Sanders' Shifting Stance on Super PACs

[portlander23]

38. Leadership PAC vs Super PAC

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Progressive Voters of America is a leadership PAC that is affiliated with Mr. Sanders. This is not a Super PAC. Leadership PACs predate the existence of Super PACs and serve a different purpose. Leadership PACs cannot spend money for their affiliated politician's campaign; it can only be used to fund other candidates. This PAC was put together to cobble together funding for progressive candidates running in the South. By definition this group cannot spend money in support of Mr. Sanders short of paying for travel expenses. It can't run issue ads to influence elections. Money contributed to a politician's leadership PAC can be given to other candidates' campaigns.

Super PACs (a.k.a. independent expenditure-only committees) were created as a result of the Speechnow.org v. FEC and the Citizens United v. FEC cases in 2010. Super PACs are distinct from Leadership PACs in that they are prohibited from giving to any political campaign, but rather they can spend unlimited sums in advocacy for or against a candidate independently from any campaign.

Mr. Sanders has been consistent that he will not accept the assistance of any super PAC, recognizing that this puts him at a grave disadvantage in spending, but free from the influence of big-money interests.

If you want to argue that leadership PACs or any type of political action committees are sketchy, I'll grant you that, but conflating a leadership PAC with a Super PAC that can spend indiscriminately is either ignorant or dishonest.

In a recent interview with Vox, Mr. Sanders has stated support for publicly funded elections:

The first thing that I want to do is overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which is a total disaster. Free speech does not equal the ability of people to buy elections, and what I've said is if elected president of the United States, any Supreme Court nomination I make will make it very clear that he or she is going to vote to overturn Citizens United.

Second of all, I think what you want to do is at least make sure that candidates who are running will have as much money as their opponents, who may have unlimited sums of money. Thirdly, I think there are various ways — and we're going to come out with a position on it — various ways that you can approach the issue. One way which I find intriguing is that you basically provide $100 for every citizen in the United States of America, and you say to that person, "Here's your hundred bucks, you can make a contribution, you can get a $100 tax credit if you spend $100 on any candidate you want." I think that would democratize very significantly the political process in America and take us a long way away from these Super PACS controlled by billionaires who are now buying elections.

Mr. Sanders has also sponsored a bill to create constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and criminalize super PACs:

SECTION 1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons as citizens of the
United States, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons in accordance with this Article.

SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States
to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition of content neutral limitations on all such contributions and expenditures.

SECTION 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the 2 power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.

A further explanation of this language can be found here.

While I prefer the Move to Amend language, there is no doubt that Mr. Sanders has been very consistent in his views regarding campaign finance and the corrupting influence of billionaires and large-money interests in the political process.

Again, if the goal of your post was to chasten supporters of Mr. Sanders or to paint him as a hypocrite, I don’t think it’s effective.

I don't know that she's supported any specific language, but Mrs. Clinton has recently backed an amendment to overturn Citizen's United. She's also echoed Mr. Sanders' assertion that any justice she would nominate to the Supreme Court would have to share the opinion that Citizen's United was a bad decision. I commend her for this, and it is my hope these statements reflect her convictions and not mere election season promises. I don't believe I've seen a source quoting support for publicly funded elections from Mrs. Clinton.

There is a key difference here in that Mrs. Clinton is not eschewing Super PACs nor large donations from powerful interests in her run for the White House.

Frankly, Mrs. Clinton may be right- it might not be possible for anyone to be elected president without accepting the corruption in the current campaign finance system. It may even be the case that her intention is to accept money from wealthy donors and dismantle the current system in spite of it. My assumption is that Mr. Sanders is more likely to live up to that role. That said, like Mr. Sanders, I will not condemn Mrs. Clinton for the existence of corruption that already exists in the system, but I can't pretend that accepting the support of super PACs and large donations from big-money interests does not give me pause. Money in politics is corruptive.

Mr. Sanders has made his position clear. He's running the campaign without Super PACs and without large-money donations. I hope it turns out that it is possible for a candidate to win the White House without those sources of funding.