Liberal : Money management: Super PACs run by candidates’ former aides influences actions
As the 2012 presidential primaries continue and the election approaches, campaign finance and super PACs are dominating the conversation. The Daily Orange conservative and liberal columnists take on the issue.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave corporations and the wealthiest Americans the ability to contribute unlimited amounts to super PACs in a failed attempt to protect free speech.
The Republican primaries have given us a peek into the sweeping changes that the decision has had on the election landscape and, in turn, the significance of your vote. Indeed, of the $60 million collected by super PACs this year, $33 million has come from just 24 donors.
Of the super PACs supporting the top four Republican candidates, each one has raised more than 96 percent of their funds from ‘large donors’ who gave more than $25,000 at a time.
Now, Mitt Romney’s once inevitable nomination has become less sure. In New Hampshire, Romney looked to be the favorite and was beginning to coalesce support from conservatives. Today, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich continue to hang on, not because of support from regular voters, but because of support from these 24 individual donors.
Another issue is with the independent nature of super PACs. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United prohibited these groups from coordinating with the candidates they support.
Many of these super PACs are run by each candidate’s former aides. Carl Forti, Romney’s former national political director, now heads the independent super PAC supporting Romney. Becky Burkett, who was previously head of fundraising for Gingrich, now heads his PAC. Nick Ryan served as a senior adviser to Santorum and now manages his PAC. Notice the pattern here.
Super PACs have given the wealthiest an unjust advantage to influence election results. But worse, by having former aides control these groups candidates create the semblance of independence while maintaining a degree of control. A direct violation of the ruling and proof of its faults.
Stephen Fox is a graduate student studying for his master’s degree in entrepreneurship and a graduate of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. His columns appear online weekly. He can be reached at smfox03@syr.edu.
