Independent advocacy groups began to appear in presidential elections after the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (and subsequent amendments in 1974 and 1976) placed limits on the amount of money that individuals and groups could donate directly to political candidates and political parties. The FECA formally recognized political action committees (PACs) and permitted them to raise hard money contributions for the express purpose of advocating the election or defeat of candidates for federal office (subject to regulations on the group’s size and the amount of money it could accept). The FECA also permitted PACs to contribute directly to the campaigns of candidates for federal office (with limits on both the amount of these contributions and the maximum number of candidates to receive funding). The majority of these traditional PACs represented businesses, labor organizations, or single-issue interest groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) or the Sierra Club. The FECA required PACs to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and to comply with strict hard money contribution limits as well as disclosure requirements for their donors.
In the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits on individuals and PAC donations to candidates and parties. However, the high court held that Congress lacked the authority to limit or prohibit independent political expenditures by private individuals or interest groups, clearing the way for interest groups to increase their independent political expenditures. Many of these organizations would later go on to form 527 groups and 501(c) groups to further evade the few remaining regulations on independent groups. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) placed additional limits on the types of donations that could be made to political parties, which furthered the growth of independent advocacy groups.
Independent advocacy groups have been responsible for many of the most controversial (and negative) campaign ads in recent history, including the infamous Willie Horton ad in the Campaign of 1988 and the Swift Boat ads in the Campaign of 2004. Negative ads run by independent groups can be safely disavowed by political candidates even as they reap the benefits from these attacks on their opponents.
While the BCRA prohibited independent groups from financing campaign ads thirty days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in early 2010 effectively eliminated these restrictions. Moreover, Citizens United overturned a century-old ban that had prohibited corporations and unions from directly paying for ads supporting or opposing candidates for federal office, on the grounds that corporations were entitled to the same free-speech rights as individuals. The subsequent 2010 midterms witnessed a rise in 527 and 501(c) group spending by a host of corporations, unions, and murky independent political groups whose membership remained concealed (despite disclosure requirements being upheld by the Supreme Court). In the Campaign of 2012, independent spending moved from corporations and unions to super PACs that were far more closely connected to candidates’ political campaigns, a practice that threatens to undermine the existing regime of campaign finance regulations.
See also Campaign Finance Reform; Swift Boating
Center for Responsive Politics. “Types of Advocacy Groups.” http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php. Accessed September 29, 2015.