Pros And Cons Of Super Citizens United Vs Fec

In the past few years, the United States has seen a huge spike in the money spent in federal elections (See Appendix 4.B). Not only have candidates been making greater efforts to communicate their ideas to the American public, but super PACs have also been displaying their support for candidates and their political policies; they do so by using their right to accept unlimited donations from the public and later, use that money to promote certain candidates, or to sway voters in a desired direction. The immense power that super PACs have to sway voters has come under harsh criticism, spurring the creation of new laws and limits on the super PACs in an attempt to keep them in check and to avoid possible corruption.

These limits on super

FEC determined that there would no longer be limitations on independent expenditures by corporations, so the Court of Appeals ruled that since corporations are able to spend freely and independently, the government “can have no legitimate anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions made for the purpose of funding such expenditures” (Chalmers, 60). Therefore, the contribution limits placed on organizations and political committees were ruled unconstitutional. iii. Effects

The Citizen’s United case had quite an influence on the court’s ruling, as they wrote that the “arguments before Citizens United, …plainly have no merit after Citizens United….Contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption” (Murse). This ruling was another major victory for organizations because it gives them the ability to raise as much money as they possibly can for independent expenditures. The SpeechNow case marked the beginning of super PACs, since it allows organizations to ban together to raise as much money as they can (Simpson).

5.4. FEC

Here, the FEC states that a super PAC is legally allowed to make independent expenditures under certain conditions. One of those conditions is as follows: “communication may not be made with the cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or his/her authorized committees or a political party, or any of their agents” (Federal Election Commission). Super PACs are not allowed to communicate with political candidates in any way. This condition was enacted in an effort to prevent bribery and quid pro quo interactions. For instance, a candidate might be tempted to agree to grant members of a super PAC certain benefits in exchange for their money, as well as support during an election. By legally prohibiting candidates and super PACs from interacting, the FEC hoped to eliminate this problem of possible