PACs and Super PACs (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

PACs and Super PACs

The US electoral finance system

The American electoral system enables pressure groups to play a significant role in elections and political campaigns. Understanding this system requires grasping the distinction between two fundamental types of political money.

Hard money refers to direct donations made to a specific candidate's campaign. These contributions are strictly regulated and limited by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which oversees campaign finance laws. In contrast, soft money describes funds given to a political party or political action committee that are not designated for electing particular candidates. While soft money cannot directly support individual candidates, it can fund 'party-building' activities that indirectly promote the party a candidate represents.

Independent expenditures represent a third category of political spending—funds spent campaigning for or against a candidate without any coordination with that candidate or their party. Pressure groups can make unlimited independent expenditures, giving them substantial influence in American elections.

Political action committees (PACs)

Political action committees serve as the primary vehicle through which pressure groups and politicians raise money for political campaigning. A PAC is a political committee established to raise money for the direct purpose of electing or defeating candidates in elections, or for supporting other political campaigns for legislation or initiatives.

PACs can make direct hard money contributions to candidates, but they operate within strict financial constraints:

However, whilst their hard money donations are restricted, PACs face no limits on independent expenditures, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns provided they do not coordinate with candidates or parties.

Interest groups channel millions of pounds through their PACs annually, making these organisations crucial players in American electoral politics. The regulated nature of PAC contributions ensures some level of transparency and prevents any single donor from exercising excessive direct influence over a candidate through hard money donations.

Super PACs

The Citizens United ruling

The landscape of American campaign finance underwent a dramatic transformation following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010). This ruling fundamentally altered how pressure groups could participate in elections.

How Super PACs operate

This landmark ruling created a new type of organisation: the Super PAC. A Super PAC is a special type of political action committee that exclusively handles independent expenditures. Unlike regular PACs, Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for political campaigning, but they are strictly forbidden from making direct contributions to candidates or parties.

The fundraising advantage of Super PACs is substantial. Pressure groups and corporations can donate unlimited sums to Super PACs, enabling them to raise far more money than traditional PACs. In the 2020 election, Super PACs spent $1.8 billion on political campaigns. Notable examples include the conservative Senate Leadership Fund, which spent $250 million, and the liberal Senate Majority PAC, which spent more than $225 million during the closely contested battle for Senate control.

The reality of Super PAC influence

Whilst Super PACs can raise and spend enormous sums, their financial power does not automatically translate into electoral success.

Individual wealthy donors can exercise considerable influence through Super PACs. In 2020, Sheldon Adelson and his wife donated over $100 million to conservative Super PACs, including $75 million to Preserve America, an anti-Biden Super PAC, and $50 million to the Senate Leadership Fund. Such massive contributions raise questions about whether wealthy individuals can effectively purchase outsized political influence.

The debate: Do PACs and Super PACs have too much influence?

The role of PACs and Super PACs in American elections remains deeply controversial. Political scientists, activists, and policymakers continue to debate whether these organisations wield excessive power over the democratic process.

Arguments suggesting excessive influence

Critics argue that Super PACs allow pressure groups to circumvent campaign finance restrictions by exploiting the independent expenditure loophole. They point out that PACs and Super PACs receive funding from a remarkably small segment of the population. In 2016, less than 1% of American adults provided two-thirds of all funding for federal candidates, suggesting that a wealthy elite exercises disproportionate influence.

The creation of Super PACs has demonstrably increased election spending, as pressure groups and corporations can now make unlimited donations. Individual wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson can contribute enormous sums, effectively purchasing political influence. The $100 million+ that Adelson donated in 2020 represents more than most citizens could earn in multiple lifetimes.

Critics also contend that the growing influence of pressure groups through PACs and Super PACs has diminished the importance of political parties. When outside groups can spend hundreds of millions supporting or opposing candidates, parties may find their traditional role as campaign coordinators and funders undermined.

Arguments against claims of excessive influence

Defenders of the current system argue that if the United States is to function as a truly pluralist society, pressure groups must be able to participate fully in election campaigns. Pressure groups represent a broader range of issues and constituencies than those covered by party platforms, giving voice to diverse segments of society.

One of the largest increases in total election spending occurred between 2004 and 2008, predating the creation of Super PACs. This increase resulted from Barack Obama's decision to reject matching funds, which freed him from spending restrictions. Subsequent major presidential candidates have followed his lead, suggesting that rising campaign costs reflect broader trends beyond Super PAC influence.

The public holds members of Congress accountable for their actions at election time. Legislators who vote against the public interest risk losing their seats, providing a democratic check on PAC influence. This electoral accountability may prevent legislators from becoming mere servants of their financial backers.

Finally, Super PAC spending complements rather than replaces the efforts of political parties, which continue to raise and spend vast amounts. In the 2020 election cycle, the Republican National Committee spent more than $500 million, whilst the Democratic National Committee spent more than $325 million. These figures demonstrate that parties remain financially powerful and politically significant despite Super PAC activity.