Super PACs and Elections
Date: Tuessday October 2, 2012 5:30 p.m.
Location: The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute
Facilitated by: Dr. Mathew Goodwin, NAU Philosophy Department
5:30 p.m.
Welcome and Introduction
Andrea Houchard, Director of Philosophy in the Public Interest
Dr. Heidi Wayment, Director of NAU’s Compassion Project and
Psychology Department Chair
5:45:
Public Discussion
Dr. Matthew Goodwin, NAU Department of Philosophy
6:50

Is money equivalent to free speech as the idea is represented in the constitution?

Does limiting money in elections restrict freedom of speech?

Do individuals, corporations, or unions have a right to anonymously contribute unlimited money to elections?

Is permitting anonymous, unlimited donations equivalent to “buying an election” or a
reasonable way to disseminate information to voters?
Recap of discussion
Supported by Northern Arizona University College of Arts and Letters, Compassion
Project, McKenzie Endowment for Democracy and the Wood Fund.
PACs
PACs, or political action committees, are organizations that campaign for or against a political candidate, piece of legislation or ballot initiative. According to the 2008 Federal Elections and Campaign Act (FECA), a political committee is any committee, club,
organization or group of people that receives contributions exceeding $1,000 during a calendar year.
How do PACs operate (according to the FEC and FECA)?:

Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 per year to Federal PACs.

Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union.

Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial
support for its administration and fundraising.
Super PACs
The term “super PAC” was coined to address “political committees that may raise and spend unlimited money to independently support or oppose candidates” by National Journal reporter Eliza Newlin Carney, on June 26, 2010. A super PAC is formally known as
an “independent expenditure-only political action committee.” Super PACs materialized as a result of two federal court decisions
that significantly altered campaign finance law— Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and SpeechNow.org v. Federal
Election Commission. Carney christened them “super PACs” soon after.
What can super PACs do/not do?
 They cannot contribute money directly to campaigns; however, may engage in unlimited political spending independently of
the campaigns (i.e. running political ads in newspapers or television).
 They cannot coordinate directly with candidates or political parties; however, candidates and super PAC managers can discuss campaign strategy through the media.
The Legislative Origin of Super PACs
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit corporations or labor unions from contributing to
“electioneering communications” — as termed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. The court overruled two
precedents in the process, claiming that they, and portions of BCRA §203, violated the First Amendment. Eight of the Justices
agreed that, “Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements” (nytimes.com). One popular simplification of the court’s decision suggests that, “Corporations are People.” Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures.
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission
In immediate reference to the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contribution
limits on independent expenditure-only (ie-only) committees provided a violation of the First Amendment. It was determined that
limits on contributions indicated limits on free speech on behalf of the donors as well as the ie-only committee, SpeechNow, itself.
The rulings of these cases are strictly contextual to ie-only committees, and do not permit direct campaign contributions. Some
have reduced the SpeechNow decision to an equation of “Money as Speech,” causing these cases to have together framed today’s
super PAC.
Some Familiar Super PACs...
The two largest super PACs around today are split between the Presidential nominees for the 2012 election. Restore Our Future
has raised the largest sum, approximately $96,667,002, and supports Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Priorities Action USA, in support
of President Obama, has raised approximately $35,636,122 this year. Out of the 893 currently existing Super PACs, Comedian
Stephen Colbert certainly doesn’t come in third place with his super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, which
has raised approximately $1,236,548 this year.
Hot Topics Café, October 2, 2012
Who are the key players?
Individuals
The scope and effectiveness of Super-PACs attracts the attention of individual donors who wish to promote political action that
best aligns with their values and beliefs. Somewhat surprisingly, however, is that the majority of the top funded Super-PACs receive their largest donations from a relatively small group of individual donors. In a 2011-12 calculation by the Center of Responsive Politics, it was reported that contributions from the top 100 individual Super-PAC donors (who make up about 3.7% of the
total individual contributors) accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised that year. Additionally, according to recent
reports by the FEC, “Restore Our Future” received about 30% of its funding from 14 individual donations, and “Priorities Actions
USA” received 40% of its funding from 14 individual donations, as well. This has significant implications on the amount of influence a small group of individuals has on institutions that affect the entire American public.
Corporations
Because of the Citizens United case in 2010, there is a general worry that corporations will take advantage of their now ability to
contribute however much they like to influence the outcome of the upcoming election. However, in 2012, less than half a percent
of contributions to the top Super PACs were reported to have come from publicly traded businesses. This is for a few reasons:
first, that there are several federal and state laws that require disclosure for all or some of independent expenditures and electioneering communications. This entails that the name of any corporation that wishes to make a significant donation will be made publicly available. And second, public corporations, in order minimize the backlash that may result from publicly backing political
issues, tend to seek anonymity when making contributions. Consider one example where Target publicly apologized to its employees after making a $150,000 contribution to a Minnesota group that backed an anti-gay marriage candidate.
Advocacy Groups/Labor Unions
In the contemporary political arena, super-PACs have become extremely useful and effective lobbying tools, most often utilized
by special interest groups to pressure political candidates to take up certain issues. Typically, these super-PACs fund critical political advertisements directed at whichever candidate fails to address and integrate a particular issue into their platform. Consider the
intention behind the Autism Super PAC: if the current presidential candidates ignore the organization’s call to double the federal
research for autism by 2017, the super PAC claims it will launch an all-out barrage against either candidate, regardless of who is
elected. The Citizens United decision made efforts like this more achievable when it included labor unions among the “persons”
who can make an unlimited amount of contributions to super PACs.
Some Criticisms and Defenses of Super PACs
In Defense of Super PACs
Concerns with Super PACs
Positive Liberty
Positive liberty is the conception that a person is free only if
she possesses the power and resources to fulfill her potential.
Super PACs, under this conception of liberty, may deny the
majority of lower and middle-class the means to exercise their
full potential as U.S. citizens to the degree that the few,
wealthy individuals can. And, because the condition of the
lower classes is so far removed from that of the upper class
(i.e. there are no real practical ways for a member of the lower
classes to rise to that of the highest, wealthiest classes), superPACs essentially perpetuate the conditions that comprise a
society that is fundamentally not free.
Transparency and Accountability
Several of the criticisms raised against the growing prominence of super-PACs are directed at the institutions being inherently exploitive, unreliable and corrupt. One instance has to
do with the provision that prohibits super-PACs from being
independent from political candidates. Many have argued that
super PACs, while meeting the requirements for legal independence, are often not truly independent of the candidates
they support. Close associates, former staff, or a candidate’s
immediate family often manage super PACs.
Free Speech
As the saying goes, money talks. And, in the case of super
PACs, where money certainly entails representation, the contention over the utilization of money in politics is not one of
influence in elections, but one of free speech.
Representation
As we see in the Autism Super PAC example, organizations
that effectively aggregate sums of money from a large quantity
of small donations in order to clearly articulate a goal or platform in a manner that will garner attention from the public and
high profile political candidates prove to be formidable representative forces. This provides for interest groups who would
otherwise go unnoticed an achievable route to nationwide representation.
SOURCES
http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71285.html#ixzz278wMiBhE
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/rules-of-the-game/courtunlikely-to-stop-with-citizens-united-20100121
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/news/economy/super-pac-donors/
index.htm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73804.html
Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, Yavapai College
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81674.html
Hot Topics Café Community Committee
The “hot topics” in the Hot Topics Cafés are selected by committees that represent diverse constituencies
and viewpoints. We thank our committee for their participation.
*Voted to select “hot topics” for the Fall of 2012.
Flagstaff
*Allan Affeldt Owner, La Posada; Founder, Winslow Arts Trust; Former
Mayor, City of Winslow; Museum of Northern Arizona Board Member,
Arizona Town Hall Board Member, Arizona Citizens for the Arts Board
Member
Diana Arendt, County Chairwoman, Coconino County Republican Committee
Sedona
Rob Adams, Mayor of Sedona
Carol Gandolfo, President, Verde Valley Republican Women
*Jane Hausner, Executive Director, Verde Valley Sanctuary
*Tom O’Halleran, Arizona Republican Senator 2007-2009; President, Keep Sedona Beautiful; Chair, Verde River Basin Parntership;
*Scott Deasy, Deacon of Epiphany Episcopal Church, semi-retired OB/GYN
Citizens Advisory Board, PBS
Coral Evans, Flagstaff City Council
Alicia Magal, Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Sedona and the
Verde Valley
Jean Friedland, Compassion Project, Northern Arizona University
*Patty Garcia Coconino Community College District Governing Board,
Nuestras Raices, Raymond Educational Foundation Board
John Neville, President, Sustainable Arizona, Lead, SEDI Sustainability in Education & Green Business Network
Ken Lamm, Flagstaff Community Foundation
*Judy Reddington, Northern Arizona University College of Arts and
Letters Advisory Council; Museum of Northern Arizona Board Member, Philosophy in the Public Interest Advisory Board, Sedona Community Plan, Sedona International Film Festival Board Member
*Stephanie McKinney, Chair, Flagstaff 40
*Marj McClanahan, Arizona Community Foundation, Flagstaff Community Foundation, Flagstaff Medical Center Certificate Holder, NAU Social and
Behavioral Sciences Advisory Council, Museum of Northern Arizona Committee, Phi Beta Phi Financial Advisor, Arizona Society of CPAs
*Jerry Nabours, Flagstaff Mayor
Steve Williamson, President, Democrats of the Red Rocks
Ex officio
*Wayne Ranney, Geologist, Author, Museum of Northern Arizona Board
Member, Grand Canyon Historical Society, Flagstaff Festival of Science
Board of Directors
Robert Breunig, Museum of Northern Arizona
Craig Van Slyke, Dean, NAU Franke College of Business
Andrea Houchard, Philosophy in the Public Interest
John Stark, General Manager, KNAU
Natalia Molina, Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, Yavapai College
*Michael Vincent, Dean, Northern Arizona University College of Arts and
Letters
Julie Piering, Philosophy Department
*Harriet Young, First Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, Arizona
Town Hall Member, Member of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Member
of the Arboretum at Flagstaff, President of American Association of University Women Flagstaff Branch, NAU Department of Politics and International
Affairs since 1992
Kathy Farretta, Museum of Northern Arizona
Scott Sanicki, Sedona Public Library
Next Sedona Hot Topics Café
Climate Change
Date: Tuesday November 6, 2012 5:30 p.m.
Location: Sedona Public Library
NAU's Philosophy in the Public Interest is non partisan, and does not
endorse any position with respect to the issues we discuss.
Philosophy in the Public is an neutral convener for civil discourse.
This informational handout was prepared by the Kyle Beloin and Coren Frankel, NAU Hot Topics Café Student Research Directors. Both Kyle and Coren have double majors in philosophy and political science at Northern Arizona University.