Political Action Committees

Contemporary News Analyses

Eggen Dan. “The Influence Industry: The Fine Lines between a Palin Vacation and Palin Tour.” The Washington Post, June 1, 2011. Available at:

Eggen provides commentary on media criticism directed at former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin regarding her “One Nation Tour,” being funded by her political committee SarahPAC. Eggen notes that although many are accusing SarahPAC of paying for a family vacation, her political committee is breaking no rules as an unconnected PAC and reports its expenditures to the FEC every month. As Sarah Palin has not formally announced her candidacy for federal office, she is not subject to the same campaign finance limits on contributions and expenditures as candidates whom have officially declared their candidacy.

Grier, Peter. “In Time for Election 2012, a Stephen Colbert Super PAC. What is that?” The Christian Science Monitor, July 1, 2011. Available at:

Grier discusses background information on the history and purpose of PACs in federal elections and notes that due to a 2010 Supreme Court decision, super PACs can receive unlimited amounts of money from an individual, corporation, or union. Although super PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against candidates, they may not give funds directly to candidates. Stephen Colbert, the popular host of a satiric political comedy show called The Colbert Report, recently announced that the FEC has granted approval for his own super PAC. Noting that he has not decided how he will use the money, Colbert is quoted as saying, “Please donate nation, because you can’t spell ‘donation’ without ‘nation’ and ‘dough.’”

Shear, Michael D. and Jennifer Preston. “In Turn to Politics, Facebook Starts a PAC.” The New York Times, September 26, 2011. Available at:

Shear and Preston report on Facebook’s decision to form a political action committee as a way to allow employees to influence the political process by supporting candidates that share common goals. Moreover, the authors note that disclosure documents show that technology companies like Facebook and Google have begun spending more money on lobbyists in Washington D.C. than ever before in an attempt to increase their influence on legislative debates concerning patents, user privacy, and monopoly status.