American Government and Politics Today, Brief Edition, 2014-2015

ChAPTER EighT • CAmPAigns AnD ElECTions 179

politics and economics

Political action committees (PACs) have been around for

a long time, but only recently have we seen the super

PACs. These groups became popular after court rul-

ings that the First Amendment prohibited the federal

government from restricting independent political

expenditures. Such expenditures are supposedly not

coordinated with candidate campaigns. The result of

these court rulings was the super PAC, a committee

that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited sums from

corporations, unions and other associations, and indi-

viduals. Indeed, due to the rise of 501(c)4 organizations

(described in the text), some nonprofit groups can con-

tribute to super PACs without disclosing their donors.

AND THE MONEY CAME ROLLING IN

During the 2011–2012 presidential election cycle,

more money was available for campaigning than ever

before. Some scholars estimate that various commit-

tees spent more than $6 billion on all races—for pres-

ident, for Congress, and for state offices. Of that, an

estimated $1.3 billion was spent by outside groups.

Most of these funds were used for negative advertising

in the “battleground states.” Of the $1.3 billion, about

65 percent was spent to boost Republican candidates.

Does money buy elections? Did all of those bil-

lions of dollars make a significant difference in elec-

tion outcomes? When it comes to super PACs, at least,

the evidence is in—super PAC dollars do not seem to

have made much difference, particularly in the presi-

dential contests.

DONORS GOT A POOR

RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT

Consider some spectacular super PAC failures. Casino

owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife spent more than

$53 million in donations to super PACs. Of that, $15 mil-

lion was spent in the hope of winning the Republican

presidential nomination for Newt Gingrich (he lost),

and $20 million was spent in the general election to

make Mitt Romney president (he lost, too).

Consider another super PAC with poor results—

American Crossroads, managed by conservative strat-

egist Karl Rove. According to a study by the Sunlight

Foundation, only 1.3 percent of the $104 million that

American Crossroads spent in the general election

helped produce a winner. The group spent $85 million

in ads attacking Barack Obama. It used $6.5 million

to support Mitt Romney. That was $91.5 million spent

with a zero rate of return. Almost all of the Senate can-

didates supported by American Crossroads lost.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Republicans had an advantage in super PAC spend-

ing in 2012, but they lost seats in both the House

and the Senate and, of course, they failed to win the

presidency. Some conservative strategists concluded

that super PACs had made a mistake by concentrat-

ing on television ads. These experts advised that in

the future, super PACs should focus more on financing

get-out-the-vote drives. Despite a poor performance in

2012, most observers believe that super PACs will be

back in force in 2014 and 2016.

FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Why might huge sums spent on television advertisements have a

limited effect on swaying voters, especially in presidential elections?

ThE CuRious inEFFECTiVEnEss oF ThE suPER PACs

The 501(c)4 organization. In the 2007–2008 election cycle, campaign-finance law-

yers began recommending a new type of independent group—the 501(c)4 organization,

which, like the 527 organization, is named after the relevant provision of the tax code. A

501(c)4 is ostensibly a “social welfare” group and, unlike a 527, is not required to disclose

the identity of its donors or to report spending to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Lawyers then began suggesting that 501(c)4 organizations claim a special exemption

that would allow the organization to ask people to vote for or against specific candi-

dates as long as a majority of the group’s effort was devoted to issues. Only those funds

Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.