Super pacs harm the election process.

Back to my first point: super pacs hurt voter turnout. According to an article from Andy Kroll, A poll was taken to discover people reaction to super pacs. One in four respondents in the poll said they're less likely to vote in elections this year because of the growing influence of super-PACs. That percentage climbs among those earning less than $35,000 a year to 34 percent and those with only a high school education to 34 percent (this poll has marginal error of 3.1%) (end quote). Super Pacs will continue to dump tons of money into to political ads which will continue making people feel like their voice drowned out. Sub Point B: Corruption According to the same survey by Andy Kroll, 73% of the respondents agreed with the statement "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to super-PACs."(end quote) this statement shows that people are losing trust in our democratic system which proves that super pacs harm our democratic process. 2. Citizens. United decision allows foreign-owned corporations to influence elections. According to public integrity.org, A million-dollar donation by a foreign-owned corporation to a Republican super PAC has raised legal concerns and opened up the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision to new criticism. Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney""s run for president, received a $1 million donation in mid-August from reinsurance company OdysseyRe of Connecticut, a Canadian insurance and investment management giant Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (end quote). When the supreme court made their decision on the Citizens United case, they opened up a whole new window for foreign groups to donate money to influence who is in charge of our country. 3. Citizens United decision tilts process in favor of the wealthy. Sub point A: Super Pacs can donate more than an individual. According to the Washington Post, The size of contributions to super PACs and other outside entities in 2012 was staggering. The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that the top 100 individual contributors to super PACs represented just 1 percent of individual donors but accounted for 73 percent of money going to super PACs. This shows that the wealthy can donate tons of money towards getting whatever candidate they want in office. Sub point B: The minority shouldn't have more power than the majority. According to the Hill, The outside money gave a minuscule minority of Americans the power to control the dialogue. That money may even have turned what might have been a "wave" election into a status quo result. But there is no doubt that the big donors have become even more important to both parties. Those individuals, corporations and unions with the ability and willingness to cut checks for millions or even tens of millions of dollars will receive the care and feeding they feel they deserve. If we allow a the Citizens United decision to stand, we will end up with a system where elections can be bought and the people feel like they have no voice at all. For these reasons we urge a pro ballot. Sources: http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.publicintegrity.org... http://articles.washingtonpost.com... http://thehill.com... vg