Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

'Normal' is killing us.

Donald Trump is out of the White House. COVID-19 is fading, at least in wealthier nations. The world, they say, is returning to “normal.” That’s the narrative that the corporate media is selling. But there’s a problem: “normal” is destroying our planet, threatening our democracies, concentrating massive wealth in a tiny elite, and leaving billions of people without access to life-saving vaccines amid a deadly pandemic. Here at Common Dreams, we refuse to accept any of this as “normal.” Common Dreams just launched our Mid-Year Campaign to make sure we have the funding we need to keep the progressive, independent journalism of Common Dreams alive. Whatever you can afford—no amount is too large or too small—please donate today to support our nonprofit, people-powered journalism and help us meet our goal.

Please select a donation method:

(Photo: Flickr/401K)

2016 Will Be a Test for Super PACs

What do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common?  Pause for requisite awful hair joke. No really. From a campaign finance perspective, they have one distinctive thing in common: they have no Super PACs propping up their candidacies.


Now these two candidates could not be further apart on most issues, but they are both eschewing the typical campaign finance playbook, which since 2010 has included liberal use of Super PACs in federal elections.


Super PACs are different than regular federal PACS in three key ways: (1) A regular PAC may only take in limited donations (otherwise known as hard money limits); (2) a regular PAC cannot accept money from corporations or unions; and (3) a regular PAC can give money directly to federal candidates’ campaign committees. 


By contrast, a Super PAC (1) is not required to follow hard money limits and (2) can accept unlimited amounts from any source including corporations and unions.  But (3), a Super PAC cannot give money directly to federal candidate. Rather, a Super PAC can only spend money independently of federal candidates. Typically, they spend money buying expensive television ads to get their message out.


Super PACs were created in 2010 by a D.C. Circuit Court decision called SpeechNow.  Ever since, presidential candidates have had campaign surrogates running Super PACs to support the candidate’s electoral chances. For example in 2012, Obama’s Super PAC, Priorities USA Action, raised $79 million and Romney’s Super PAC, Restore Our Future, raised $154 million.


So far Super PACs have outraised the candidate’s campaigns by 2 to 1. This cycle, of 1,753 Super PACs, Jeb Bush looked like the Super PAC winner in 2015 as his Right to Rise USA Super PAC raised more than $100 million.  


But back to Sanders and Trump.  They appear to be taking two different paths to avoid needing Super PACs for their campaigns. Trump appears to be floating along on an endless supply of free media including extensive coverage of his campaign rallies, press conferences and TV appearances.  With all of this free coverage, Trump doesn’t have to pay for TV time to get his views to voters the way other candidates do.  If this is purposeful, the big problem comes if the media loses interest and Trump has to pay for TV time like everyone else. (Trump has announced plans  for TV ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.)


Senator Sanders by contrast is going the grassroots route.  Last month, his campaign reported it had received more than 2 million contributions. (That doesn’t mean 2 million individuals as many supporters have given more than once). This feat surpasses where candidate Senator Obama was in 2008 before the Iowa caucuses with 1 million contributions.  And the vast majority of the contributions to the Sanders campaign are in small donations. In 2008, these small contributions were a harbinger of robust support from rank-and-file Democratic voters.  This could be true for Senator Sanders as well who has raised a total of $73 million (compared to $112 million for Secretary Clinton).


And so 2016 will be a very interesting test of America’s privately financed elections.  What will win out in the end?  If it really is Super PAC money, then that would predict a Secretary Clinton and Governor Bush match up. Or will grassroots and media attention rule the day?  In which case, we could have two outsider candidates headlining the two major political parties.  A year ago, I would have said you were crazy if you predicted Sanders versus Trump in the 2016 general election, but from the vantage point of January 2016, it actually could happen.


© 2021 Brennan Center for Justice
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is a Brennan Center Fellow and an Associate Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law. She is the author of Safeguarding Markets from Pernicious Pay to Play: A Model Explaining Why the SEC Regulates Money in Politics.

Support progressive journalism.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

'We Can't Turn Our Backs': 60+ Lawmakers Demand Biden Extend Pause on Student Loan Payments

"President Biden should cancel student debt, but in the meantime he should extend the payment pause so that borrowers aren't hurt."

Jake Johnson, staff writer ·

US and Israel Vote 'No' as 184 Nations Condemn American Blockade of Cuba

"The U.N. vote... on Cuba was a chance for President Biden to show global leadership," said CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin. "He failed miserably."

Brett Wilkins, staff writer ·

With Planet's Future at Stake, Biden Told to Be Bold With Pick for Top Energy Post

"It's time to treat climate change like the emergency it is, and stop approving new fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure, reads a letter signed by over 300 climate-focused groups.

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·

SCOTUS Solidifies Students' Free Speech Protections, Upholding Right to Say 'F**k Cheer'

"The message from this ruling is clear—free speech is for everyone, and that includes public school students."

Brett Wilkins, staff writer ·

Right-Wing SCOTUS Majority Rules Union Organizing on Farms Violates Landowners' Rights

The Supreme Court "fails to balance a farmer's property rights with a farm worker's human rights," said United Farm Workers of America.

Kenny Stancil, staff writer ·