Independent expenditures may convolute the true messages of candidates either purposely or not. For instance, the illusory truth effect finds that individual’s rate repeated statements as probably truer than a new statement (Begg, Anas & Farinacci, 1992). In other words, repeated statements are more likely to be believed than statements that are new to an individual. The implications of the illusory truth effect in politics are that those who have more money to advertise their views will likely have a larger impact regardless if these advertisements are based on facts. Super PACs can be expected to understand, distorting the truth, and using it to their advantage. Also, It seems backward to let Super PACs to speak on the behalf of candidates
…show more content…
In politics, dark money has become an issue due to the emergence of Super PACs. Specifically, dark money is originating from 501(c) groups that are not obligated to “disclose the names of its donors to either the FEC or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) because such groups are supposedly organized as tax-exempt non-profits that promote social welfare and benefit the community by advocating issues during political campaigns” (Hardy, Gottfriend, Winneg, & Jamieson, 2014). On many levels, this is disconcerting and raises many questions about the motivation of those using these tactics to donate to Super PACs. The American people deserve to know what entities are influencing the electorate and if they are possibly being manipulated. If the money is hidden well enough there is the possibility of foreign donations that are explicitly banned under general disclosure rules. This may be an alarmist view, but one that is possible nonetheless. Furthermore, even though the developments of Citizens Now and SpeechNow.org were relatively new, 501(c) groups jumped at the opportunity to hide their money. For instance, “In the 2010 election cycle 42% of all outside spending was made by 501c organizations. This is particularly impressive considering that 501c groups are limited with respect to their permissible political activity; it cannot be their primary purpose” (Spencer & Wood, 2014). These 501 (c) groups are able to participate in politics as long as they do not make politics their sole focus. In practical terms, 501(c) groups must spend less than 50% of their money on political activities, yet, many 501(c) groups are doing just that. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics found that between 2008 and 2013, 24 politically active nonprofits spent more than 50% of their money to influence elections (Tucker, 2015). The study attributes this to the fact 501(c) groups file their tax returns
In politics, dark money has become an issue due to the emergence of Super PACs. Specifically, dark money is originating from 501(c) groups that are not obligated to “disclose the names of its donors to either the FEC or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) because such groups are supposedly organized as tax-exempt non-profits that promote social welfare and benefit the community by advocating issues during political campaigns” (Hardy, Gottfriend, Winneg, & Jamieson, 2014). On many levels, this is disconcerting and raises many questions about the motivation of those using these tactics to donate to Super PACs. The American people deserve to know what entities are influencing the electorate and if they are possibly being manipulated. If the money is hidden well enough there is the possibility of foreign donations that are explicitly banned under general disclosure rules. This may be an alarmist view, but one that is possible nonetheless. Furthermore, even though the developments of Citizens Now and SpeechNow.org were relatively new, 501(c) groups jumped at the opportunity to hide their money. For instance, “In the 2010 election cycle 42% of all outside spending was made by 501c organizations. This is particularly impressive considering that 501c groups are limited with respect to their permissible political activity; it cannot be their primary purpose” (Spencer & Wood, 2014). These 501 (c) groups are able to participate in politics as long as they do not make politics their sole focus. In practical terms, 501(c) groups must spend less than 50% of their money on political activities, yet, many 501(c) groups are doing just that. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics found that between 2008 and 2013, 24 politically active nonprofits spent more than 50% of their money to influence elections (Tucker, 2015). The study attributes this to the fact 501(c) groups file their tax returns