PAC or Political Activist Committees and interest groups have long been connected to the political system and the electoral system. However, the recent creation of Super PACs has created a massive money infusion into the campaign finance system. PACs and interest groups consist of groups that create policy and pool money to finance the campaigns of different politicians including representatives, senators, and even the president. They also push policy and use their financial influence to sway representatives. The pursuit of these groups to get certain officials elected has caused problems with corruption and greed as large amounts of money are used to wield power. Common sense seems to dictate that involving money with politics leads to deep corruption and the degradation of democracy. Super PACs have created a system where it is possible for politicians to legally be bought off, as long as the current Super PAC system stays in place corruption in the U.S government will continue to grow. 

PACs and interest groups often consist of multinational corporations but also includes groups such as The National Home Builders Association and other large Unions around the Unite States. These groups and many others give large sums of money to politicians, not directly but are able to finance expensive ads and other campaign essentials independently. In the 2016 presidential election Super PACs were tied to every single candidate including Jill Stein and Gary Johnson (Tice). This means that it is nearly impossible to run for office without the support of at least one interest group or PAC. This becomes troublesome when those PACs and interest groups stop taking a back seat and begin to push for political favors. This has been aided by recent changes in the way that campaigns are financed. 

The most recent change in the way campaign funds are raised came in 2010. The United States Supreme Court overruled a law that prohibited “Corporations and Unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an electioneering communication” (Cornell University). This statement means in short that corporations could not provide funds to support any kind of political ad or to push a candidate to voters. Previously businesses and Unions could not contribute cash to their favored candidate in any value over 5,000 dollars (Voxdotcom). The 2010 Supreme Court case specifically had to do with an organization called Citizens United who wanted to finance an ad campaign for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary but was not allowed to do so because It would break the federal law concerning “Electioneering Communication” (Cornell University). The Supreme Court overruled the previous law prohibiting non-profits as well as for-profit businesses and organizations from donating general treasury funds to candidate’s campaigns. This in turn led to large scale PAC increases and the creation of the Super PAC. PACs can not contribute directly to campaigns of politicians as the law forbids this but are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on things like campaign ads, signs, commercials and other independent expenditures to support candidates (Krieg). Although this is not PACs giving candidates cash upfront, candidates need these services. National TV commercials are some of the most costly expenses a candidate has in their campaign. Prior to the overturned ruling in 2010, PACs where only able to supply 2500 dollars per year to their selected candidates which is hardly a drop in the bucket in a political campaign (Crashcourse). Because of the immense restrictions on PACs prior to 2010, most money came from individual citizens. Now that Super PACs are able to use unlimited funds businesses and unions can bond together in a PAC and influence politicians like never before which can lead to money chasing, therefore changing the way the government works and the way bills and policy is created. 

Because of the modern system of elections, money is more important than ever. This was seen in the 2016, an election that broke the record for most money spent on a presidential election. In all there was around 4 billion dollars spent in the 2016 election which doubled the money spent on the 2012 presidential race (NY Times). 1.1 billion dollars of that money came from Super PACs meaning that only roughly 2.9 billion came from individual donations (OpenSecrets.Org). This may not seem like a large percentage but Super PAC donations are increasing dramatically. In the 2012 election only 826 million was raised and only 609 million was spent by Super PACs during that election, while in 2016 1.79 billion was raised and 1.1 billion was spent by super PACs. Roughly a 491 million dollar increase on Super PAC spending from one presidential election cycle to the next. This is a concerning trend as Super PACs have only been in existence for 7 years. With nearly one third of all money donated in the most recent presidential race being from Super PACs growth of business money in politics seems to only be getting larger.  This is not only confined to presidential races as there was nearly 696 million dollars spent by interest groups and PACs on congressional races (OpenSecret.Org). With all this money being raised and spent on acquiring votes it becomes very difficult to keep politicians and the Interest groups that support them from becoming corrupt. This could mean politicians become less interested in the interest of their constituents and becoming more interested in the policies of PACs. This is detrimental to our system of government because it gives more power to the industries than it gives to the people. This is shown in the creation of policy that is increasingly more business-focused and less focused on the well-being of the individual citizens. 

The problem with Super PACS are that they have become the primary policy shapers for the government. Policy shaping is a very important job in the American political system and this responsibility falls to interest groups and PACs. The creation of policy is thought to be the job of the politician as they where elected to come up with bills and pass them through congress at the will of their constituents. The problem is by having so many contributions from PACs and interest groups this means that politicians are forced to listen to their donors. This means that PACs and interest groups are able to push their ideas for laws and changes in government and are the primary source of ideas for new bills and laws (Gable). This is somewhat troubling as it means that large corporations and interest groups are the main source of our policy creation in the United States. Money facilitates and allows this to happen. As earlier stated it is nearly impossible to win an election as a politician without the support and financial backing of an interest group. Interest groups look at donations as an investment that they can get a return. This results in an ultimatum for politicians who must chose whether they want to succumb to the policies that they may not completely agree with to win an election. As a result, policy is pushed by large business or the rich but not the majority.

Many politicians have been affected by super PACs and their ability to provide millions in order to advertise for politicians. As recently as the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton was financed by the Priorities USA Super PAC that spent over 192 million dollars on campaign ads and other investments. George Soros has donated over 9.5 million dollars to the Priorities USA. Soros has been connected to funding multiple different revolutions including ones in Syria and Georgia (Wayne). These are not the only revolutions he has funded “Soros…pours some 500 million (dollars) per year into organizations in the former Soviet block, according to his own estimates” (Miniter). This is a man who profits off of the destruction of countries and their governments. These donations are not to charitable causes but rather fund violent protests and riots leading to leadership change in favor of the candidate Soros wants in power. He is also connected to a movement in the United States called the “Purple Revolution” which is a movement started by Soros.   This initiative is to “resist all attempts by Donald Trump to push back against Clinton and ex-president Obama policies” (Wayne). He has been tied to multiple street protest including giving 3.6 million dollars to support protesters on the “Occupy Wall Street” movement (Media Research Center). Involving a man like Soros in the American political system is dangerous because of his past in undermining and destroying foreign governments. This connection can not be overlooked when one of Americas most famous politicians, Hillary Clinton, receives millions from her Super PAC from such a corrupt man.  

Another example of corruption inside of Super PACs is CV STARR & CO INC. They have donated 10 million dollars to a Super PAC supporting Jeb Bush in the 2016 election called Right to Rise USA, the largest conservative Super PAC. CV STARR is an insurance company that has been involved in kickback programs in the early 2000 that where allowed to proceed because of lack of restrictions on large insurance companies(Komisar). These programs used insurance brokers, like Marsh, that look at different insurance coverage packages and give their clients the cheapest best coverage they can find (Komisar). These brokers where paid kickbacks to send costumers to companies like A.I.G and CV STARR and even made up “Competing offers” to make the costumer think they where getting the best prices (Komisar). No matter if the scam was stopped years before Super PACs where created the fact that a company willing to engage in such business activities is the largest contributor to the biggest Conservative Super PAC tells a damning story. These are just some examples of the biggest PACs playing the money game in politics but it does not stop here. Senators and representatives get bought off for smaller amounts of money in their local elections. 

Many senators and representatives have been linked to PACs and interest groups that often change their voting tendencies. An example of one of these people is Orrin Hatch. He has received over 435 thousand dollars from PACs in the pharmaceutical field (OpenSecrets.Org). This on its own is no issue however when looking at his voting record over his career a trend becomes apparent. Orrin Hatch has voted multiple times in favor of the large Pharma business in order to keep them in his pocket. He has voted “no” on bills like individuals importing FDA approved drugs from Canada as well as voting “no” on a bill that would make it illegal for large pharmaceutical companies to impede the production of generic cheaper options of their drugs (GovTrack.org). He also voted “no” on allowing the import of FDA approved prescription drugs from other countries (GovTrack.org). These imports and restrictions would make expensive life-saving medicine significantly less costly and allow people from lower income households to purchase expensive United States made medicine. Instead Hatch has done the bidding of the U.S pharmaceutical companies and impeded the sale of cheaper drugs in the U.S whenever he could. Another example of monetary influence comes with former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett. He accepted over 1.7 million dollars in contributions from fracking Super PACs (OpenSecrets.Org). In return for the fracking industry’s hefty investment, the new governor pushed for and signed a bill on Feb 14 of 2014 that lessened regulation on gas drilling allowing fracking corporations to expand their business in Pennsylvania (GovTrack.org). It is difficult to look at PACs and interest groups however and not bring up one of the most influential and detrimental interest groups in America, the NRA. 

The NRA, which stands for the National Rifle Association, is an association aimed at lobbying politicians to resist gun restriction laws. The interest group gives funds to politicians to support their campaigns like funding signs and advertisement to get the vote. The interest group spends vast amounts of money as BBC says “The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than every other gun rights advocacy groups combined” (BBC NEWS). The group funded 100 senators and representatives with 3000 dollars or more in the 2016 cycle that list includes 99 republicans and 1 democrat (OpenSecret.Org). This money is funneled through Super PACs that then fund the campaigns of these senators and representatives with TV ads and advertisement.

 These investments in politicians show in the votes in congress. After the terroristic attack in Orlando performed with an assault rifle there were 4 separate bills proposed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  These bills were written to restrict access to assault weapons and guns in general to people with mental illness or a history of terroristic threats (GovTrack.Org). One of these bills was to reinforce background checks to cover mental illness and not allow people currently on a FBI watch list to purchase a firearm (Gonzales). This bill did not pass with a vote of 53-47 failing to reach the 60 votes needed to send it to the House of Representatives (Gonzales). Another bill that proposed background checks at gun shows where they are currently not required failed to pass by a vote of 44-56 failing by 16 votes (Gonzales). Bills like this that seem like common sense to every day citizens are almost never passed due to the influence of the NRA in congress and their fear that one gun restriction law could lead to widespread gun bans. This in turn leads the NRA opposing any gun restriction even if it would benefit the citizens of the United States. 

The NRA does not only use money however to influence politicians they also use their extensive membership to force politicians into voting pro-gun rights. The NRA grades every politician in a letter grade scale on their voting record on gun related issues they then use this to show their members who to vote for (BBC NEWS). They also encourage their members to vote based off of one issue and one issue only, gun rights. Organizations like this are extremely detrimental to the political system of the United States because it takes the power away from the citizens and puts it with a single organization that has almost an entire political party in its pocket. This being said just because a majority of PACs and interest groups are corrupt and hurt our political system does not mean that all are PACs are bad.  There are good examples of groups who use the right to pool and donate funds to empower the minority groups of America. 

There are a significant amount of interest groups and PACs that help give a voice to the minorities of the United States. These include ethic groups like The National Association for the Advancement of Colored people, the National Association of Arab-Americans, the Cuban-American National Foundation, and many others (Farrer). These groups “Contribute to Super PACs willing to assist, and act on the needs of minority groups of America” (Schnider). These groups are used to strengthen the political voice of the minorities in America so that they are not washed out of the political system entirely. This was what PACs and interest groups where made to do, give the people a way to influence politics through donations to groups that align with their views.

 Unfortunately, the ruling in 2010 allowed not only individuals but also corporations to express these rights. This has led to widespread money influenced votes that are ruining the political system in the United States. The ability to “buy off” politicians legally is against the core principles of the United States. This means that the good done by the minority interest groups and PACs is erased by the greed of corporations and wealthy PACs. 

Super PACs and Interest groups are slowly eroding the political system of the United States. The inclusion of unregulated outside funds in the political system creates legal and widespread corruption. Super PACs and interest groups have done more to create an oligarchy in America in the past 7 years than has been done in the past 200 year existence of the United States. Money has never been more powerful in the political system and that is due mainly Super PACs and large interest groups. If the government doesn’t reverse the court ruling from 2010 or place regulations on the spending by corporations and PACs the problem will only get bigger and bigger until we are faced with a unsolvable problem of institutionalized greed by politicians. 
