The current manifestation of campaign finance regulation is the direct result of the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).  Overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and declaring unconstitutional the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002, a.k.a. the McCain–Feingold Act), the Court held that “Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.”  The Court based its decision on two points: one, “all speakers… use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech”; two, “differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” i.e. the press and corporations at large must be regulated in the same manner as they both compete in the marketplace.  The Court also decided that “independent expenditures… made by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.  That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt.  And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lost faith in this democracy.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

​

Citizens’ impact was momentous and far-reaching.  By July 2010, the new corporate expenditures entity known as the Super Political Action Committee (Super PAC) had been created.   The Center for Responsive Politics states that Super PACs “may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.”  While it is illegal for an individual to donate more than $2,500 to a candidate per year, no such limitation applies to Super PAC donations.  The difference is that these Super PACs are “independent” groups which support candidates – they don’t work directly for them.  These entities are barred from directly coordinating with political candidates, but this regulation is ambiguous and is often bent if not broken.  Super PACs are almost exclusively staffed by former aids or campaign advisers to the candidate which the PAC supports.  Super PACs and candidates even share consultants – “the embodiment of coordination” (McIntire).

​

The Super PAC has transformed the electoral campaign.  They played a large role in the 2010 midterm elections; Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, one such Super PAC, spent million over $21,000,000 in support of GOP candidates and was instrumental in gaining a Republican majority in the House (Super PACs).  This is eclipsed, however, by the importance of Super PACs in the 2012 presidential election; therefore this examination of Super PACs will deal with their role in the current election cycle.

​

The general election hasn’t even begun, yet the sums of money already amassed and spent by Super PACs is astounding.  So far, over $130,000,000 has been raised and over $63,000,000 spent by Super PACs.  The overwhelming majority of these expenditures have been made on behalf of conservative groups (see chart), however this statistic is undoubtedly due to the hard-fought GOP primary.  Specifically, Restore Our Future, a Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney, had raised over $43,000,000 through January 2012; Winning Our Future, supporting Newt Gingrich, had raised over $24,000,000 in the same period (Who’s Financing the ‘Super).  The overwhelming majority of donations exceed the legal maximum of $2,500 for an individual to donate to a candidate.  In fact, 97% of donations to Restore Our Future were greater than $25,000, with hundreds of individuals donating over $100,000; even more, 99%, of Winning Our Future’s received donations were greater than $25,000 (Who’s Financing the ‘Super).