PACs and Super PACs 5.1

Question 1

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010)

Answer 1

• Granted corporate and labour organisations the same rights of political free speech as individuals.
• Allowed unlimited independent political expenditure by these groups.

Question 2

Speechnow.org vs Federal Election Commission (2010)

Answer 2

• Led to the creation of independent expenditure-only committees (IEOCs), also known as Super PACs.
• Super PACs can solicit and accept unlimited contributions but cannot make direct contributions to federal candidates or parties.

Question 3

Impact on McCain–Feingold Act

Answer 3

• The court cases severely limited the impact of the McCain–Feingold Act.
• Total campaign expenditure rose sharply, much of it channelled through Super PACs.

Question 4

Political Action Committee (PAC)

Answer 4

Raises limited amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates.

Question 5

Super PAC

Answer 5

Makes independent expenditures but does not make direct contributions to candidates.

Question 6

Citizens United Case Details

Answer 6

• air a film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008.
• The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favour of Citizens United, finding the McCain–Feingold Act violated the First Amendment.

Question 7

McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014)

Answer 7

• Concerned the total amount an individual could donate to candidates and political parties.
• The Supreme Court favoured First Amendment rights over legal caps on political donations.
• Individuals can now donate the capped amount to as many candidates as they like.