Super PACs engage in more positive than negative messaging

Article Highlights

  • Super PACs have less influence than we think, and they actually engage in more positive than negative messaging

    Tweet This

  • In 2010, candidates and parties, not super PACs, paid for 85% of ads run for Senate election ads and 88% of House ads

    Tweet This

  • According to the FEC, $9.6 million has been spent on positive ads in the 2012 race, compared to $5 million on negative ads

    Tweet This

There has been much handwringing in recent weeks about super PACs and their potential to doom the American political system. As the argument goes, super PACs mean that corporations or wealthy individuals can make unlimited contributions to groups that are thinly-veiled surrogates for candidates, enabling the candidates to stay positive while the PACs function as attack dogs."Evidence suggests these super PACs have less influence than we think, and they actually engage in more positive than negative messaging." -Jennifer K. Marsico

Trouble is, this argument isn't true. In fact, the evidence suggests these super PACs have less influence than we think, and they actually engage in more positive than negative messaging.

In early 2011, the Wesleyan Media Project released a report on the spending of outside groups in the 2010 election—the first since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling that opened the door for the creation of super PACs. The report found that in 2010, candidates and parties, not super PACS, paid for 85 percent of all ads run for Senate races and 88 percent of ads for House races. Therefore, PAC spending made up a small part of the money spent in 2010; traditional forms of funding still dominated.

Results from this year's Iowa caucuses also indicate that a candidate's performance is not directly tied to super PAC spending. Even though Rick Santorum virtually tied Mitt Romney for the win in Iowa, the "Red White and Blue Fund," which supports Santorum, spent just $537,200 in the state. By comparison, the Romney-supporting "Restore Our Future" super PAC spent $3.4 million in Iowa.

Then just this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that contrary to the belief that super PACs primarily exist to do a candidate's dirty work, FEC reports show that super PACs have spent more this year on ads supporting their chosen candidates than ads attacking other candidates. According to the FEC, since the campaign began, $9.6 million has been spent on positive ads, compared to $5 million on negative ads.

The belief that super PACs are hurting U.S. politics stems from one of two arguments: 1.) super PACs have too great an influence on elections, and 2.) the vast majority of their activity is devoted to negative campaigning. But evidence from both 2010 and 2012 shows that neither argument is correct.

Jennifer Marsico is a senior research associate at AEI

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Jennifer K.
Marsico
  • Jennifer K. Marsico is a senior research associate at AEI, working in the Political Corner. Her research focuses on elections and election reform, as well as government continuity issues. She is a visiting fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. She is also a contributor to the AEIdeas blog, and has also written for many outside print and online publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and Roll Call. Ms. Marsico serves as assistant director of the AEI-Brookings Continuity of Government Commission, and has contributed to recent studies on Supreme Court continuity, voter registration modernization, and civic participation in the digital age.

  • Phone: 202.862.5899
    Email: jennifer.marsico@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.