User:Damico Seba/sandbox

Independent Expenditure Only Committees (Super PACs)
Super PACs, or independent expenditure only committees, are a relatively new political action committee (PAC) that are a result of the 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC (Federal Election Commission). Super PACs are independant from campaigns, but unlike Political Action Committees there is no limit on the contributions that any individual or corporation can make to them. While Super PACs are barred from any communication or coordination with any campaign, they do spend money on advertisements and events, etc. that support a particular candidate or attack a candidate. Every year since their inception in 2010, super PACs have spent more money in support or attacking candidates, which has had an undetermined impact on the outcome of those elections.

History
Super PACs were created in 2010 as a result of the ruling in the Citizens United vs. FEC supreme court case. The court case first came to fruition over a film titled; Hillary: The Movie which discussed whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) requires several steps to be taken by donors to an “electioneering communications”, which the film was considered to be. Section 203 of the BCRA restricts corporations and labor unions from donating in any capacity to these communications. Sections 201 and 311 require complete disclosure of these donors to these communications. The court case discussed whether or not the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) violated the first amendment by restricting the contributions from “big money” in presidential campaigns, and in particular to the film that was in question. Citizens United argued that the sections of BCRA in question violated the first amendment by blocking “big money” from spending on these forms of communications. In the court case, the supreme court ruled in favor of Citizens United 5-4, stating that under the 1st amendment it would be unconstitutional for the government to block corporations political free speech by not allowing them to use expenditure to their full extent. The supporting justices cited prior case law to make the argument that while it is important to prevent the appearance of corruption by maintaining campaign contribution limits, independent expenditure by individuals and corporations does not lead to, give any appearance of corruption. This pivotal supreme court ruling allowed the formation of independent expenditure-only committees (commonly referred to as super PACs) to come to fruition.

Rules and Regulations of Super PACs
Super PACs, under the constitution provisions highlighted in the supreme court rulings, are able to receive an unlimited amount of money from corporations, individuals and unions. Before Super PACs, Pollitcal Action Committee s (PACs) were only allowed to recieve up to $5,000 from any individual, PAC or party committee annually. Super PACs represented a dramatic change to the status quo. Super PACs also have unlimited spending capability, meaning they can spend as much capital as they so chose in support or defense of a candidate. However they are barred from any donations directly to any campaign as well as from any kind of communication with any campaign, making them completely independant, which differs from PACs which can donate up to $5,000 to a candidate during an election year and $15,000 to a national party committee. Super PAC spending must have no coordination at all with any political campaign. Super PACs are required to file reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on a monthly or semiannual basis during off years and monthly during the year of an election. Super PACs play a role in both the presidential campaigns as well as congressional campaigns. Super PACs are well known for running television advertisements either advocating for a candidate or attacking a candidate.

2010 Election
The 2010 midterm elections were the first election that featured Super PACs. Prior to 2010, the majority of campaign money was raised by political parties, and PACs. During the period from 2004-2010 liberal groups outraised and outspent conservative groups in support of John Kerry and Barack Obama and congressional candidates by nearly $92 million. This changed in 2010, when conservative groups outspent liberal groups $190 million to $98.5 million, however Super PACs did not have a large role in the change in spending. In 2010, conservative Super PACs only outspent liberal super PACs by less than $10 million, most of this money came from 501(c)s and 527’s. The immediate impact of the citizens united decision and the creation of Super PACs can be seen by looking at the donors to the largest Super PACs involved in the 2010 elections. The largest conservative Super PAC in 2010 was American Crossroads, a super PAC directed by former George W. Bush aide Karl Rove. American Crossroads raised $26,575,589 million and spent $21,652,707 million in support of conservative candidates. Out of all the contributions to American Crossroads 79% was from individual contributors with the remaining 21% coming from corporations or labor unions. However of the $19 million coming from individual donors, $16.75 million of it was contributed by 6 individual donors. The largest liberal super PAC in 2010 was American Families First Action Fund which raised $7,083,010 million and spent $6,018,958 in favor of liberal candidates. In contrast to American Crossroads, American Families First Fund received two thirds of its donations from organizations, including $3.4 million from labor unions. While the overall impact of Super PACs in 2010 may have been minimal, the implications of the Citizens United decision was felt as the majority of donations came from organizations or from large individual donations.

2012 Election
The 2012 election was the first presidential election to feature Super PACs and their financial impact was very notable. In 2010 Super PACs received $89,179,293 in donations and spent $62,641,448 million for or against candidates. By the end of the 2012 election cycle Super PACs received $828,224,700 million in donations and spent $609,417,654 million for or against candidates, a staggering difference compared to the 2010 elections. As well as the large growth of Super PAC spending during the 2012 election cycle, there was also substantial growth in the number of Super PACs as well. In the 2010 election there was only 83 groups that were classified as Super PACs, compared to the 1,310 that qualified as Super PACs during the 2012 election. The 2012 election featured a close race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, which led to large sums of contributions to their respective Super PACs. Mitt Romney’s Super PAC Restore Our Future raised the most money out of all of the Super PACs in 2012, raising nearly $153,741,731 million and spending $142,097,336 million in support of Romney. Obama’s Super PAC, Priorities USA Action, raised the third most out of all the Super PACs in the 2012 election, raising $79,050,419 million and spending $65,166,859 million in support of Obama. While it was clear that huge sums of money were spent during the 2012 election, it isn't as clear as to if that money correlated to victories, especially in the presidential race. One example of this is the simple fact that Romney’s super PAC outspent Obama’s super PAC by more than a two to one ratio. In the end Obama won the election. During  the home stretch of the election, the competition over the swing state of North Carolina was intense. Conservative Super PACs spent nearly $23 million on attack ads against Obama to ensure that Romney would take the state, however despite all of that spending, Obama only trailed in the state by 2% which is within the margin of error. The same was done in other states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan where Obama held a 10% lead. However despite the spending efforts by conservative Super PACs, Obama still maintained his lead in those states and ended up winning both of the states. Throughout the duration of the 2012 election, the the monetary effect of Super PAC spending during the general election remained rather undetermined.

2014 Election
The 2014 midterm elections were a pivotal election for gaining power in the house and senate. That was evident from the Super PAC spending that was seen during this election cycle. The number of Super PACs during the 2014 election grew to 1,360 from the 1,310 super PACs that participated in the 2012 elections. Compared to the first midterm election cycle that featured Super PACs, the 2010 election, Super PAC spending in 2014 saw massive growth. In 2014, Super PACs raised $696,011,919 compared to $89,179,293 raised in 2010 and spent $345,117,042 compared to $62,641,448 spent in 2010 .This showed that by the 2014 election cycle, the political system had fully embraced super PACs as a factor in elections. In 2010 and 2012, conservatives used Super PAC spending at a much higher rate than liberals did. In 2010 conservative super PACs outspent liberal super PACs by a 58.6%-39.3% margin. In 2012 conservative Super PACs outspent liberal Super PACs by a wider 66.8%-32.1% margin. However in 2014 liberal super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs by a 51.2%-43.8% margin, showing that super PACs were now being much more widely used and accepted by both sides of the isle. However for the second consecutive election, the monetary results were not there for the side who raised and spent the most money. During the 2014 election, similarly to previous elections, there were large contributions to Super PACs from several notable individuals. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was one of the largest Super PAC donors in 2014, contributing more than $20 million to Super PACs supporting both Democrats and Republicans. Other notable billionaire donors in 2014 included Sean Parker and John Arnold. Individual donations from wealthy individuals remained a theme in 2014 as 34 of the 95 individuals who donated to Super PACs in 2014, 34 of them were billionaires. Even Though liberal super PACs were able to outspend conservative Super PACs, republicans still saw sweeping victories in both the house and the senate races and were able to hold a majority in both after the 2014 election.

Impact of Super PACs
Throughout the 2010, 2012, 2014 elections, the huge spending numbers that super PACs have been responsible for have not necessarily altered the outcome of a particular election .In the case of the 2010 election, the impact that Super PACs had on the election was minimal. However the major impact was that much larger sums of money were being raised, with the majority if the money coming from organizations and individuals. In the cases of 2012 and 2014 the side that spent the least amount of money went on to win the election. However super PACs have had their presence felt in other ways during elections. One of the main reasons that liberals began to embrace the Super PAC, especially during the 2014 election, was to match the massive spending that they feared conservative groups would be able to generate. Starting with the home stretch of the 2012 election and carrying over to the 2014 election, liberal groups began to outspend conservative groups. Increased spending on both sides has made races that many expected to be irrelevant, very competitive. Increased spending on both sides has lead to much more competitive hostile campaigns.Increased spending from Super PACs has allowed candidates to stay in the race longer, drawing out its conclusion. It may be still too early to see the direct impact that money raised from super PACs has on the outcome of elections, but it is clear that the level of competition in elections has been raised due to much more outside money and influence.