This video is a discussion of how Super PACs were
influencing the South Carolina Republican primary. Michael Scherer, from Time Magazine, is being interviewed
about how Supers PACs have funded campaign commercials, and these commercials
seem to be swaying the results of the primaries.
The interview mentions that before 2010, only candidates
and their campaigns could advertise with an expressed support for their
political goal. Then, a campaign mainly received funding from the candidate's
own pocket, and from a lot of average people who gave donations of a few
hundred (maybe thousand) dollars bundled together. Now, Super PACs are allowed
to pursue expressed political goals using their combined funding. Instead of
depending on a lot of average people donating small sums, Super PACs can count
on enormous sums from a few companies and billionaires. Also, a Super PACs do
not have to follow the same rules that the candidates do.
Scherer mentions
that Super PACs are spending more money on campaign commercials than the
candidates. Also, the candidates that have the most commercials on their side do better in the primaries. The elections seem to be operating as one
Super PAC fighting against another Super PAC, and less like one candidate's
views fighting another candidate's views.
Quick
thought:
Since Super PACs can get unlimited funding from the rich,
candidates who gain funding mostly from average people (and not PACs) are at a
disadvantage. The PAC that spends the most money, which is not necessarily the PAC with the most popular views, will
likely get its candidate elected president. This is an example of how economic
and financial power carries over into the political aspects of life.
Readers,
what do you think?
- Are Super PACs overshadowing the political views of regular people?
- Are Super PACs fair?
References
How super PACs work. (2012, January 14). [Video file]. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/01/14/nr-scherer-super-pacs.cnn
No comments:
Post a Comment