H.R.2352 - Abolish Super PACs Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.2352, the "Abolish Super PACs Act," aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by placing reasonable limits on contributions to Super PACs. The bill argues that the current lack of contribution limits to Super PACs creates a risk of corruption and undermines public faith in elections. It seeks to address concerns raised since the SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling, which removed existing contribution limits.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would limit the amount of money that individuals and organizations can contribute to Super PACs. This could lead to a decrease in the overall amount of money spent in political campaigns, potentially leveling the playing field for candidates without access to large donors.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption due to large contributions.
- Increased public trust in the electoral process.
- Lessened influence of wealthy donors on political campaigns.
- Potentially more equitable competition among candidates.
- Reduced risk of foreign interference in US elections through Super PACs.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential legal challenges based on First Amendment rights to free speech.
- Possible shift of financial influence to other less regulated areas of campaign finance.
- May disadvantage candidates who rely heavily on Super PAC support.
- Could lead to increased difficulty in funding political campaigns, especially for challengers.
- Potential for Super PACs to find alternative ways to influence elections, such as through issue advocacy.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable, particularly concerning the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC established that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, and that limiting their independent political spending is unconstitutional. However, the bill's proponents argue that limiting contributions to Super PACs is necessary to prevent corruption and maintain the integrity of the electoral process, referencing Buckley v. Valeo. The constitutionality hinges on whether contribution limits are considered a restriction on speech or a permissible regulation to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).