Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Gokhale 1 Does Money and Special Interest Own Washington? Imagine this scenario- a celebrity’s child, such as Blue Ivy wishes to go to Harvard, without having the required qualifications to be accepted. In response, Beyoncé decides to contribute funds to build a new library for Harvard University. This leads to Harvard wanting to please Beyoncé, which is ultimately, the acceptance of Blue Ivy into their school, despite her not being worthy of her admission. Is this fair? What if it was your kid’s admission that was given to Blue Ivy? This kind of situation is heavily apparent in current day American politics, due to how super PACs and special interest groups function. In recent years, there has been much controversy about the alleged corruption in the American elections, especially in terms of the campaign finance system, with the use of Super PAC and special interest group donation to raise money for campaigns. Many people believe that Super PACs and Special Interest Groups are organizations that take advantage of the loopholes. Since America has “enacted laws limiting the possibilities of making or receiving contributions,” for candidates these groups are examples of “other instruments to influence policy” (Belfrage). These institutions help candidates garner support by campaigning for them through advertisements with money collected from donations and in return, they expect policies and bills to be in favor of their organizations. Super PACs are thought to heavily influence campaigning on a federal level, whereas special interest groups have a broader influence sphere with local, state, and federal levels of government. Millions of dollars go into these groups in forms of donations in order to lend support to their favorite candidates. Although these are purely assumptions on part of the American people, with more research, it seems to be that these assumptions do ring true. Based on the evidence, it is evident that the campaign system does Gokhale 2 need to be regulated, and the effect of these flaws does have an impact on the outcome of elections when addressing Super PACs and special interest groups. Super PACs, otherwise known as Super Political Action Committees, are “a set of political organizations designated by federal election law as independent expenditure-only committees” (Gulati). The current regulations of super PACs have been very minimal. Right now, the only primary restriction on super PACs are that a candidate cannot have a direct association to the super PAC, for example, owning the corporation that will provide donations to his or her campaign. However, there are no guidelines on the amount of money that can be spent or investigations on any indirect relationships candidates have with the super PACs that support them. Personally, I believe that this should be deemed illegal, as this is nothing but a way to work around the minor guidelines that super PACs have to follow. The following video created by Annie Ouyang displays the unfair uses of super PACs and how the elite take advantage of the laws, and use them for personal use, derogatory advertisements against candidates they support, and in support of the candidates they wish to win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuyYBE0mD-s These loopholes that are used are unjust to the majority middle-class citizens that should matter the most. These citizens who put in small amounts of their salary to support candidates they believe are perfect for the job, are outweighed by the donations received by candidates from super PACs and thus, have their voices silenced by these corporations. Since super PACs are primary components of America’s election process, it is necessary for laws to be placed, creating guidelines for how they function. However, “Thus far, Congress has not enacted legislation specifically addressing super PACs” (Garrett). Garret also states that, although the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act and Gokhale 3 federal election laws, there is a “lack of amendments to federal law or campaign finance regulation. The Federal Election Campaign Act is an inefficient law, and furthermore, is also poorly enforced by the FEC. It is ridiculous that in order to manage all the super PACs and the money they contribute to campaigns, there is only one non-government agency in place. It is not possible for the Federal Election Campaign to properly overlook the donations, and make sure that all groups are completely honest in their disclosure of their contributions. “The two most important court cases that helped enhance the usage of super PACs in federal elections were Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee. Gulati states that Buckley v. Valeo determined “communications for political advocacy was protected political speech, but that preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption was a sufficiently important governmental interest that would out-weigh an individual’s First Amendment interests.” Rather than protecting the political speech of the citizens Buckley v. Valeo actually supports political spending and contribution. By comparing monetary contributions to speech, this court case gives more prominence to the wealthy than the majority middle-class citizens, which is extremely unfair. This prominence given to the wealthy is undemocratic, since democracy is meant to follow the majority’s opinion, not the majority’s wallets. According to Garrett, super PACs emerged after another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee. The verdict of this case determined that “Super PACs or Independent-expenditure-only-committees (IEOCs) are permitted to accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures aimed at electing or defeating federal candidates” (Garret). The effects of the court case can be viewed by this political cartoon, drawn by Cory M. Grenier, which implements an over exaggeration of future elected presidents, if backed by super PACs. The cartoon depicts the president elect who has the support of many Gokhale 4 PACs and corporations to be analogous to a NASCAR driver who wears his sponsors on his sleeve. The problems thought to be associated with super PACs culminate from the fear of corruption within the American government. Due to the unlimited amount of donations received from super PACs, candidates will never run out of money. The greater the money, the more advertisements candidates have in order to increase the reach of their campaign to the American public. Ultimately, it ends up being a race to gain more money in order to campaign for the longest possible time, rather than a race to garner more supporters. The candidate with the most money, is the one that wins the presidency. In the 2010 congressional elections, 80 organizations formed in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and a total of approximately $90.4 million was spent in advertising for or against candidates (Garrett). During the 2012 election, the super PAC Restore our Future raised $56, 512, 634 in support of Mitt Romney. On the flip side, other Republican candidates, had less money raised for them through super PACs. For example, Newt Gingrich, who was second place had only $23,907,955 raised by Winning our Future, almost half the amount of Mitt Romney (Gulati). Although only top super PACs were displayed in the table, this shows how candidates have to compete financially, Gokhale 5 in order to secure a high spot within the elections. An example of this is shown below, in Dan Nott’s political cartoon from the Daily Collegian. The race to earn the most money in support from super PACs is evident when Romney has a super soaker, whereas Santorum is left with just a regular water gun, showing that Romney had the most support from super PACs, which is why he was able to beat out the other candidates for the Republican nomination. Therefore, it is apparent that super PACs do have an influence on the amount of money raised, and eventually, on the outcome of elections. These high contributions from super PACs can eventually lead to problems on a bigger scale. Since super PACs do influence presidential elections, institutions that are affected by the President are also impacted. For example, the “role of big money…increases the chance of electing presidents who appoint the sort of Supreme Court justices who hand down decisions such as Citizens United” (Pillar). It is true that it has been a reoccurring pattern that justices, who have been nominated by presidents, tend to vote similar to an ideal of the president that nominated them. As shown in the figure below, it is apparent that the leaning of the Supreme Gokhale 6 Court justices’ ideologies does seem to match the ideologies of the President in office when these justices were appointed to office. As shown in the figure above, it is evident that Ginsburg and Sotomayor tend to lean liberal, and both were appointed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. Both were from the Democratic Party, the more liberal of the two major parties in the United States. Justices Thomas and Scalia are, or in Scalia’s case were, inclined to have more conservative ideologies. Not so coincidentally, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, from the Republican Party were the ones who had appointed Thomas and Scalia. Based on the evidence, it is logical to assert that the effect of super PACs on elections, further affect government institutions, such as the Supreme Court and the justices that are appointed to it. The rise of super PACs began in the 1970s, which coincides with the polarization of the political parties, and with this, the polarizing ideologies of Supreme Court justices. It is coincidental that the political parties are Gokhale 7 becoming polarized the same time the Supreme Court justices are. For an institution that is meant to remain unbiased and not have polarizing viewpoints interfere with its responsibilities, super PACs seem to have conveniently carved a niche into affecting the Supreme Court as well. Furthermore, these super PAC contributions can potentially have a negative effect on the American economic system. With unlimited donations to super PACs, the effect of these expenditures eventually have a negative impact on the American economy since corporations put an unlimited amount of money in elections with little, or sometimes even no return in policies. In the 2012 election, out of the $67,090,939 raised by Priorities USA and Restore our Future in support of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney respectively, about 78% of the money was spent on campaigning for these nominees. After all the campaigning, both these super PACs had $14,791,885 left over between the two of them. With no more campaigns to finance, this money ends up sitting there until the next election, where more money is accumulated due to the donations from corporations, such as the Service Employees International Union and Oxbow Corporation, Energy & Mining (Gulati). Thus, a high amount of money sits there, unused, and no longer gets circulated, which creates a negative impact on the American economy (Richards). With the unused money, the candidate can repay themselves for personal funds used during the campaign up to a certain amount, or can roll the unused money into a re-election kitty. It is unfathomable that a candidate feels justified in takin the people’s money to reimburse themselves, especially since most candidates come from affluent backgrounds and do not necessarily need the money of the people to refund themselves. Additionally, the majority of the money used is to run ad campaigns against opponents of the candidate a super PAC is supporting (Garrett). In that case, on a moral standpoint, what use is so much money meant for slander and criticism of an established persona? Super PACs are an Gokhale 8 easy way for the candidates to not have to run advertisements against their opponents themselves and maintain their good character image, while the organizations supporting them run these advertisements. This type of attitude is clearly prominent in politics, which is evident from this political cartoon by Boris Rasin from WorldWideHippies.com, seen below. As Mitt Romney states that he has ran a fair and good-spirited campaign, it can be seen in the background that the super PACs supporting him are doing his dirty work for him, by attacking his opponent. This technique of super PACs attacking opponents of the candidates they support, while the candidates are seemingly running a fair campaign is one that is beginning to intensify, with this method being used by many candidates. On the flip side, some would argue that support from super PACs help raise money for candidates to run advertisement campaigns through various mediums so their opinions and platforms can reach as many Americans as possible. With the help of super PACs, candidates have advertisements run for them, without having to campaign on the expense of their party. Furthermore, super PACs presently have yet to have as strong as a negative impact as predicted by scholars. For example, the self-perpetuation of the effect of big money in government “is not Gokhale 9 as strong and irretrievable as in a non-democratic system such as the one controlled by the Chinese Communist Party” (Pillar). Although super PACs were created with the intention to help advocate for or against candidates, the way they currently function is a detriment to the campaign finance system of the United States. With little, to no regulation, large amounts of money are accumulated and only some of it is spent on advertising for or against candidates. Not only do the donations given by super PACs affect outcomes of elections, but has the potential to affect the economy, with such large sums of money not being circulated within the economic system. Similar to super PACs, special interest groups are also thought to have an impact on the turnout of elections, but can also affect the functioning of government, post-elections as well. Special interest groups are a group of people or an organization that seeks special advantage through political lobbying. These groups share an interest and use lobbying to get their representatives to pass laws in their favor. They are used within all levels of government- local, state, and federal (McKay). Since special interest groups have a broader spectrum of reach, it is understood why it can be viewed as problematic and a looming threat to the democracy of America. Since the time of Reagan, there has been a cautionary approach towards the “power of special interests and iron tri-interest groups,” since they have “worked to influence public policies” (Peterson). Since the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed in 1971, the only bill to be passed that touched upon the unfairness of these groups is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. The fact that special interest groups have been an increasingly pertinent issue since the 1980s, and there has only been two laws in effect to stabilize the problems related to special interest groups is absurd. In the last 40 years, why is it that the government has not made any real attempts to alleviate these problems that are posed from the function of special interest groups? Gokhale 10 When a president makes it a point to reiterate the problems in his farewell speech, is it not the responsibility of the government to enact laws that will alter the way special interest groups function? According to Peterson, special interest groups have worked in a very systemic manner. Campaign contributions to key members and appointments with advisory boards within executive agencies are methods that are utilized to achieve success in their goals. Belfrage states that special interest groups are nothing but “groups of people with large financial resources and great stakes in political decisions that often seek to circumvent the democratic principle.” As determined from McKay’s study, there are three major types of effects produced by special interest groups that are thought to unfairly influence government. The first is the “insider advantage” that is acquired from the relationships between congressional members and interest groups, “who work together exclusively to create mutually beneficial policies,” often to the expense of the general public (McKay). The “revolving door theory” claims that “people work for business, and then leave for government, or vice versa,” but maintain a sense of loyalty and “sympathy toward their former employer” (McKay). This sense of sympathy can lead to pressure on government employees from their original co-workers, and can affect what goes on in government. The policies created by our government should not at all be sympathetic towards businesses, but rather its people. Why is it that with a population of 324.1 million people, businesses have the ability to override votes of the citizens and affect politics and government policies, with just the influence of their money? Businesses should not be deemed as an influencing factor when the point of America’s democracy is to act upon the wishes of majority of its citizens, and the impact of businesses hinder the flow of democracy. The American democracy is based on the majority votes of its citizens. However, if money from special interest groups can affect the outcome of elections and policies, sometimes against the wishes of the Gokhale 11 citizens, it is not justified that they can function as they currently do. The effects of insider advantage and revolving door are portrayed in the following figure. Another way special interest groups influence politics is “campaign contributions to political candidates,” with the goal, or goals of “changing the composition of the legislature, buying access to the politicians’ precious time and effort, or buying legislators’ votes” (McKay). If legislators are so easily swayed, just by the greed for money from special interest groups, they cannot be trusted enough to represent their constituents. As seen in the figure above, special interest groups provide electoral support through campaign contributions for members of Congress, and congressional support through lobbying for members of the bureaucracy. In return, they obtain low regulation and legislation in support of their cause. The use of special interest groups and the way they lobby and make contributions to politicians’ campaigns, needs to be significantly decreased in order to allow American representatives to carry out their duties and represent their citizens, not pass policies that would benefit the groups that fund their campaigns. Gokhale 12 According to the study conducted by Daniel Brou and Michele Ruta, special interest groups also affect politics, depending on the type of government. Democracy, which is central to the American government, is a type of government that can be affected by special interest groups, especially due to the many freedoms the government provides to donors and little regulation it has in place. Furthermore, according to a study on special interest politics, intense lobbying is what truly impacts the success rate of special interest groups, and intense lobbying is easily facilitated by more money (Naoi). Therefore, ultimately, it is the money used by special interest groups that allow for legislation to be passed in favor of these groups. Based on the studies conducted on special interest groups and their reasons for success, we can deduce that the American government is the perfect stage for special interest influence in politics. The average amount of money spent by the top 20 interest groups is about $14,877,269, and the number is only projected to increase (McKay). With the help of such a large sum of money, and not as many restrictions for lobbying, special interest groups have a high chance to achieve their goals in terms of policymaking, which affects the rest of the public, even possibly harming them while only benefitting the special interest group. Similar to super PACs, the functions of special interest groups also have an influence on the economy, as well as media. A study conducted by Coates, Heckelman, and Wilson observed the relationship between special-interest groups and economic growth by observing the impact of capital accumulation on the political economy and general economy of a nation. According to the study, “special-interest groups decelerate the main engines of economic growth. The end point of this study concludes that “special interest group activity reduces capital accumulation as well as innovation [exerting] a sclerotic effect on growth” (Coates). Additionally, how the capital accumulation is used has an impact on the public’s perception of media. Media is “an attractive Gokhale 13 tool that can be used by the rich to influence public opinion” (Petrova). Special interest groups use the media as a medium to sway the general public into agreeing with policies and bills that seemingly benefits the nation, but would largely profit the special interest group (Petrova). Media is a highly accessible medium that can reach many people and sway them with advertisements. Currently, media is highly influential and sometimes acknowledged as the fourth branch of government, as it works as the watchdog of the government, persuading, investigating, informing and alerting the people of the nation about the government. It is not fair that special interest groups can throw money to effect what the media portrays and discusses with the citizens of the nation, impacting their political decisions. Wealthier people in the country have the money to spend to run these advertisements in the media. An example would be the NRA, whose commercials are helped paid for by their membership fees. Due to this, membership fees in some special interest groups comes at a cost, which is why many of these groups are comprised of members on the wealthier side of the spectrum. Thus, the “higher income inequality is associated with lower media freedom,” since it is heavily affected by political groups (Petrova). Although most studies show that special interest groups do have an effect on the policymaking of most specifically Congressmen, there are studies that have found that there is not a direct relationship between financial resources and the success on policy (McKay). Furthermore, it is arguable that special interest groups are not necessarily bad or created with the intent to silence the voice of the people not a part of the group. Rather, it is made with the intention to give a voice to people with the same opinion through a group so that there can be strength in numbers (Brou). Gokhale 14 Special interest groups were made with the intention to highlight a specific issue and present the severity of the problem to our representatives and candidates using the effect of a group to display that many people feel the same way towards the problem. However, with little regulation on how these groups function, special interest groups have grown to have an influence over politics, the economy, and even the media. The complete effect of special interest groups can be determined with the help of this image shown below. In summation, we can see that Big Businesses lobby to Politicians, in return for policies that benefit them. Big Businesses also affect the media, which is used as propaganda and sways how the public votes. This influence on media is generally used to encourage people to vote for politicians that will benefit these Big Businesses. This influence on media, is an influence on an election and thus, impacts who gets the seat in politics. It is necessary to implement guidelines for the function of special interest groups, so that they can be used solely as a means to highlight important issues within politics, and not have a big sphere of influence within the US government. In order to decrease the amount of problems that arise from both super PACs and special interest groups, it is essential to put in place solutions that can further regulate the campaign finance system. Some solutions that would diminish the impact of these organizations would be to create new laws that stabilize how they function and the amount of money these groups can donate to candidates and political parties, as well as modifying current laws set into place. For example, currently groups such as super PACs are utilized to circumvent BCRA, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, laws. As mentioned in the video created by Ouyang, candidates can create super PACs in order to fundraise for their own campaigns, with the help of surrogate owners of these super PACs. If the BCRA was altered to raise the contribution limits to candidates, “a substantial flow of campaign money may siphon back to traditional candidate Gokhale 15 committees” (La Raja). It is necessary to have an addition of certain guidelines to the BCRA, which will enforce the current laws and also place conditions that do not allow for candidates to have any involvement with the super PACs. In order to do this, the BCRA could include a clause that will set up an investigative department which will scrutinize the owners of super PACs and their relation to the candidates they support, in order to decrease the effects and communication between candidates and super PACs. By doing this, the problems of loopholes in the laws and too much money being spent can be decreased, if not completely eradicated. If the law dismantled the foundation on which super PACs and special interest survived on, by limiting its monetary resources, the effect of super PACs and special interest group would not be as substantial as it is currently. It is important that the government enact laws that can decrease the spread of influence these groups have on the media, economy, and other political institutions like the Supreme Court. If there is a limit on the amount of money these groups can accumulate, it would lead to: less influence on media (such as advertisements attacking other candidates), and less influence on the economy (no group can have too much money, therefore there would be money circulating in the economy and the frequency of candidates taking money to reimburse themselves with the money donated by corporations and people would be diminished). Gokhale 16 Works Cited Belfrage, Carl-Johan. "Selective Information Provision and Special Interest Influence: The Case of Trade Policy." Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy 2.1 (2003): 1096-29. Web Brou, Daniel, and Michele Ruta. "SPECIAL INTERESTS AND THE GAINS FROM POLITICAL INTEGRATION." Economics & Politics 18.2 (2006): 191-218. Print. Coates, Dennis, Jac Heckelman, and C. Wilson. "Special-interest Groups and Growth."Public Choice 147.3 (2011): 439-57. Print. Garrett, R. “Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress (R42042).” Congressional Research Service. Print. Gulati, Girish. "Super PACs and Financing the 2012 Presidential Election." Society 49.5 (2012): 409-17. Print. Grenier, Cory M. Political Cartoon Describing President Elect After Citizens United vs FEC Court Case. Digital Image. Flickr.com. N.p., 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. La Raja, Raymond J. "Money in the 2014 Congressional Elections: Institutionalizing a Broken Regulatory System." The Forum 12.4 (2014): 713-27. Print. Manske, Magnus. Iron Triangle. Digital Image. Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. Ideological Leadings of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Digital Image. Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, 3 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. McKay, Amy. "Buying Policy? The Effects of Lobbyists’ Resources on Their Policy Success 1." Political Research Quarterly 65.4 (2012): 908-23. Print. Gokhale 17 Naoi, Megumi, and Ellis Krauss. "Who Lobbies Whom? Special Interest Politics under Alternative Electoral Systems." American Journal of Political Science 53.4 (2009): 874-92. Print. Nott, Dan. Political Cartoon Showing Strengths in Super PACs Supporting Romney versus Santorum. Digital image. Picshype,com. Daily Collegian, 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. Ouyang Annie. “Colbert’s Colbert Super PAC 2.” Online video clip. YouTube. Youtube, 22 Apr. 2013. Web. 9 May 2016. Peterson, Paul E. "The Rise and Fall of Special Interest Politics." Political Science Quarterly 105.4 (1990): 539-56. Print Petrova, Maria. "Mass Media and Special Interest Groups." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 84.1 (2012): 17. Web. Pillar, Paul R. "America's Flawed and Fragile Democracy." The National Interest. The National Interest, 18 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. Raisin, Boris. Raise a Finger. Digital Image. Flickr.com. N.p., 14 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. Richards, Eric L. "Special Interest Legislation: An Attack on Free Enterprise." Business Horizons 23.2 (1980): 19-21. Web. Systems Diagram of Lessig's Lost Republic. Digital Image. Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2016 Gokhale 18 Multimodal Components and Why I Chose Them: For this paper, I felt it was necessary to have visuals that would emphasize my claims. I picked to include the Ouyang (YouTube Video) source because I think it summarizes the flaws very well, and also incorporated Stephen Colbert, who most people know, making it easier for them to relate and understand the problems created by super PACs. I chose to include the Grenier (NASCAR Presidential Winner Cartoon) because I think it perfectly describes how super PACs sponsor candidates, and just as the NASCAR driver is advertising his sponsors, candidates’ policies and bills reflect the groups that sponsored their campaign. The Nott cartoon (Romney vs Santorum) was chosen because it helps prove my point showing how super PAC donations affect what candidate wins the nomination, or even the presidential election. In the cartoon, it shows how Romney had greater support from super PACs than Santorum, and ultimately it was Romney that won the Republican nomination for the 2012 Presidential election. The Ideological Leanings Chart by Martin and Quinn supports my assertion that the leanings of Supreme Court justices have not-so-coincidentally been extremely similar to the presidents that nominated them. It helps to elaborate my point that super PACs affect presidential elections, which in turn affect institutions such as the Supreme Court. Raisin’s Romney Interview Cartoon helps portray how candidates take no responsibility of the advertisements run against their opponents or in support of them because they are run by the super PACs and not their party or campaign specifically. I am able to use this cartoon to help my claim that this was a wrong approach to have. The Iron Triangle visual by Manske emphasizes the role special interest groups play within the federal government, between Congress and other bureaucrats, and how unfair their influence is. Finally, the Systems Diagram from Wikipedia is incorporated as it helps summarize the function of special interest groups, and highlights what is wrong with them. The Gokhale 19 image helps to explain my point about the wide range of influence that special interest groups have.