Premium ContentMouse over Home then click on Premium Content for information.Political committees created to influence elections. They generally support or oppose specific candidates. Unlike older-style political action committees, super PACs can accept unlimited amounts of cash from corporations, labor unions and individuals.
The Birth of super PACs
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law that banned corporations and labor unions from giving money directly to PACs to spend independently to influence elections. Prior to the ruling, corporations and labor unions could create traditional political committees, which could only raise money from company employees and union members. Now, corporations and labor unions can give money straight out of their bank accounts to super PACs.
The Debate
Supporters of super PACs argue that corporations have the constitutional right to engage in political speech unrestricted by the federal government. Opponents argue that the new committees give wealthy corporations and others an unfair advantage in elections. The Supreme Court sided with the free-speech argument in a 5-4 decision.
Who uses them
More and more super PACs have been formed to help specific candidates. The committees can raise a lot more money than the candidate's committees and campaigns, which must abide by donation caps. Under federal law, a person can give $2,500 to a candidate in an election cycle. The same person can give an unlimited amount to the super PAC that supports an election bid.
Some rules
Super PACs must follow some rules. The most notable, and one of the most questionable, is that super PACs cannot coordinate with a candidate's campaign. This often sets up a scenario in which a super PAC is formed by a candidate's supporters, but the candidate can publicly claim that he has no control over the committee. For example, Republican Mitt Romney says he has no control over a super PAC that supports him and that launched a barrage of negative advertising against Newt Gingrich in Iowa.
— Robynn Tysver
Super PACs in the 2012 election cycle have changed the political landscape.
In Nebraska, super PACs tried to muscle candidates out of the U.S. Senate race before the field was set. In neighboring Iowa, they showcased their strength in the presidential caucuses, nipping Newt Gingrich's surge in the polls.
Former Nebraska Lt. Gov. Kim Robak cited the power these new political committees wield as one reason she recently bypassed a U.S. Senate bid. The Democrat feared that GOP-supported super PACs could swamp her campaign with negative television advertisements before she could raise enough money to defend herself on the airwaves.
"It would have made it very difficult to run," she said.
Super PACs are relatively new. They are political action committees that can collect unlimited amounts of cash from corporations, labor unions and individuals. They are the by-products of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal law prohibiting such groups from independently influencing elections.
The Supreme Court ruled that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on a corporation's right to engage in free speech. A form of the ban had been in place since 1907, when Congress enacted changes in campaign finance laws amid questions over big-business donations to President Theodore Roosevelt's campaign.
Nationally, these controversial committees have been making their marks on the Republican presidential race.
Their power was on full display in this year's Iowa caucuses.
A late surge by Gingrich, a former House speaker, was stopped cold when a super PAC aligned with Mitt Romney — Restore Our Future — flooded Iowa's airwaves with anti-Gingrich ads. In all, the group spent $3.4 million in Iowa, compared with two pro-Gingrich super PACs that spent $900,000.
Gingrich, who finished fourth in Iowa after briefly polling first, blamed the pro-Romney group's ads.
Every major presidential candidate in the field now is supported by a super PAC, which often are run by candidates' former aides and supporters but cannot directly coordinate with a campaign or donate directly to a campaign.
The super PACs give candidates added cash power. Candidates can only accept $2,500 from an individual in an election cycle, but super PACs have no such limits.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife recently gave $10 million to a Gingrich super PAC. Gingrich would have had to tap 4,000 donors to raise that much for his own campaign.
The influence of the super PACs can be seen on television screens across the nation. Super PACs now spend nearly as much as candidates do on television ads.
In the last presidential election, special-interest groups accounted for about 3 percent of television ads. This year, they have paid for 44 percent of the ads aired, according to a Wesleyan Media Project study.
Democrats, too, are now employing super PACs.
President Barack Obama had opposed such groups, saying they could corrupt politics, but recently reversed course and blessed a super PAC that supports his re-election effort. Obama cited competitive concerns in embracing the super PAC, Priorities USA Action.
In Nebraska, a U.S. Senate seat attracted the attention of several super PACs, including American Crossroads, founded with the help of GOP political operative Karl Rove.
American Crossroads spent more than $530,000 running ads critical of U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson and former Nebraska Gov. Bob Kerrey, even before Nelson decided whether he was running again and before Kerrey decided on running. The ads were an attempt to persuade both to stay out of the race.
Both eventually did, although they said the ads had no bearing on their decisions.
Democrats also spent considerable dollars to influence the race. The Majority PAC, a committee connected with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, spent nearly $300,000 trying to burnish Nelson's image in the event he ran for re-election.
Super PACs also could play a role in the GOP primary for the Senate seat.
Freedom Works for America, a Tea Party-inspired super PAC, recently produced ads for State Treasurer Don Stenberg, although the ads have yet to air on television.
Russ Walker, a spokesman for Freedom Works, said super PACs have every right to engage the public. And, he said, the federal government has no right to limit how much money a person or a business can donate to a campaign committee.
 |
"I believe everyone should have a say in the political process, regardless of how much money they want to give. It's free speech," Walker said.
The fact that super PACs can spend so much means that the days when candidates primarily competed against their opponents to raise money are over. Candidates now must consider the money that will flow into a state from super PACs.
"It's a sea change in how these campaigns are going to operate, as demonstrated already by the Republicans (presidential candidates)," said Paul Johnson, a Democratic consultant from Louisiana and former campaign manager for Nelson and Kerrey.
Johnson estimated that if either Nelson or Kerrey had decided to run, out-of-state super PACs would have poured $25 million into the state.
In small states like Nebraska, that money could have had a huge impact because of the states' relatively low-cost television markets.
Robak understood.
She said she doubted that she could raise money fast enough to counter an expected offensive launched by super PACs.
In this day and age, speed is of the essence. A political committee can quickly hit the airwaves with advertisements and brand new candidates with negative labels before the candidates introduce themselves, Robak said. "The public will always say they don't like negative ads, and they really don't like negative ads, but they work."
Randy Adkins, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, agreed.
Negative advertisements are more easily digested by the public, he said, because they typically focus on character issues, rather than policy. Campaigns and supporters wouldn't use them if they didn't work, Adkins said. "Negative ads stick with people," he said.
Super PACs also provide much-needed cover to politicians who like to maintain friendly, positive images. Although candidates and super PACs cannot legally work together, super PACs in the presidential race have assumed the role of campaign mudslingers, allowing the candidates to run upbeat television ads.
"It's sort of hard to hold campaigns accountable for what somebody says on their behalf," Adkins said.
Johnson predicted that super PACs could soon outspend individual campaigns, effectively taking control of a candidate's message.
Johnson also worries that a single wealthy individual could exert undue influence in the political arena, using his money to torpedo a candidate for personal reasons.
"A person could say, 'You vote the way I want you to, or I will spend $2 million to defeat you.' That's the next step in all of this, and I believe that's dangerous to democracy," he said.
Contact the writer:
402-444-1309, robynn.tysver@owh.com
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
