The 2016 presidential campaigns are now in session. We all have an idea of who we want to run this country, but did you ever think about how they get to that point? It is by a lot of hard work, determination, and usually money. These candidates spend a lot of time writing out speeches, and practicing answering any question that could be thrown at them, but in the big view of things, they just want money for their campaigns and to win our votes. The big question is: How should these campaigns be funded?.
One view point being looked at is that campaigns should be allowed to accept contributions of any amount, and from anyone. Any person should be able to donate freely and contribute any amount of money they want. They work for the money right? Why not let them spend it as they please- it is called freedom of speech. The people who support this view are mostly the very wealthy, or "super PACS". As defined on opensecrets.org, a super PAC is:.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, 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. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis ("PACS").
This states that anyone, from big businesses to just wealthy individuals, is able to give all the money they want, as long as the candidate does not know who they are receiving money from. Some individuals believe that super PACS give so much money so they can have control over certain policies and ideas of one's campaign. These super PACS are only interested in controlling governmental aspects, and candidates will let them in order to get their money.