Overview | To what extent does the money of wealthy individuals and organizations influence electoral politics? In this lesson, students learn about how “super PACs” are influencing the 2012 presidential campaign. They then use a technique called “structured academic controversy” to debate whether or not wealthy individuals and organizations should be allowed to engage in unlimited spending to influence elections.
Materials | Debatable Issues handout, Times articles and other resources
Warm-Up | Upon entering class, read the following definition of a “super PAC” (written on the board before class) with your students:
A super PAC is a political committee whose primary purpose is to influence elections, and which can take unlimited amounts of money, outside of federal contribution limits, from rich people, unions and corporations, pool it all together, and spend it to advocate for a candidate — as long as they are independent and not coordinated with the candidate.
Then, show students the two-minute Times video, “What’s a super PAC?”, from which this definition comes. When the video ends, ask students to rewrite the definition of super PAC in their own words, and list any questions they have about what they are, how they work, and how they are affecting the 2012 presidential race.
Field questions that emerge and then ask students why they think super PACs might be controversial organizations. What more do students want to know about the role of super PACs in presidential elections? Do they think that super PACs should be allowed to operate as they do? Why or why not?
Related | The article Super PACs Let Strategists Off the Leash describes how campaigns have changed since the Supreme Court, via the Citizens United decision, opened the door for unlimited campaign spending by wealthy individuals and organizations.
The intensifying flood of uncapped donations to outside political groups is transforming not just campaigns but the entire business of politics…
Amid the first presidential campaign since the Supreme Court opened the door for “super PACs” and unlimited campaign spending, it is still unclear how voters will respond. But the political professionals who make a living from the billions of dollars spent each cycle on campaigns are quickly embracing the shift.
“I think at the end of the day it has to do with money,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant who works with Let Freedom Ring, a group set to spend $20 million on political advertising this year. “If you’re a top consultant today, you’d much rather have a presidential super PAC than a presidential campaign.”
Read the entire article with your class, using the questions below.
Questions | For discussion and reading comprehension:
- How did the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case change the work of political strategists?
- Why do political strategists prefer to work for super PACs over campaigns?
- Why is it dramatically easier to raise money for a super PAC than it is to raise money for a presidential campaign?
- What is your opinion about the increased amount of outside money in politics?
- What predictions do you have about how the increased amount of outside money in politics will affect the upcoming presidential election?
- How has the increased amount of outside money already affected the election?
From The Learning Network
- Lesson: The Math of a Presidential Campaign
- Lesson: Funding a Way to the Top
- Resources: Election 2012
Around the Web
Activity | Inform the class that they will be engaging in a “structured academic controversy,” a kind of debate, about whether wealthy individuals, unions and corporations should be allowed to engage in unlimited spending to influence elections.
Put students in pairs, and assign half of the pairs the position that wealthy individuals, unions and corporations should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech through the ability to donate unlimited amounts to super PACs. Let students know that once they have researched their position, they will be presenting their argument to another pair that is assigned to the opposing side. Give each pair the Debatable Issues handout (PDF) to track facts and arguments, and then lead them through the six steps of structured academic controversy.
Step 1: Identify the Arguments
To begin, each pair should gather news coverage and analysis. Good starting points might be:
- The 2010 Room For Debate discussion about how corporate money will reshape politics
- A Times interactive, “Campaign Balance Sheet”
- The Times Topics page on Campaign Finance which provides an overview of the topic and collects all articles and multimedia published about it
- A Times graphic illustrating who is currently funding super PACs
- The Wesleyan Media Project’s comparison of outside group spending on the 2008 and 2012 elections
- ProPublica’s and the Sunlight Foundation’s tracking of super PAC spending.
Using these resources, pairs will:
- Describe the Citizens United decision, the controversy surrounding it, and its impact on electoral politics.
- Collect data documenting the influence of outside money in the 2012 presidential campaign.
- Describe the arguments on both sides of whether wealthy individuals and organizations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections.
Step 2: Present the Arguments
When each pair has gathered ample background information, including a statement of their position, a constitutional argument for their position, numerical data to support their position, and quotes from experts who agree with their position, have each pair join another pair that was assigned an opposing position. Give each side five minutes to present their best arguments to the opposing side.
While one group is presenting, the job of the other group is to listen carefully and take notes in the other column of the Debatable Issues handout because they will need to be able to repeat the arguments that they hear to the other pair.
Step 3: Restate the Arguments
Once both pairs have presented their arguments, they must both repeat to their opponents the argument that they heard from them. If the opposing pair thinks their counterparts missed anything or got anything wrong, they should interject and correct the other pair.
Step 4: Discuss Personal Opinions
In their groups of four, students take off the personae they were assigned and begin speaking as themselves again, sharing personal impressions and opinions about whether or not they think that wealthy individuals and organizations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Remind them that they should pay attention to the arguments that they just presented and heard when formulating their own opinion on the issue.
Inform each group that they will need to come to either a consensus or a compromise or to be able to clearly explain why they could not reach one on the issue because they will need to present their group’s conclusion about the issue to the class.
Step 5: Share Conclusions
All small groups report back to the class about the consensus, compromise or stalemate that they reached when discussing their personal opinions about whether or not wealthy individuals and organizations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.
Step 6: Debrief the Exercise
As a large group, ask students if this exercise helped them clarify their position on the issue? If so, how? Did they learn anything about the issue that they had not previously known? If so, what? Did anybody change their position during this exercise? Why or why not?
Going Further |
1. Create a “Follow the Money” chart in your room and inform students that as they begin to see advertisements for or against presidential candidates, the class will follow the money that funded the advertisement to gain a better understanding of who is behind the message.
On your chart, include a column to list the advertisements, a column for fact-checking the information included in the advertisement, a column to name the organization that paid for the advertisement, a column to describe whose money funds the organization that paid for the advertisement, and a column to describe the interests of those organizations or individuals.
2. Now that students understand the role of super PACs in this year’s election, they might be interested to learn that, in 2011, comedian Stephen Colbert created a super PAC in order to mock the loopholes in the nation’s campaign finance system — a super PAC that both raised significant money and actually ran attack ads during the Republican primaries earlier this year. In a 2011 article, David Carr writes:
“He is taking on a serious subject that many Americans find deadly dull and is educating the broader public on why it matters and what is at stake,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. Still, she adds, “it’s all fun and games until somebody gets hurt, like a specific campaign or the electoral system.”
That part is worth thinking about. If you substitute political provocateur for wisecracking television host, a fake Super PAC with real money may not seem so charming. Every year, earnest news organizations like the one I work for set out to do serious work that pulls back the blankets on how money warps and distorts the political process.
What do students think? Did Mr. Colbert’s stunt succeed in taking a complex subject and “educating the broader public on why it matters”? What do you think about the fact that it has inspired similar actions among some college students?
19- Understands what is meant by “the public agenda,” how it is set and how it is influenced by public opinion and the media.
20- Understands the roles of political parties, campaigns, elections, and associations and groups in American politics.
28- Understands how participation in civic and political life can help citizens attain individual and public goals.
29- Understands the importance of political leadership, public service and a knowledgeable citizenry in American constitutional democracy.
6- Understands and applies basic and advanced concepts of statistics and data analysis.
7- Demonstrates competence in the general skills and strategies for reading a variety of informational texts.
8- Demonstrates competence in speaking and listening as tools for learning.