Similarities Between Super Pacs And 501c4s

Do you feel insignificant during elections? Do you worry that there is too much money in politics? Do you believe that campaigns are corrupt? All these common worries become real issues in 2010 with Citizens United v. FEC: a Supreme Court ruling that will forever be significant to elections. The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unrestricted campaign spending by corporations, but most importantly the case led to the formation of groups called super PACs: corporations or labor unions that have the ability to use its general treasury and unlimited donations to influence elections. The Citizens United ruling has allowed for PACs to have too much influence over elections; taken away free speech from individuals; affected the federal

Campaign spending is out of control. This year alone PACs, controlled by companies, labor unions, and issue groups, had made a political expenditure of 1.7 billion dollars (OpenSecrets.org). Majority of the money was spent independently on political activities, such as advertising. For instance 54% of all money spent buy super Pac were on attack ads (Johnson, Dave) . Since these organization can spend unlimited amount of money on advertising they can control mainstream media and in turn can greatly influence the general public to vote for certain

One example of an interest group is AARP. AARP is a United States interest group with membership. It was founded in 1958 by Ethel Percy Andrus, Ph.D. And Leonard Davis. AARP has vast membership so it is able to generate its own income without being dependent on government grants or private donors. I read on Tuesday night on Facebook how disappointed they were in the Senate 's vote to proceed on the new healthcare bill and how they would inform 38 million members how their Senators voted so they could hold them accountable. AARP strongly opposes ANY bill that raises healthcare costs and lowers coverage. AARP urged the Senate to focus on bipartisan solutions that will lower the cost and improve care for the American people. They also gave out a number so their members could call their Senators and complain. There were a ton of comments on their page about

Some people see nothing wrong with the way corporations lobby. Corporation have been able to lobby forever so why is it a big deal now right? Well nowadays corporations are allowed to give money to people in political positions (Secular Talk). Once given the money the person in power would do favors for the business (Stealing From America). Let 's say a pharmaceutical company pays for a congressman 's campaign. Once a bill comes that would drop drug prices that elected congressman would vote against it (Secular talk). This has been happening for awhile now but i think that it 's time to get money out of

While choosing electing official with common values and philosophies is a great way to get representation on social issues, interest groups are also helpful in keeping an open line of communication with elected officials on what is most important to the affected group. Interest groups use tactics to protect policies by focusing on the unknown consequences and keeping close relationships with government officials whose values are similar (Baumgartner, Jeffery, & Hojnacki (2009). One interest group who has knowledgeable lobbyists to affect public policy is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is a single issue group who advocates their position by using both the direct and indirect approach to rally support on issues in Congress.

Texas is the second most populated and second largest state in United State. Due to its size, Texas contains diverse landscapes that resemble both American South and Southwest. Most of the population centers are located in areas of formers prairies, grass lands, forests, and the coastline. The current Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876. Like most of the states, it also provides for a separation off power. The state Bill of Rights is much larger than its federal counterpart, and has provisions unique to Texas. The Texas constitution defines the responsibilities of country governments, which serve as agents of the state. Greg Abbott is the current governor of Texas and Dan Patrick is the Lieutenant governor of Texas.

Because interest groups are protected by the First Amendment, they cannot be outlawed. However, their activities--particularly lobbying and making financial contributions--can be regulated. The 1973 Lobby Regulation Act, amended in 1983, is much more effective than two earlier attempts at regulating interest groups, one in 1907 and the other in 1957. In spite of its more stringent provisions, the total number of persons lobbying is much higher than the fifteen hundred groups and persons who annually register. The rise of bureaucracy requires interest groups to influence key points in government. As government does more for its citizens, more of their citizens become affected by government. Growing frustration with political parties, they believe the extremes are too liberal and conservative. The newest and most effective ways of effecting the government is by joining a third party or interest

The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

rationally related to a state interest, therefore related to the exercise of its police powers.

The 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith is about Smith and Black who were both members of a Native American Church and counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. They were both fired because they had taken peyote as a part of their religious ceremonies, at that time the possession of peyote was a crime under the State law. The counselors filed for unemployment in the state, but were denied by the Employment Division because the reason for their unemployment was work-related misconduct. Smith and Black argued, stating that under the First Amendment the government is forbidden from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion in this case the free exercise of peyote. Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, saying that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to as it was a part of their religion. The Supreme Court agreed, on the fact that the state's reasoning

Throughout a normal day in Washington DC, the hustle and bustle of lobbyist is taking place in the Capital building, White House and along K Street, which is the home of many of the lobbying firms. There are special interest groups, corporations and industries that hire in-house lobbyist or lobbyist firms to influence legislation to benefit their cause. For example, some of these causes may include, but are not limited to tax breaks, subsidies and changes to current regulations or laws. According to (APUS, n.d) there are approximately 12,000 lobbyists registered with the federal government and they are guided by the Honest Leadership and

Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH...Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008. The court case went up to the Supreme Court, where it was decided

The Koch brothers represent a symbol of a greater problem of what the power of money in politics can accomplish. Some wealthy and large-scale corporations have the ability to indirectly express control in ways that manipulate and overwhelm the resolve of the people. The Kochs’ influences on major events are becoming more and more evident to society. Thier costly campaign to strike down science reflects what our country is becoming more conscious of-- affluent ideologies in the top 1% can impose substantial influence on our lives, whether through policy or advertising. The Kochs have millions of dollars to influence

Super PACs are kind of political action committee that are funded by unions, corporations, and individuals. They are allowed to raise unlimited sums of money, then spend that money discretely for, or against a campaign(“super PACs”). The result of two supreme court rulings, Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commision, and Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commision, said that the afore mentioned groups could not be kept from donating any amount for Super PACs. PACs are not allowed to communicate and plan their spending in accordance with a campaign, although this is nearly impossible to uphold.

Without the influence of money in our elections and the donations from corporations and sponsors, then our political campaign system would be chaotic, full of illegal funding, and secrecy. According to The Atlantic, if restrictions were put on the amount of campaign money spent then wealthy donors, corporations, and unions would be able to spend unlimited amounts of money and may do it in secrecy. Secret donations would make the government and politicians seem less trustworthy because it would be harder to track who and where the money is coming from. Along with spending money in secret, there is the possibility of super pacs coming together outside of a candidate's campaign and spending unlimited amounts of money. According to Opensecrets, super pacs are independent expenditure-only committees that raise money from donors outside of a campaign in order to advocate for or against any specific political candidate. Since super pacs are organized and run by millionaires and billionaires, they raise very large amounts of money that can be used to drastically attack or help candidates. If the government continues to place no restrictions on campaign spending amounts then the rise of super pacs may be avoided and there will be more transparency in a candidate’s campaign than without. If money didn’t have an influence on politics then the government would be less influenced by millionaires and wealthy corporations, therefore citizens of lower classes would have more say in the government. Although, restrictions on spending money could lead to secret transactions with foreign countries. There have been rumors surrounding past candidates such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton gaining funds from foreign countries since campaign donors don’t have to be disclosed.(Cloyd) If candidates feel like their shot at winning is in jeopardy then transactions with outside countries is