Freedom isn't Free; SuperPACS 101

Almost 6 years after the Supreme Court stated that American corporations have first amendment rights in their controversial 2008 Federal Election Commission decision, America is still very divided on the issue of SuperPACS.  The Supreme Court ruling has thrust the American society into the harsh reality that with the right of Freedom of Speech comes the realization that if we want certain inalienable freedoms, we must also understand that we can't pick and choose who gets to practice or not practice those rights.  In a free society, especially one that is based on a capitalist system, it is all or nothing, and this includes corporations.

If you were to have this discussion with Conservatives, they would tell you that SuperPACS are constitutional, and they agree with the Supreme Court's decision; it's an obvious observation.  Let's look at the La Times Article "Outside Spending Shape 2012 Election;" number don't lie.  Conservatives SuperPACS spent over 30% more in raising funds to run ads opposing Obama.  The numbers at first glance represent an uneven playing field: $87,188,919 spent by Obama supporters opposing Romney versus $288,645,507 spent by by Romney supporters on ads against Obama.  While the numbers can be very staggering, I also wonder if they actually prove the Conservative standpoint that SuperPACS can't sway voters or are a threat to the future of America as Democrats would have the general public believe.  If SuperPacs were so powerful, and so much money was spent by Conservative SuperPACS than Liberals, then why was the 2012 election in favor of Obama? If the Liberals' fear was a true fear, then shouldn't we have seen the votes swing the other way resulting in the election of Romney? The fact is SuperPACS actually create more transparency when it comes to the issue of campaign financing.  It is so much more difficult to hide the misappropriation of large amounts of money that are involved in SuperPACS than lets say small amounts of $100/donor as allowed in the previous system for funding campaigns.  Also, the money provided by SuperPACS are not allowed to be tied to a specific campaign; they must be separate. Bottom line, the conservatives stress that the government can't pick and choose who has the right to freedom of speech, and this includes corporations; they also believe that SuperPACS actually level the playing field when it comes to elections and allows the public to be exposed to information that they may not otherwise get from a biased media.


Liberals, on the other hand, publicly stand strongly against SuperPACS, even though their supporters spent well over $150,000,000 in SuperPAC funding against the Romney Campaign in 2012. Democrats feel that SuperPACS actually violate voter rights laws, because the Supreme Court didn't detail how SuperPacs can't be directly associated to a specific campaign leaving room for interpretation that would ultimately lead to violation of the election laws.  Democrats also fear the repercussions on their actual candidates from ads ran by SuperPACS, because SuperPACS can't work side by side with individual campaigns, they can actually run ads that could actually negatively effect the candidates that they are supporting.  Campaigns have spin doctors for a reason; they are there to protect the campaign and do damage control on any negative media coverage or action done to or by the candidate.  With SuperPACs, the campaign has no control and can't run damage control on the campaign material put out by the SuperPACS.  One bad ad can have the opposite effect on a candidate by in essence destroying his/her election run.  Most importantly, I think Liberals are fearful of how much more control the financial institutions will have on the politics of this country.Now that SuperPACS have been given the same right to free speech as citizens through their money, Liberals have questions of possible corruption and kick back repercussions from allowing contractors and foreign entities to have SuperPACS of their own in our American political system.

In conclusion, I feel that this is the necessary evil that comes along with our constitution.  It is like our judicial system.  Some criminals, unfortunately, have to go free due to reasonable doubt, to protect the sanctity of the system.  One innocent person wrongly accused threatens the whole system more than one criminal being found not guilty.  The same applies for freedom of speech.  Our constitution provides the first amendment right of free speech for ALL. Our founding fathers made no exceptions for a reason; it was intended to be without exceptions.  We also must understands the importance of upholding a capitalist system and the consequences that come along with it.  Nothing is for free.  Our system is a free market system, and our citizens benefit from that every day along with our government, but we can't pick and choose when we decide to be a capitalist society and when we are not.  It's the foundation of our country and constitution. The harsh reality is we are not a socialist society like much of the world.  Because of this fact, we are afforded certain rights and benefits from the fact we are not a socialist country.  People give their very lives to be a part of a capitalist society such as ours.  I am not sure at one point, we as a country lost touch with these facts.  The harsh fact is that it's not all peaches and cream, and we can't have our cake and eat it too.  Regardless if you view corporations as "evil" or not, they are still legal entities protected just like us by our constitution; they are members of our country just as individual citizens are.  You can't deny free speech to any person or entity. Denial of the rights of even one person, is the denial of rights of all of us no matter how much we like it or not.  Welcome to "freedom isn't free 101" America.