The Pros And Cons Of Political Action Congress

Having been around since the 1940’s, Political Action Committees (PACs) are private organizations that help raise money for candidates or issues and are largely restricted in terms of how much individuals could contribute to their candidate. The Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission forever changed politics, as it declared that corporation/unions prohibited from spending money for political purposes was a violation of their First Amendment right as well as well as the caps being placed on those individuals. As a result, super PACs were created; placing absolutely zero limits on how much money could be raised or spent and prohibiting individuals from coordinating with the campaign directly although it isn’t the case the majority of

Not to mention the political figures who have gained a surplus of money from these super PACS, overwhelmingly might feel pressured or even obligated to accommodate more to the wants and concerns of these donors rather in comparison to the wants of the people who voted for a candidate to put in office. However, corporations are given too much influence in an election, and the idea of every vote mattering isn’t necessarily true anymore. This goes back to the idea that the Supreme Court case may have in a way, threaten our democracy. The people are suppose to be at the core of democracy as a whole, not just those who have millions of dollars. When money is began to be added from donors to the matter, the answer becomes more difficult to retrieve. Essentially boiling down to the concept that money is speech, super PACS hold the capability of running negative ads against an opponent, where the candidate doesn’t even have to answer for it. It seems now that good judgement relies in the people to decide for themselves regardless of all those ads running on television or posted outside on the street somewhere that might influence their