Auwandha1

Fiky Auwandha
Professor Altman
English 113A
24 November 2014
The Cost of Fair Election
What if your voice was muted and drowned out by the sound of cold, hard cash hitting
the table and being placed into the never-ending pockets of politicians? That analogy is not too
far from reality, unfortunately. This is due to immense campaign funding contributions by the
corporations, unions, and wealthy individual through Super-PACS (Political Action Committees)
that fund politicians campaigns in order to have their interests be heard before anyone. The role
of Super-PACs is a topic that has been a hot button issue for quite some time. In January 2010, a
Supreme Court case known as SpeechNow.org v. FEC was argued. Many individuals filed
complaints against the people who established Speechnow.org after revealing that the
organization contributed independent expenditures towards campaigns they saw fit. However,
the organization argued that the limits that were to be placed on bodies of profit like SpeechNow
would act as a policy that infringes upon the rights of the First Amendment. In March 2010, the
Supreme Court deemed the limitation on independent expenditure is ultimately unconstitutional.
The Supreme Courts decision lead to the creation of Super-PACs. Because of the
SpeechNow.org v. FEC Supreme Court ruling, Super-PACs are allowed to participate in
unlimited funding and spending of campaign financing. Although some claim that they are
essential for campaign funding, Super-PACs should be dismantled because they are hindering
our election process. Super-PACs should be dismantled because they generate the opportunity of
corruption and threatens our democracy. In addition, the dismantling of Super-PACs would give

Auwandha2

people access to the report of how their money is being spent. It will then force candidates to use
the money in the most effective way. The accessible report would give voters stronger reason to
vote or not vote for candidates, thus resulting in more power for the citizens.
One reason why Super-PACs should be dismantled is because its existence is generating
an opportunity of corruption. In an article titled The Assault of Super PACs, John Nichols and
Robert McChesney states that Super-PACs have assembled nonprofit arms that are permitted to
shield contributors identities as long as they spend no more than 50 percent of their money on
electoral politics. So the identity of many, possibly most, contributors will never be known to the
public (Nichols & McChesney, 3). What Nichols and McChesney mean by this is the unlimited
spending and omittance of who is performing the spending can be dangerous because those who
spend the money could have ulterior motives or their own best interest in mind. For all we know,
the existence of Super-PACs could be a medium of a bribe from corporations, unions, or wealthy
individuals to future politicians who eventually hold the key to unlock the government
regulations brought upon their companies. What makes it worse is that the public would not
know anything about this act of corruption and would not be able to prevent it from happening.
Anonymous spending, let alone spending on campaigns, can prove to be detrimental and one of
the many disadvantages of having Super-PACs as the medium of campaign financing. The
dismantling of Super-PACs would dismiss this opportunity of corruption. If we continue having
Super-PACs as a medium of campaign financing, corruption is not just inevitable. The existence
of Super-PACs also threatens the fairness of our election process.
The unlimited funding and spending by Super-PACs is threatening our democracy. This
is another reason why Super-PACs should be dismissed. The fact that these Super-PACs are
allowed to spend and spend on specific candidates or political parties gives unfair advantage to

Auwandha3

those who are running in the campaign race. In an article titled Super PACs Unfairly Influence
Elections for The Dispatch journal, Sharon Myers stats that unless the other candidate running
against the one running who is being endorsed by all of the Super-PACs has an endless supply of
money to back him or her up, they have virtually no chance when running against their opponent
(Myers, 2). The unlimited funding and spending could mean more advertisements either praising
the candidate being supported by all of these committees or bashing and mocking the other
candidate who has a measly amount of funds in comparison. Advertisements have proven to be
one of the top methods of exposure to people. Whether it be on TV, radio, billboards, products,
and so on, ads have been very effective at showing us messages trying to persuade us to invest in
something. David Ingram of Demand Media states that advertisements are ideal for businesses,
or politicians in this case, to promote themselves to a vast audience using cost-efficient means.
This means politicians can be put in a light of grandeur, whereas their opponent could face an
endless onslaught of mudslinging. The more money one has in their campaign budget, the more
advertisements can be made to distort the perception of the voters, thus resulting in an unfair
shift of favor among the two or more people running for the election. The money behind all of
these campaign schemes is ultimately what pushes these committees and candidates alike. The
anonymity of it all is what really prohibits the public from intervening as well.
The dismantling of Super-PACs would give people access to the report of how their
money is being spent. It will then force candidates to use the money in the most effective way. If
Super-PACs do not exist, donors can only donate their money through regular Political Action
Committees and public financing. This is a positive outcome because regular PACs and public
financing provide disclosure to the public. However, is it possible to achieve this by fighting fire
with fire, using money as a primary weapon? To further explain, can you use a Super-PAC to

Auwandha4

take down another Super-PAC? This may seem like a contradictory idea, but can be done
through proposing some simple laws like providing every voter with a voucher of $50 to $100 to
donate to the candidate of their choice, ultimately fighting money with money. (Fung 1). More
information would be given to those who have been misinformed or not information at all.
Providing this information could give potential voters a look into the election process and a look
into which causes are being pushed forward. On top of that, no real money is lost between either
parties or the voters given the vouchers.
The exposure of information as to which individuals and committees fund the candidates
and how much they spend would definitely allow public voters to bring more democracy into the
voting process. A key example as to why we should remove anonymity from this process is the
case of the Koch brothers. In the article Koch Brothers Exposed: Why We Must Act and How
of the OurFuture journal, Isaiah J. Poole explains that The Koch are two billionaires who spent
about $45 million to buy control of Congress. This money went towards the Republican party,
who were able to gain control of the House of Representatives with the most conservative
candidates to ever step foot on Capitol Hill (Poole, 1). By using nothing more than money alone,
the Koch Brothers were able to instill almost total control of congress through the legal means of
unlimited spending. They endorse many Republicans who were set on lowering taxes like
Minnesota representative Michelle Bachmann, Texas representative Rick Perry, Georgia
representative Herman Cain, and Ohio representative John Kasich, all of whom wish to lower
taxes in order to keep the rich people wealthy. The reports of these spenders and representatives
would allow for American citizens to actually be able to critically analyze the outcome of
electing candidates who ultimately control the government.

Auwandha5

The accessible report would give voters stronger reason to vote or not vote for
candidates. There were already some reports online that potential voters could use to help them
think about who they are voting for. For instance, websites like OpenSecrets carry charts relating
to outside spending by Super PACs by year. It also lists what the Super-PACs are spending and
raising money for, who they support, how much money is raised, and if there is full, partial, or
no disclosure of donors. In addition, you can even see if there any Super-PACs or traditional
PACs that released television ads and who opposes or supports them. This is all information that
can be used to help the voters make the right choice in whom to place a vote for. More reports
like these need to be made in order to promote critical decision and thinking. These Super-PACs
are starting to control government processes all while stating the they are doing it legally and
constitutionally. This can bear very negative effects and tilt the election process in favor of a
certain side too much. However, one must realize that while this on the borderline of censorship
of those without money, the Super-PACs can prove to be beneficial.
Some claim that Super PACs ability to gather up unlimited funds for campaign makes
them essential in our election process. However, this is not entirely accurate. Private campaign
funding could bear some consequences throughout the election process. While an effective tactic,
it could also prove to be detrimental to democracy. By unregulating spending for big
corporations, you then rule out the voices of those who dont work in corporations or might not
have as much money to support the candidate they feel would be an appropriate choice to win. In
addition, voters realize companies spend these massive amounts of money on campaigns,
therefore locking the election and forcing the voters to feel their voice doesnt matter, resulting
in a drop of votes outside that of corporations or people voting alongside the corporations.
Finally, this could ultimately lead to a form of corruption. By allowing the money to choose the

Auwandha6

elections outcome, you could ultimately cause a dishonest politician to be put in a high position
of power, thus distorting the rules and forming a world that only benefits the rich or those with
the same belief as those who are corrupted. In other words, Super-PACs make money a
determinant of election, not the vote of the people. If money could rule an election, then who is
to say it couldnt hold a grip on other aspects of our government such as the police force or even
schools? This situation is parallel to some novels such as 1984 by George Orwell and Fahrenheit
451 by Ray Bradbury. Both novels deal with the topic of a dystopian society ruled by one set of
people who have either money, power, fame, or a conglomeration of all three. The select few
who rise up against them face serious punishment and risk their lives to take down the powers
that be. The allowance of Super PACs just promotes this future.
In conclusion, the Super-PACs are given too much freedom to be considered practices
that are fair to everyone besides the candidates and committees taking part in this. Their
unlimited spending only allows their interests to be heard or taken into consideration. In addition,
their anonymity allows for spending to be done by anyone who only wants for their own
advancement to take place. In addition, the reports of these donation to campaign funding should
be released more in order to prevent information from being hidden from the general public. It is
important to realize just how much power is given to these huge corporations when you allow
them to participate in the election process, let alone spend unlimited money on who they see fit
as a candidate that would only defend them and other corporations with similar goals. The
solution to these problems is that Super-PACs should be stopped. If not, then our next president
may end up being sponsored by as many corporations as a NASCAR race car driver.

Auwandha7

Works Cited
"Are

Super Pacs Bad For Democracy?." U.S. News Digital Weekly 4.6 (2012): 14. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Fung, Brian. How to Use a Super PAC to kill a Super PAC. Washington Post. The Washington
Post, 2 July. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Ingram, David. The Advantages & Disadvantages of Advertising on the Internet. Chron.
Hearst Newspapers, 11 Sep. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Myers, Sharon. Super PACs Unfairly Influence Elections. The-Dispatch.com. The-Dispatch,
31 October, 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Nichols, John, and Robert W. McChesney. "The Assault Of The Super Pacs." Nation 294.6
(2012): 11-17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
Poole, Isaiah J. Koch Brothers Exposed: Why We Must Act and How. OurFuture.
OurFuture, 13 March 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
"SPEECHNOW.ORG, Et At., Appellants V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
Appellee. David Keating, Et At., Appellants V. Federal Election Commission, Appellee.
Nos. 08-5223, 09-5342." Election Law Journal 9.3 (2010): 249-256. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.