During this presidential election season, certain candidates have been plastered on the front pages of all forms of media since day one. Hillary for instance, from the media’s standpoint, had seemingly been the only viable candidate for the Democratic Party — until Bernie came along with his anti-Super PAC mantra. Don’t get me wrong, the Bern is great! But, I want to focus on the Anti-Super PAC part of his campaign.
For starters, what is a Super PAC?
This is an exceedingly important question that many gloss over. A Super PAC is a campaign finance tool that can accept limitless amounts of money through the form of corporate contributions and use these contributions to engage in independent expenditures specifically supporting or opposing candidates. This was nonexistent before the spring of 2010, and since then Super PACs have greatly increased the amount of money channeled into camping. If we want to talk about big money in politics, we have to learn about this system of finance.
It all started with Citizens United, a conservative U.S. non-profit organization that wanted to release a Hillary Clinton bashing documentary titled “Hilary” during the 2008 presidential election season. Before Citizens United v. the FDC (Federal Election Commission), this documentary could not be used as an advertisement 30 days within the primary election season because of laws limiting the speech of privately organized corporations. Citizens United wanted to run the documentary within this time period. It was proposed, for this case, that a cooperation should have the same rights to free speech as people without regulation. In 2010, this passed five to four in favor of granting corporations the same first amendment rights as private citizens.
Why does any of this matter?
This case inadvertently opened up the issue of Super PAC spending as an unlimited corporate channel for campaign finance. Citizens United v. the FDC was initially just an issue of allowing annoying 30-second ads chock-full of propaganda, skewed statistics, and unending mudslinging from all sides, to air despite the fact that we all hate the damn things. This case opened up more than that, with the final ruling establishing the idea of corporations being equivalent to people.
I believe that this decision was wrong because corporations exist independently from the people who own them. If a corporation does something unfavorable to what the people want, shareholders cannot be blamed. The main motivation for a corporation is profit. That is the way of the economy. That is how big business survives. But, that is not a clear representation of the American people. That is not a clear representation of the individuals that built this country, and in turn, built the corporations that now run it.
It has been proven over and over again that big money wins elections. Guess which presidential candidate has the most Super PAC funding currently? Well, it is Hillary. And let me just add that I am not trying support any specific candidate or even any specific party; I just want to propose that maybe we don’t want money to dictate who inevitably comes out on top. As a citizen who can be held accountable for my actions, I want my voice to be heard above a corporation’s big money without consequence.
