By Perrin Clark `15, Staff Writer

The American political media has transformed. A new weapon has emerged in the political arsenal: the Super-PAC, a special interest committee that may spend thousands of dollars in electoral advertising.  Super-PACs take up names that are pleasant on the ears, such as FreedomWorks for America, Americans for Prosperity, and Priorities USA. One thing is for sure: these groups have mastered the art of political linguistics. Unfortunately, the increasing prevalence of super-PACs poses obstacles for American democracy as we know it. Super-PACs allow the rich to have a greater say in political affairs. This distortion produces bitterness and acrimony in the American political atmosphere. To say the least, reform is necessary to ensure a more functional and equitable political environment.

What stake do super-PACs have in our political system? In the 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that independent groups could spend unlimited sums of money in federal elections as long as they did not coordinate with any candidate. These groups have seized the opportunity: according to a recent Washington Post article, super-PACs have spent around $220,000,000 in this election cycle thus far. That is a tremendous sum. In addition, super-PACs are dominated by major donors. The New York Times reported that 71% of super-PAC donations are $500,000 or more. In other words, a relatively small group of people is hijacking the media. They are blanketing the airwaves for what is, essentially, a risky investment in a desired political outcome.

You cannot just spend money willy-nilly, of course. You have to spend money well. Super-PACs are efficient because they combine overwhelming fiscal clout with cunning political strategy. They do this by emphasizing negative campaigning. In the first two weeks of August 2012, the super-PAC Americans for Prosperity spent $23,000,000 in advertisements attacking President Obama. In the same period, Restore our Future spent $10,400,000 on Obama attack ads. These groups spend the money because it works: negative campaigning gets results. Why? The public tends to vote on pathos, or emotions, rather than the ideas at hand. The advertisements developed by super-PACs tap into reservoirs of fear and anger. Rather than sharing positive information about candidates they support, super-PACs resort to bashing the opposition. How can Americans select their political leaders if they are being brainwashed by super-PACs?

By and large, most Americans are uneasy with the “new shadow politics.” According to Politico, 70% of Americans believe super-PACs “diminish our democratic values.” The same source reveals that 75% of Americans believe “a cap on super-PAC spending is necessary to decrease political corruption.”

Super-PACs may appear to have some merit, but the case in favor falls apart under close inspection. Super-PAC supporters will assert that political advertising is free speech. Ted Steffens `14 said:  “ All super-PACs do is collect resources in order to express a common political view or ideal. It is a core tenant of the first amendment that everyone has the right to express their political views regardless of how much they spend doing it. Secondly, I don’t see how presenting the voting public with more information about a candidate is harmful.” However, Mr. Hawk, a teacher in the humanities department, makes a valid counter argument. He said “Super-PACs equate money with speech. However, super-PACs have massive budgets. So super-PACs have a more powerful voice in the political arena than most private citizens.” That is exactly right. In essence, super-PACs award the richest with the loudest voices. Conversely, they deny basic political rights to society’s less-privileged. This is a direct contravention of the principles behind the First Amendment.

Super-PACs wield enormous power. As super-PACs have relied on negative campaigning, they have polarized American society, dividing it into the haves and the have-nots. Most critically, super-PACs place power in the hands of the few, rather than in the hands of the many.  John Adams once wrote, “Once liberty is lost, it is lost forever.” Therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure liberty does not get erased by the changing political landscape.