The "superPAC" is a relatively new beast that emerged as a result of two court rulings, including an important 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court. The "superPAC", which is officially known as an "independent expenditure-only committee", has become an increasingly popular method of influence for special interest groups. The "superPAC" is like a traditional PAC (Political Action Committee) without many of the restrictions. For instance, a "superPAC" can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the sole purpose of supporting or opposing political candidates. A "superPAC" can directly attack a political candidate. The only caveat is that a "superPAC" is not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. The "superPAC" will be an extremely crucial part of the 2012 Presidential election. History of PACs In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called for campaign finance reform . This led to laws called Acts of Congress intended to: Limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups ; Regulate campaign spending; and Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This Act further defined how a PAC could operate. In the 1972 presidential election abuses still occurred. However, there was no regulatory group to enforce the Act. Congress in 1974 set limits on contributions to PACs and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In brief, FEC rules include: A limit for individuals to $5,000 per year for Federal PACs; Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union; Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families; Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising; Union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members; Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and pay their own costs. Federal multi-candidate PACs were limited as follows: $5,000 per candidate for each election and primary; $15,000 per political party per year; and $5,000 per PAC per year. In 2000, nearly unlimited spending continued. The billionaire Wyly brothers of Texas "played an instrumental role" when helping their desired candidate Texas Republican George W. Bush via a $2.5-million advertising campaign they financed via a 527 organization . In the 2004 presidential election , campaign donations were via a 527 organization . One organization, Swift Boat "torpedoed" Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and George W. Bush was elected to a second term. A reported $9.45 million came from three private individuals. Swift Boat's was cited as a front group for Republican interests. Details of the influence of wealthy individuals to control the course of elections became more clear in reports like one that documented the Wyly Brothers of Texas alone had made millions in campaign contributions to 200 Republican Candidates. In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the Supreme Court ruled PACs may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The 2010 ruling made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures. Because direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns are still prohibited, such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC. During the 2012 election cycle, the exact boundary that defines when a campaign contribution is truly independent versus a coordinated one was lampooned on comedy shows, debated publicly and became the subject of additional Federal Court cases.
标签: committee
