What is a Super PAC?

In the U.S. elections, financial contributions are not limited to what ordinary people and NGOs (non-governmental organizations, labor unions, and local associations) directly donate to campaign committees. In this country, the increase in financial contributions from wealthy capitalists to electoral campaigns led to the enactment of stringent laws in the 1970s that limited the ceiling on contributions from individuals and organizations. However, in 2010, a far-right conservative group called 'Citizens United,' which sought to air expensive ads against Hillary Clinton, protested these restrictions and claimed they violated freedom of speech. The majority of the Supreme Court judges at that time, who were conservative, ruled five to four in favor of 'Citizens United.' The conservative judges argued that the government could not limit the freedom of speech of private organizations and companies by restricting their spending on advertising. However, the ruling also emphasized that these unlimited contributions should not reach campaign committees, and previous limits should still apply to direct contributions to campaign committees. In other words, an American citizen can spend as much as they want to promote a candidate or oppose their rivals indirectly and without any connection to the candidate's campaign. But if they want to contribute directly to a campaign, they must adhere to the limits. Contributions are made through the formation of a private organization called a Political Action Committee (PAC). Currently, there are two types of these committees: those associated with candidate campaigns that raise limited funds for the campaign and independent committees that raise unlimited funds. This second type is known as a 'Super PAC,' which, unlike a regular PAC, is not allowed to give the money it raises to campaign committees and must spend it independently. This is the law that candidates like Bernie Sanders vehemently oppose, believing that unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals to candidates are undemocratic and corrupting. In the recent elections, Super PACs have independently managed to raise significant amounts of money for various candidates. According to April 2016 statistics, Hillary Clinton raised $64 million, Ted Cruz $52 million, and John Kasich $10 million through Super PACs. Although they have no control over how this money is spent, these amounts are still spent in their favor. In contrast, Donald Trump raised $2 million and Bernie Sanders only $600,000 through Super PACs, indicating both of their opposition to this form of financial support for political advertising. One reason for the significant financial backing of Super PACs for Hillary Clinton is Bernie Sanders' rejection of this type of financial support. In fact, all groups traditionally seeking the presidency of a Democrat, such as many powerful unions and groups supporting workers, teachers, nurses, alongside other Democratic financial supporters like liberal associations, civil liberties and free speech advocacy groups, human rights groups, minority rights advocacy groups (such as LGBTQ activists and similar groups), and many similar organizations, all direct their unlimited financial contributions to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. For example, only the worker advocacy groups in the U.S. contributed $10 million of the $64 million raised by Super PACs supporting Clinton. However, Trump's victory showed that no matter how strong Super PACs are, they still cannot determine the outcome of elections. A politician like Jeb Bush, despite the support of the most powerful Super PACs in America with $118 million, was quickly eliminated from the race. Similarly, in the opposing party, Bernie Sanders, despite having more money than his rival, ultimately received fewer votes.