Not even most of the media, much less the presidential candidates, try to pretend there’s a difference between campaign and super PAC contributions anymore.
So why not drop that distinction without a difference?
Under federal election law there are limits on the amount of money people can give directly to candidates running for national office. According to the Federal Election Commission, individuals can contribute up to $2,700 per candidate—up from $2,500 in 2012—per campaign (i.e., for the primary and then again for the general election). And there are other limits applied for individual contributions to political parties and committees, etc. Corporations cannot give directly to candidates.
By contrast, super PACs—which are officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees” and are the product of two 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decisions—can accept unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions and others. The primary restrictions are that super PACs cannot give money directly to a candidate’s campaign and are prohibited from coordinating with the candidate. And that’s where the sham comes in.
Candidates essentially set up their own super PACs and hire longtime associates or employees to head them. The candidates proudly announce how much their super PACs are raising (assuming they are) and often add that number to their own campaign contributions and then report the combined number.
Before Jeb Bush formally announced his candidacy, he boasted that his super PAC would raise more than any other candidate in history at that point: $100 million. Right after Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio officially jumped into the presidential race, they announced that they had raised millions of dollars. They were combining their super PAC with their campaign contributions.
And the media are doing the same, only paying lip service to the distinction.
Politico’s new report on campaign contributions raised so far uses a bar chart and combines the various types of contributions—super PACs, contributions to the campaign, and 501c4 and 527 groups. Politico explains the chart by saying, “Below are the campaign finance numbers provided so far by presidential candidates and the outside groups supporting them.”
Since the bright red line between the campaigns and the super PACs that support them has largely vanished, then why pretend it still exists?
One reason is that liberal lobbies have worked so hard for so many years to demonize and limit the role of money in political campaigns. While they may have demonized it, they sure haven’t limited it.
Open Secrets estimates that Obama and Mitt Romney together spent about $1.12 billion on their 2012 presidential campaigns. Add in the political parties and outside groups and Open Secrets estimates total presidential election spending at about $2.6 billion.
These totals, large as they are, will likely pale in comparison to the amounts that will be spent in 2016. National Public Radio says that the major candidates had raised $83 million by this time in the 2012 election cycle; today they are already up to $138 million—and counting fast.
The liberals who detest the massive role of money have no one to blame but themselves for growth.
Conservatives and libertarians want a smaller government, which needs much less tax money and is less involved in our lives. If I don’t want anything from government there is a lot less reason for me to “invest” in campaigns.
But even as liberals decry the growing role of money in campaigns, they demand more money for the government. They want the government involved in virtually every area of our lives: income, housing, education, health care, retirement, the workplace and even relationships.
If Washington can rob Peter to pay for Paul’s health care, don’t be surprised if both Peter and Paul make campaign contributions—one to stop the robbery and the other to demand even more.
A government powerful enough to do everything is a government powerful enough to anything. And that possibility encourages lots of people, companies, industries, unions and organizations to spend more on elections—in some cases to keep government out and in other cases to get it in.
But as long as government is involved in every aspect of our lives, then there will be a lot of money thrown at campaigns, especially presidential elections. Every time liberals try to stop it, people come up with a way around the restriction.
That’s why super PACs have become an extension of their candidate’s campaign. Let’s admit it and end the sham distinction.