Every four years, in a kind of grandiose circus, the United States elects a new president. Every four years the amount of money spent on said circus exceeds the last. The 2016 presidential election is no exception with an estimated $5 billion USD to be spent. That's more than double that of the 2012 election.
Prior to a 2010 high court decision known as Citizens United, all political campaign donations were traceable and had to come from identifiable human beings. There were legal restrictions on the amount of money one individual could donate, and donations in excess of $200 USD were required to be publicly disclosed.
The law also forbade corporations and unions from being able to donate, or have any direct involvement with a political campaign beyond organising individual contributions. For example, corporations and unions were permitted to form political actions committees (PACs) however they could only solicit money from those directly connected with their respective corporation or union. Thus if Google formed a PAC, prior to Citizens United they could only raise funds from their employees, executives or stakeholders - however they would be forbidden from tapping into their own coffers and spending the corporation's own money on election campaigning.
The Citizens United case overturned the ban on corporations spending their own money on 'independent expenditures'. The court ruled that placing restrictions on the amount of money corporations were permitted to spend was in essence restricting their right to freedom of speech, a right that corporations were entitled to as much as individuals. Thus PACs are now permitted to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections. This money is primarily spent in advertising either to promote or denounce a particular candidate.
Jonathan Erst, Reuters
The Citizens United ruling also set the precedent for several lower court cases, which further slackened campaign finance restrictions. One such case was SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which stated that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are a violation of 1st amendment rights. This was the birth of the super PACs, groups which are able to accept unlimited amounts of money from corporations, billionaires and various wealthy patrons.
Super PACs have essentially become a weapon, a means of consolidating money and then deploying it within a political context.
However the term 'independent expenditure' means that PACs are not permitted to have any direct coordination with campaigns or candidates. However both the Clinton and Trump campaigns are in open violation of this policy.
The Federal Election Committee (FEC) is the regulatory body designed to ensure that candidates comply with federal election law. It has however proved to be completely inept at making any kind of decisions, yet alone taking action against respective candidates for their illegal activity. This is because of a law, which prohibits more than three members from being part of the same political party. The FEC’s six members are made up of equal parts republican and democrat, subsequently nearly all decision become deadlocked at 3-3, rendering the FEC as a body in a perpetual stalemate.
Last week the campaign legal centre filed complaints with the FEC, accusing both presidential candidates of violating federal election law by directly coordinating with their super PACs.
Larry Nobel, general counsel for The Campaign Legal Centre, stated that,
"These are not minor or technical violations. According to the Supreme Court, unlimited campaign spending by wealthy interests can corrupt candidates unless totally independent of a campaign. Giving a large contribution to a super PAC that is coordinating with the Trump or Clinton campaign is the same as giving it directly to the campaign and buys the same direct access and influence over that candidate.”
The pro Clinton PAC, Correct The Record, has admitted to coordinating with Clinton's campaign but argues that they are free to do so as long as they do not run paid advertising. Indeed, they assert that as long as they function online posting material on blogs and social media sites, such content is exempt from regulation. But as The Campaign Legal Centre argues,
"Correct the Record is not a volunteer blogging operation. It is a $6 million professional opposition research, surrogate training and messaging operation staffed with paid professional employees and operating out of a high-rise Washington, D.C. office building.”
Trump has also been accused of being in cahoots with his super PACs. Both Rebuilding America Now and Make America Number 1 are either run by, or employ former senior staffers of the Trump campaign - a fragrant violation of FEC rules.
Thanks to the Citizens United ruling super PACs have the power to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in support of a candidate, and far from being 'independent' they are controlled by associates of those candidates. Earlier this year the Huffington Post wrote that,
"Citizens United has returned to American politics the same kinds of 'unlimited contributions' that caused the Watergate corruption scandals."
With the return of unlimited secret money and a regulatory body that seems to be completely impotent at enforcing any kind of policy, the current state of affairs seems unlikely to change.
