>> ALEX: Hello Americans, or non-Americans, or psudo-Americans! I’m here, let’s get
technical. Ever wonder what all the fuss about Super PACs is even about? What are PACs and
SuperPACs anyways? Well, today you’ll find out.
Let’s start with some catchup! In my previous episode, which if you haven’t watched, click
here to (wink, wink; click, click), I discussed how corporations are not allowed to directly
donate to campaigns, and how private citizens can only donate up to $2700 to campaign per
each election cycle. Now, there are 3 different election cycles: the primary elections, the
runoff elections, and the general elections. That means that you can legally directly donate
$8100 to a candidate per run, assuming they win the nomination. The reason there is a
cap in the first place is to prevent monopolizing elections. Assuming I’m an uber rich billionaire,
which, you know, I obviously am, without this law, I could have the ability to give millions
upon millions of dollars to one candidate, giving them a huge competitive advantage.
Cool, so those are the laws in place! And whenever laws are in place, you know what
we got to do: find loopholes.
Finding Loopholes: the staple of American politics since, like, ever.
This is where PACs and SuperPACs come in! First, let’s look at a PAC. Once we define
that use that knowledge to define SuperPACs.
PAC is not a word, it’s an acronym, and it stands for Political Action Committee.
Think of PACs kinda like a middle man between someone who wants to donate money and a candidate.
Who is “someone,” well, someone is labour unions, companies, private citizens, nonprofits
and special interests groups. So, someone could be anyone. PACs have been in place 1944,
and they have a bit of rules. First off, on the contributions side, no corporations can
donate to PACs, and an individual can’t don’t more than $5,000 to a PAC. Then, on
the donations side, a PAC can only donate $5,000 to a candidate and $15,000 to a political
party.
Then came Citizen United. This is another one of those things you probably heard candidates
throw around, but what really is Citizens United? Well, since Citizens United is a really
complicated Supreme Court case, it’s kinda hard to explain, so, since I’m in middle
school and all that jazz, I will call over, uh, gossip clone, can you come over here?
>> GOSSIP CLONE: Yea, hi.
>> ALEX: Gossip Clone here will explain Citizen United like a soap opera.
>> GOSSIP CLONE: Let’s go.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: Man, this new Michael Moore Movie is dope!
[Ding From a Bell Sound Effect x2]
>> CITIZEN UNITED: Wait a sec, this movie is illegal! It did an illegal! Fahrenheit
911 breaks the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or the BCRA. IT BREAKS THE BCRA!!!
>> BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT: Yo, I think I heard someone say my name
[Ding From a Bell Sound Effect x3]
>> BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT: I proclaim that all ads for or against a presidential
hopeful paid by a corporation or nonprofit within 30 days of a primary/caucus OR 60 days
of a general election is illegal.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: Fahrenheit 911 breaks this law because the movie and the ads for this
movie is a political advertisement. That’s right: advertisement. It’s trying to send
a political message and influence the presidential race. Let’s go have a mature conversation
with the FEC!
>> CITIZEN UNITED & BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT: [Crying and Complaining Sound Effect]
>> FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Oh, god.
[Ding From a Bell Sound Effect x2]
>> FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Ok, ya know what, this official complaint is crazy. Michael
Moore’s movie isn’t a political ad, it’s a movie, it’s a work of art. It’s not
trying to influence any voting: it’s just a documentary.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: du du du, du du du du du. Wait, wait, wait, wait, just wait, wait a
second. If Moore and his giant corporations can make a movie like that and
not get sued, I can totally do that too. But, wait, couldn’t someone go to the FEC and
say this is illegal? Ayyy, no one will do that.
>> NARRATOR: I went to the FEC and complained it was illegal. They made Hillary: the Movie
in 2007, and it was an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, not entertainment. They did this to
influence the outcome of an election. This was a very timely movie because Hillary was
running against Obama for the democratic nomination, and this made-for-TV was meant to bring her
down.
>> FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Man, you’re right dude. This is illegal! Citizens united
isn’t allowed to show this movie or run commercials for it.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: Oh, no you didn’t just do that.
>> FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Yes we did.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: No you didn’t
>> FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Yes we did.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: APPEAL!
>> NARRATOR 2: Then they appealed so hard the case went up to the supreme court
>> SPONGEBOB NARRATOR: Many months later…
[Gavel Sound Effect]
>> SUPREME COURT GUY: The vote was, in favor of, drumroll please,
>> AUDIENCE: [Non-Enthusiastic Drumroll Sound Effect]
>> SUPREME COURT GUY: Ohhhh… Citizens United! We disagree with the FEC and think that this
movie and its ads are a work of art and not meant to influence the political system.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: Daaaaaw, I want to take it one step further.
[Ding From a Bell Sound Effect x2]
>> CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: Why don’t we hear this case again, but, uh, you, Kitizens
Wunighted
>> CITIZEN UNITED: Citizens United
>> CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: Yea, that’s what I said. We want to hear this case again,
but instead of arguing for just you and this one movie, we want you to talk about corporations
and unions funding politics in general, and then we’ll have another voting thingie after
that.
>> CITIZEN UNITED: Uhh, ok. So I reargued the case and the Supreme Court decided...
>> SUPREME COURT GUY: The vote, 5 to 4, decided, drumroll please.
>> AUDIENCE: [Non-Enthusiastic Drumroll Sound Effect]
>> SUPREME COURT GUY: Really? Ok. Whatever. Uh, yea, so we have decided that campaign
contributions, whether that be from individuals or corporations, are considered free speech
protected by the first amendment.
>> GUY IN THE AUDIENCE: NOOOOOkaaaay.
>> SUPREME COURT GUY: Woah, woah, woah, you guys aren’t angry yet? Dude, we’re making
corporations more like people. Doesn’t that freak you out??
>> GUY IN THE AUDIENCE: Nope.
>> SUPREME COURT GUY: Ahh, whatever. Oh, yea, we’re making SuperPACs.
>> AUDIENCE: [Gets Really Mad]
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love it when babies climb on me.
>> GOSSIP CLONE: So why is everyone so mad? Well, this is where Alex comes back in.
Alex!
>> ALEX: Huh, wha?
>> GOSSIP CLONE: Dude, you are back on right now.
>> ALEX: Oh, yea, ok. SuperPACs. Actually, before we start, I want to clear up one misconception
that you had in your little story there. Major misconception alert... Is there a misconception emoji?
Super PACs actually didn’t come out of the Citizens United vs. the FEC case. The only
thing that that case official did was proclaim that a) campaign contributions are free speech
and b) corporations should be humanized and get rights that people get. Super PACs were
actually created in the July 2010 Federal Court Case SpeechNow.org vs. The FEC
Ok, now that we’ve got that cleared up, what are SuperPACs and how are they different
from regular PACs?
Well, SuperPACs take this idea of “political contributions are free speech” and to a
whole other level. Anyone, corporations, individuals, unions, anyone can donate any amount of money
to a Super PAC, which will then give that money to a candidate. The only rule: Super
PACs must act independently of a candidate.
Super PACs are literally the ultimate middle man. The top 10 SuperPACs have spent over
$225,000,000 supporting or opposing candidates, and that’s just all the money they spent;
they raised a lot more. With Super PACs, Special Interests Groups can donate an unlimited amount
of money to any political candidate, practically nullifying existing laws in place so that
corporations or individuals don’t monopolize elections.
Well, that was a nice note to end on. So, Technicality My Little Pony, do you want to
take us out?
>> TECHNICALITY MY LITTLE PONY: Sure!
>> ALEX: Ok.
>> TECHNICALITY MY LITTLE PONY: Thank you oh so very much for watching, DFTBA, and subscribe
(seriously, please subscribe).
>> ALEX: Til next time, explore on. *Singing* Technicality My Little Pony Away!
>> JIMMY FALLON: It’s a Super PAC!
>> Tariq "Black Thought" Trotter: Super PAC!
>> JIMMY FALLON: They’re Super PACing!
>> BRIAN WILLIAMS: Yaaaooooo!
>> ALEX: There’s actually something I didn’t get to cover in this episode, and that is
the Stephen Colbert Super PAC. So, if you’re interested in this, it's kinda a fun little sidenote, so if you want to explore more,
just Google “Stephen Colbert Super PAC” to learn more!
Ok, now we’re finally done! Wait, wait, wait, where were you last week TMLP? Te-Mu-Lp?
Te-Mul-Peh? You weren’t here last week to end our show.
>> TECHNICALITY MY LITTLE PONY: I was at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser with George Clooney.
>> ALEX: Wait, you mean the one in San Francisco? The one where you had to pay over $353,000
to sit with George Clooney? Dude, that’s 4 times the average income of a San Franciscan.
>> TECHNICALITY MY LITTLE PONY: Well, yea, I like George Clooney.
>> ALEX: Dude, that event brought in over 15 million dollars for the Clinton Campaign.
And all of that money goes to something called the Hillary Victory Fund. You know what, while
we’re on the subject of loopholes in campaign finance, let’s talk about the Hillary Victory
Fund and Joint Funding Committees.