Super PACs Are More Successful than the Presidential Candidates
Published in Volkskrant
(Netherlands) on 23 February 2012
by Sebastiaan Timmermans (link to
original)
In the U.S., the Republican candidates throw around plenty of money. Even more money is squandered by the super PACs with whom they are affiliated. The super PACs collect more money than the candidates themselves and are extremely skilled in that American specialty: mudslinging.
Four years ago, such a thing would have been unthinkable. Until that time, politicians were allowed to accept only limited sums from donors and had to publish who gave them that money. However, an American court judged that organizations that formally have nothing to do with a candidate do not fall under these rules.
Thus, all presidential candidates have established an organization that officially has nothing to do with them, but is led by confidants. These super PACs, or political action committees, can collect money from rich donors freely and spend it on negative commercials about the opponents. Because officially, those commercials come from independent organizations, the candidate cannot be accused of mudslinging. “No, that wasn’t me. That was that independent super PAC,” is the defense.
The site politico.com made a list of how successful those super PACs are.
As such, the official Newt Gingrich campaign collected 5.6 million dollars last month. His super PAC, Winning Our Future, raked in $11 million. That sum came almost completely from only two wealthy donors.
Also Mitt Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, has, with $16.3 million, more cash in hand than his own campaign, which has raised $7.7 million. For now, Rick Santorum receives more money than his own campaign.
The super PACs collect a lot of money, have more money available and make no debts. Many, especially Democratic politicians, want to end this system. They find it nontransparent because donors do not have to make themselves known. They also fear that immensely rich people can “buy” elections by pumping unlimited money into the election of their favorite candidate. Yet, even President Obama has recently established his own super PAC.
Four years ago, such a thing would have been unthinkable. Until that time, politicians were allowed to accept only limited sums from donors and had to publish who gave them that money. However, an American court judged that organizations that formally have nothing to do with a candidate do not fall under these rules.
Thus, all presidential candidates have established an organization that officially has nothing to do with them, but is led by confidants. These super PACs, or political action committees, can collect money from rich donors freely and spend it on negative commercials about the opponents. Because officially, those commercials come from independent organizations, the candidate cannot be accused of mudslinging. “No, that wasn’t me. That was that independent super PAC,” is the defense.
The site politico.com made a list of how successful those super PACs are.
As such, the official Newt Gingrich campaign collected 5.6 million dollars last month. His super PAC, Winning Our Future, raked in $11 million. That sum came almost completely from only two wealthy donors.
Also Mitt Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, has, with $16.3 million, more cash in hand than his own campaign, which has raised $7.7 million. For now, Rick Santorum receives more money than his own campaign.
The super PACs collect a lot of money, have more money available and make no debts. Many, especially Democratic politicians, want to end this system. They find it nontransparent because donors do not have to make themselves known. They also fear that immensely rich people can “buy” elections by pumping unlimited money into the election of their favorite candidate. Yet, even President Obama has recently established his own super PAC.