PACs and Super PACs

Vast sums of money will flow in the 2012 election through political action committees (PACs) and super PACs. The Christian Science Monitor (2/7/2012) estimates that each of the two major parties will raise and spend a half a billion dollars during the 2012 election year in super PACs, in addition to the direct campaign contribution which are limited to $2500 per donor. A 2010 Supreme Court decision makes it possible to bypass the $2500 per person donation limit in a Super PAC which has no limit but prohibits the Super PAC from coordinating directly with the candidate. WHAT?

The logic of this decision is hard to understand, but I guess it was based on Constitution-granted freedom of speech. The decision further granted the same rights of free speech to organizations and corporations as to individuals.

One might ask what these donors will get for their bucks. Is it the satisfaction of making a noble sacrifice to assure we have the best possible government? Or do the donors expect to buy something to their advantage with that money? I leave that question as rhetorical.

But I can predict this: This money will bring us a cacophony of negative campaign ads which say little about the specifics of either party’s agenda. Why negative? It appears that most voters are quasi committed to party or candidate. Wresting their loyalty away is more readily done with negative rather than positive cajoling.

When the election is over and the winners decided, the PAC money will be spent or mostly so. The temporary jobs will be over and most of the media’s balance sheets will look better than the previous years’. The winning candidates will deny that PAC money was responsible for their win. Many of the losers will bemoan the larger funds that their opponents spent. And it may become known that social media—Facebook, Twitter, etc—will have been a more important factor in the election results than the conventional media. (Think Arab spring).

My thoughts to Sheldon Adelson, Charles and David Koch, George Soros and the dozens of secret big-bucks donors, isn’t there a better way to spend that money? Maybe it could be invested in some factory capital improvements to permit jobs to be brought back to the U.S. Or maybe it could provide venture capital for entrepreneurs with ideas for new products or services. Investment in the U.S. economy can bring profits to the investor and long term benefits to us all.