Super Connected
Super PACs’ Devotion to Individual Candidates Undercuts
Assumption in Citizens United That
Outside Spending Would Be “Independent”
October 24, 2012 —
The Supreme
Court’s chief rationale in its decision to permit
unlimited corporate spending to influence elections in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
was its judgment that third-party expenditures do not
threaten to cause corruption because they are independent. But many of the “Super PACs,” which have arisen in the wake of Citizens
United and are allowed to accept unlimited contributions, cannot plausibly be
deemed independent. Public Citizen’s analysis shows that 60 percent of
Super PACs active in this election cycle (through Oct. 16) are devoted to supporting
or defeating a single candidate, and many of these single-candidate Super
PACs are founded, funded and/or managed by friends and political allies of the
candidate they support.
The close relationships between these Super PACs
and the candidates they seek to assist indicates that contributions to single-candidate
Super PACs are virtually the same as contributions to candidates themselves.The Super PACs' activities are making a mockery of campaign finance laws that limit the size of contributions directly to candidates.