Let's call super PAC money what it is, bribery!

Super PACs may be legal, but are they ethical? In a nation where the letter of the law often uncouples with the spirit of the law, we run the risk of massive super PAC donations overrunning our political process.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network ) - In January 2010, the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United, that money is a form of political speech and as such, it can be spent anonymously, in very large sums, to support political candidates.

However, the problem with the decision is that is allows the massive donations to drown out the smaller donations of the people. Major corporations are now able to donate to campaigns, sometimes filtering millions through shadowy super PACs.

These wealthy individuals are not donating millions of dollars, often venture capital money, because they love democracy. They're donating because it is an investment in future returns.

A major donor will be heard by the candidate of their choice. Donations buy access and influence, and ultimately votes. It is literally a form of bribery. But it's also perfectly legal.

Because wealthy donors are able to own a much larger political voice than the everyday people, and because money is used to buy influence and votes, the United States is actually one of the most politically corrupt nations on Earth.

Making matters worse, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), which should be seeking out, investigating and prosecuting shady campaign behavior, is literally divided on whether or not to even investigate most cases. A wealthy donor makes an anonymous donation to a super PAC, then the super PAC can donate the money to another super PAC, and soon there is no idea where the money originated. Money can originate in a foreign country, and the FEC would not know because it's not investigating.

The FEC's paralysis then encourages more risk taking, thus flooding the campaigns with outside cash.

In capitulation or protest, the majority of the voting population in America doesn't even bother to vote, thus perpetuating a corrupt cycle of big money buying elections.

However, people are beginning to figure out that a post Citizens United system does not work for them. This is what is fueling the rise of two insurgent political candidates in the 2016 presidential race. Campaign finance reform is the major plank of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) campaign as he tried to clench the nomination of the Democratic Party. Sanders has refused super PAC support and even overly-large donations. On the right, to a lesser extent, is Donald Trump, who originally self-financed his campaign from his personal, multi-billion dollar fortune.

Both candidates are enjoying wide support because they are seen as outsiders to the super PAC process and the establishment in general.

Enjoy Daily Readings? Pay it Forward

In the status quo, no matter who wins, the people lose. With big money infiltrating both parties, big money will always have the last word. That last word may coincidentally match the will of the public, but such coincidences are just that. Thus, millions of Americans are disenfranchised because come campaign time, the only voice that matters is the voice with the money to buy the ads and appearances to convince the doomed voters that the candidate spending the most money is somehow the lesser of two evils.

---

The California Network is the Next Wave in delivery of information and entertainment on pop culture, social trends, lifestyle, entertainment, news, politics and economics. We are hyper-focused on one audience, YOU, the connected generation. JOIN US AS WE REDEFINE AND REVOLUTIONIZE THE EVER-CHANGING MEDIA LANDSCAPE.