Super PAC: Free speech, the history of campaign finance and the 2012 presidential election

Abstract

In his dissent in Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) Justice David Souter declared there to be a “century-long tradition of legislation and judicial precedent” designed to restrict corporate and union influence in elections.1 Three years later Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United (2010), stated that “[t]he Court today rejects [this] century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty.”2 These rulings freed corporations and unions to contribute unlimited funds to outside groups dedicated to influencing federal elections via advertisements. As a result, the 2012 U.S. presidential election saw over one billion dollars spent on campaign advertisements from outside groups.3 This thesis examines one of the largest spenders, the Super Political Action Committee (Super PAC), and other outside money groups, from a number of perspectives. It begins by examining the long-standing freedom of speech debate as it has influenced campaign finance and the legislative and judicial antecedents of Super PACs in the battle over campaign finance reform. Next it reveals some of the consequences of this complex history, embodied by Super PACs and two other outside groups which flooded the 2012 election with advertisements. This thesis then concludes with two case studies. First, it offers a quantitative and qualitative media content analysis of presidentially focused advertisements produced by two of the largest Super PAC spenders in the 2012 election, American Crossroads (conservative) and Priorities USA Action (liberal). This is followed by an empirical case study, to measure the statistical impact of these advertisements on voters in Denver, Colorado using a primary data set. Results showed that Priorities advertisements had a significant positive effect on President Obama’s polling performance. They also marginally helped Governor Romney, demonstrating the so-called ‘boomerang’ effect where negative advertising can have an unintended backlash. Pro-Obama advertisements reduced the number of undecided voters, while pro-Romney advertisements may have increased their number. The contrasts between the two campaigns revealed from the media analysis may help explain their differential effects, but the potential of Super PACs to influence elections was confirmed. 1 Supreme Court of the United States, “Federal Election Commission V. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.” (551 U.S., June 25, 2007), accessed February 25, 2013, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1581.pdf. Page 19 (Souter Dissent). 2 Supreme Court of the United States, “Citizens United v Federal Election Commission” (558 U.S. 310, January 21, 2010), accessed July 18, 2012, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf. Page 3 (Stevens Dissent) 3 The Center for Responsive Politics, “Outside Spending,” 2013, accessed July 10, 2013, http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/fes_summ.php.