Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

5 Minute Tute: Money in politics

What are the Super PACs that have become so important in the US election?

Political Action Committees (PACs) are organisations used to raise money to support the election of particular candidates regulated by the Federal Election Commission. What has changed since 2008 is the emergence of so-called Super PACs, which can now raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporations. Expenditure by PACs has been unlimited since the 1980s, but donations have not. There are now no restrictions on either, provided that PACs do not coordinate with the candidates whose campaigns they support. US electoral laws therefore maintain a tenuous distinction between contributions to individual candidates, which continue to be limited for fear of their potentially corrupting influence, and the right to freedom of expression in advocating the election of those same candidates.

How will these Super PACs affect US politics?

In the words of Zhou Enlai, it is too early to say, though there is a widespread fear of a further redistribution of political power towards the rich and of a further increase in negative campaigning. T he potential influence of such organizations was revealed by the impact of the campaign against John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (technically not a PAC, but having a similar effect). The recent Republican primaries were also characterised by a high density of negative TV ads. It is hard to see how the Citizens United ruling really enhances freedom of speech, rather than simply allowing rich individuals and corporations (including, of course, labour unions) to shout louder.

How important will the candidates’ ‘war chests’ be in the upcoming Presidential election?

Barack Obama’s fundraising campaign was crucial to his victory in 2008 (and also to his successful primary battle with Hilary Clinton). Once again, however, we don’t yet know what the relative impact of Super PAC expenditure against the candidates’ own expenditure will be. Democrats are concerned about Restore our Future, the Romneysupporting Super PAC founded by former Bush strategist and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. On the other hand, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson’s $10m donation to a Newt Gingrich-supporting Super PAC didn’t do him that much good! For Barack Obama the ground operation will be crucially important, as it was for George W. Bush in 2004.

Does money count for less in the UK?

I’m not sure whether the relationship between politics and money can ever be entirely ‘clean’: no party funding arrangement is immune from criticism. That said, I have little doubt that money counts for more in US politics than in the UK. Quite apart from the enormous sums required for a presidential run, the electoral prospects of individual congressmen are closely tied to their fund-raising capacity, something that does not apply to MPs. One can understand many of the dynamics within Congress and between Congress and the White House in terms of the influence of money on US politics.

Should UK parties be state-funded?

There is more state funding of political parties in the UK than many people realise, primarily in the form of Policy Development Grants and money to support opposition parties. The problem with state funding, apart from the fact that it would impose new costs on taxpayers at a time when politicians are not universally popular, is that it tends to reinforce the status quo by requiring some degree of electoral success to qualify for funding. If what we are concerned about is party donors being ‘rewarded’ with appointment to the legislature, a simpler solution might be to introduce an elected House of Lords.

Adam Humphreys is a Fellow of Politics at Brasenose College

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles