A Level Politics - Pressure Groups-The role and significance of PACs and Super PACs regarding electoral finance

A Level Politics - Pressure Groups-The role and significance of PACs and Super PACs regarding electoral finance

I. Key Terminology & Concepts

• Hard Money: Donations directly to a candidate. Regulated and limited by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
• Soft Money: Money given to a political party or PAC, not for specific candidates. Used for "party-building" activities. Unregulated and unlimited. Includes independent expenditures.
• Independent Expenditures: Money spent to support or oppose a candidate without coordination with the candidate or party. Unlimited for pressure groups.
• Political Action Committee (PAC): Raises money to elect or defeat candidates or support political campaigns. Can make direct (hard money) contributions. Donation limits exist ($5,000 per donation, per year).
• Super PAC: A type of PAC that only makes independent expenditures. Can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. Cannot make direct contributions to candidates or parties. Created after the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision.

II. The Citizens United Decision (2010)

This landmark Supreme Court case dramatically altered campaign finance. The ruling equated money spent on political campaigning with free speech, allowing corporations, unions, and pressure groups to spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. This led to the rise of Super PACs.

III. PACs vs. Super PACs: A Comparison

Feature	PAC	Super PAC
Funding	Limited ($5,000 per donation)	Unlimited
Expenditure Type	Direct contributions (hard money) + independent expenditures	Only independent expenditures
Influence	Limited by donation limits	Potentially greater due to unlimited funding

IV. The Influence Debate: Arguments For & Against Excessive Influence

Arguments for Excessive Influence:

• Bypass Campaign Finance Restrictions: Super PACs allow pressure groups to circumvent hard money limits.
• Concentrated Funding: A tiny minority of citizens (less than 1%) provides a disproportionate share of funding.
• Increased Spending: Super PACs have significantly increased overall election spending.
• Outsized Influence of Wealthy Donors: Large donations from individuals like Sheldon Adelson can buy significant influence.
• Legislator Loyalty: Donations can sway legislators to prioritize donors' interests over the public good.
• Reduced Party Importance: Increased pressure group influence diminishes the role of political parties.

Arguments Against Excessive Influence:

• Pluralism: Pressure groups are essential for representing diverse interests beyond party platforms.
• Spending Doesn't Guarantee Victory: Large donations don't automatically translate into electoral success (e.g., Clinton in 2016).
• Accountability: The public holds politicians accountable at election time, limiting the impact of special interests.
• Party Spending: Political parties themselves raise and spend vast sums, lessening the impact of Super PACs.
• Pre-Super PAC Spending Increases: Significant increases in campaign spending predate Super PACs (e.g., 2004-2008). Obama’s rejection of matching funds is a key example.

V. Critical Thinking Questions

1. Considering both sides of the debate, do you believe PACs and Super PACs wield too much influence in US elections? Justify your answer.
2. What potential reforms could address concerns about the undue influence of money in US elections while upholding free speech rights?
3. How does the role of Super PACs impact the dynamics between political parties and pressure groups?
4. How does the regulatory framework for campaign finance in the US compare to other democratic nations? (Requires outside research)

To learn more about A Level Politics Click Here