Monday, September 24, 2012
Super PAC Influence Falls Short
Given our recent class discussion about Super PACs, how (if at all) does this recent news affect your opinions of their functionality? Since April, more than $250 million dollars have been poured into various national political contests. How equitable and/or democratic is this? Given that some nations have caps and limits on campaign spending, is this an idea the US should consider? (Link)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its actually kind of refreshing to hear that these super PAC's aren't having the major impact on the race that critics had originally predicted, because yes, these large amounts of funding are getting ridiculous. Our so called democracy is turning into a pissing contest between candidates. The strategy is turning into whoever can raise the most cash, put out the most advertisements, and successfully tear down their opponent wins. It would be nice to see candidates focus on their true beliefs, as opposed to just spending money on campaigns that will get enough people to vote for them, regardless of their true feelings. I feel like we could equate this to the world of professional sports. Most leagues uphold a salary cap on each team so they can maintain some sort of equity throughout the league. It makes you wonder if there is a better suited candidate out there for the role of president, but simply does not have the spending power to keep up with the Romney's of the world.
ReplyDeletePrior to reading this article I thought that the spending of these super PAC's was quite ridiculous and in many cases over the top. I was very surprised to hear that many people believe that this "pouring" of money has not had as great of an impact on voters opinions towards candidates. However, I find it hard to believe that with $250 million, the opinions of general American cannot be swayed one way or another. With that being said, I think that this spending does take away from our Democracy and the election process as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI'm honestly not very surprised to see that super PAC spending is not seeming to have much of an impact. The idea that political campaigns are won and lost by advertising budgets has been suspect for me since I first read "Freakonomics" by Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner, and their discussion of the effect that campaign spending has on political outcomes. Though the winner is usually the person who collects more money during the campaign, they usually collect more money because more people want them to win. In Freakonomics, the Stephens examine the outcomes of successive congressional races in which candidates first run with primarily public monies and then with their own funds. They conclude that politicians who buy their own airtime are wasting their money. Perhaps voters cannot be bought by campaign ads, now if only we could say the same of candidates/politicians.
ReplyDeleteOur politicians should wear uniforms like NASCAR Drivers...so we could identify their corporate sponsors
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that this ineffectual result occurred, and I guess it says something about my faith in American voters, but this is reassuring to find that the public, has over the years of seeing venomous adds created by third parties learned to at least partially pass them off for what they are, dramatic presentations with little to no presentation of truth, or truth in the context in which that context was first stated.
ReplyDelete