connections to the right CEOs and hedge-fund managers to pile up money that can then be used not to promote that candidate but to launch scorched-earth attacks on other candidates.
RELATED ARTICLES & LINKS
CRS OVERVIEW OF SUPER PACS
“Super PACs” in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress R. Sam Garrett, Congressional Research Service, December 2, 2011This report explores what super PACs are, how they developed, what they raised and spent in the 2010 election cycle, and issues that appear on the horizon for 2012.
TRACK ELECTION SPENDING
2012 Independent Expenditure Federal Election CommissionThis file contains “24-hour” and 48-hour”notices of independent expenditures filed in 2011 and 2012, and detailed information about independent expenditures, including who was paid, the purpose of the disbursement, date and amount of the expenditure, and the candidate for or against whom the expenditure was made.
How Much Are Super PACs Spending? Jeremy Singer-Vine, Wall Street Journal, Updated HourlyThis site contains every expenditure by Super PACs in the 2012 election cycle, including who spent the money, what they spent it on, and which candidate the spending targeted.
Outside Spending OpenSecrets.org, Center for Responsive PoliticsOpenSecrets.org is tracking outside spending in the 2012 elections.
Independent Spending Totals Kevin Quealy and Derek Willis, New York Times, Updated DailyThe New York Times is tracking spending by independent groups during the 2012 election cycle.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law SchoolRead the syllabus and opinions on Cornell’s Legal Information Institute website.
How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game? Matt Bai, New York Times, July 17, 2012If you’re trying to understand what’s really going on with politics and money, the accepted narrative around Citizens United is, at best, overly simplistic. And in some respects, it’s just plain wrong.
The First Amendment Guarantees the Citizens United Decision John Samples, Cato Institute, September 27, 2010Government by the people requires an equal vote and the freedom to speak and associate. Democracy also requires toleration of unpopular speech. When government and citizens fall short of those ideals, the courts should act. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court fulfilled that obligation.
'Wrong' Speech Is Also Free Speech: Citizens United at Two Trevor Burrus, Cato Institute, January 24, 2012The First Amendment does not allow anyone to pursue his vision of a better world through censorship. Although we'd all love the liars and shouters to be silenced, the First Amendment forbids such censorship precisely because there is no way to agree on who is a liar and who is "too loud."
Money Unlimited Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker, May 21, 2012How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
Jeffrey Toobin on Citizens United Jonathan H. Adler, Volokh Conspiracy, May 14, 2012Toobin’s Citizens United piece is engaging and informative, with exclusive behind-the-scenes reporting of how the decision came to be. Yet the article also contains plenty of subtle (and not-so-subtle) spin in service of Toobin’s broader narrative of an out-of-control conservative court. As a consequence, it paints a somewhat misleading picture of the case and the Court.
The Other Big Case the Supreme Court Got Right Michael Kinsley, Bloomberg View, July 4, 2012Bush v. Gore is indefensible. Citizens United is not. In fact, it was correctly decided, however deplorable the consequences.
Fixing Citizens United Geoffrey R. Stone, Huffington Post, June 12, 2012Amend the Constitution.
'Fixing' Citizens United Will Break the Constitution Laura W. Murphy, ACLU, June 28, 2012Reasonable minds can and should differ on the influence of “big money” in politics. The legal and policy questions raised by the link between concentrated wealth and political speech are numerous and complicated. But if there is one thing we absolutely should not be doing, it’s tinkering with our founding document to prevent groups like the ACLU (or even billionaires like Sheldon Adelson) from speaking freely about the central issues in our democracy.
Ruling Allows Contributions to Activist Groups for Campaigns Dan Eggen, Washington Post, March 27, 2012A federal appeals court on Friday handed another victory to conservative opponents of campaign-finance restrictions, striking down limits on individual contributions to advocacy groups that want to use the money for or against candidates in federal elections.
SpeechNow.org and the Birth of Super PACs Steve Simpson, Institute for Justice, April 2012March 26 marked the second anniversary of SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a watershed campaign finance case that IJ litigated along with the Center for Competitive Politics. IJ sheds light on what super PACs are and why they are a boon to free speech in America.
BUCKLEY v. VALEO
Buckley v. Valeo Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School, January 30, 1976Read the syllabus and opinions on Cornell’s Legal Information Institute website.
Buckley v. Valeo Federal Election CommitteeTo read the FEC court case abstract for the Buckley v. Valeo case, scroll down (cases are listed alphabetically).
501(c)4
How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare Kim Barker, ProPublica, August 19, 2012Forget super PACs, their much-hyped cousins, which can take unlimited contributions but must name their donors. More money is being spent on TV advertising in the presidential race by social welfare nonprofits, known as 501(c)(4)s for their section of the tax code, than by any other type of independent group.
'Social Welfare' Funders Sidestep Rules of Super PACs Luke Rosiak, Washington Times, August 20, 2012The political groups that injected millions of dollars into political races over the past two years may already be giving way to the rise of a new class of politically oriented nonprofits, organizations that have most of the same powers as super PACs, and one major advantage: They don’t have to meet the same strict requirements for disclosing where their money comes from.
POLLS
Why Attacking Super PACs Won’t Work Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, Washington Post, August 2, 2012A large majority of the country lack even the most basic knowledge of so-called super PACs, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.
Poll: Voters Want Super PACs to Be Illegal Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, Washington Post, March 13, 2012Nearly seven in 10 registered voters would like super PACs to be illegal, including more than half who feel that way strongly, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
OTHER NEWS
Political Ads by Independent Groups Are Not Only Common—They Are More Effective Science Daily, June 26, 2012According to a recent article in American Politics Research, a SAGE journal, the power of ads sponsored by independent groups rests not just in their sheer volume, but also in their relative effectiveness. When an attack ad is sponsored by an independent group, the authors found that the ad is far more effective than when the same ad is sponsored by a candidate.