Download Does Money and Special Interest Own Washington?

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.