- Oct 1, 2019
- Reaction score
As a new decade begins, it’s hard to believe just how different our campaign finance system looks now compared with the beginning of the last decade. One key difference: ten years ago, there was no such thing as a super PAC. That’s because the Supreme Court hadn’t decided Citizens United yet.
After that and related cases hacked away at campaign finance limits and the commonsense principles underlying them, a new landscape began to take shape — one that favors the superrich above all others.
For decades, limits on the amount of money people could give to politicians protected against corruption and required candidates to build broad support from many Americans. But in the post-Citizens United era, the wealthiest donors and special interests are free to spend without limit, and politicians rely on support from donors giving ever-larger amounts.
This is a good article on the topic.
SuperPacs are good for both the Democratic and Republican parties. This is why it is going to be hard to get rid of them.
SuperPacs are bad for all of us. This is why we must cooperate with each other to get rid of them.
This is something where it is us against the politicians. Even the politicians we support. We can't let them make it about politics.
Whether you hate George Soros or the Koch Brothers, SuperPacs give them more influence over our elections.
Is there anything we can do short of a Constitutional amendment?
Can we craft a constitutional amendment that only addresses campaign finance without hurting individuals right to free speech?