# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluate the representative function of members of Congress

# data[].attributes.headline
Passwords to both Padlets is politics101

# data[].attributes.subject
Passwords to both Padlets is politics101

# data[].attributes.headline
If you have Spotify- listen to this- excellent revision.

# data[].attributes.subject
If you have Spotify- listen to this- excellent revision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to The A Level Politics Show, where amazing things happen. We will go through as many political topics as possible to give you as much help as we can with your A Level Politics revision. We will focus on UK politics and US politics, and also look at political ideologies, including liberalism, socialism, conservatism and feminism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A super PAC is a modern breed of a political-action committee that's allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals, and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. The rise of the super PAC was heralded as the beginning of a new era in politics in which elections would be determined by the vast sums of money flowing into them, leaving average voters with little to no influence.

The term "super PAC" is used to describe what is technically known in federal election code as an "independent expenditure-only committee." They are relatively easy to create under federal election laws. There is about 2,400 super PACs on file with the Federal Election Commission. They raised about $1.8 billion and spent $1.1 billion in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The role of a super PAC is similar to that of a traditional political-action committee. A super PAC advocates for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office by purchasing television, radio and print advertisements and other media. There are conservative super PACs and liberal super PACs.

The most important difference between a super PAC and traditional candidate PAC is in who can contribute, and in how much they can give.

Candidates and traditional candidate committees can accept $2,700 from individuals per election cycle. There are two election cycles a year: one for the primary, the other for the general election in November. That means they can take in a maximum of $5,400 a year -- half in the primary, and half in the general election.

Candidates and traditional candidate committees are prohibited from accepting money from corporations, unions, and associations. Federal election code prohibits those entities from contributing directly to candidates or candidate committees.

Super PACs, though, have no limitations on who contributes to them or how much they can spend on influencing an election. They can raise as much money from corporations, unions, and associations as they please and spend unlimited amounts on advocating for the election or defeat of the candidates of their choice.

Some of the money that flows into super PACs cannot be traced. That money is often referred to as " dark money." Individuals can mask their identities and the money they give by contribution first to outside groups including nonprofit 501[c] groups or social welfare organizations that go on to spend tens of millions of dollars on political ads.

The most important restriction prohibits any super PAC from working in conjunction with a candidate it's supporting. According to the Federal Election Commission, super PACs cannot spend money "in concert or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, the candidate's campaign or a political party."

Super PACs came into existence in July 2010 following two key federal court decisions that found limitations on both corporate and individual contributions to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech.

"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Combined, the rulings allowed individuals, unions and other organizations to contribute freely to political action committees that are independent of political candidates.

Critics who believe money corrupts the political process say the court rulings and creation of super PACs opened the floodgates to widespread corruption. In 2012, U.S. Sen. John McCain warned: "I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it's making the campaigns irrelevant."

McCain and other critics said the rulings allowed wealthy corporations and union to have an unfair advantage in electing candidates to federal office.

In writing his dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens opined of the majority: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt."

Another criticism of super PACs arises from the allowance of some nonprofit groups to contribute to them without disclosing where their money came from, a loophole that allows so-called dark money to flow directly into elections.

Super PACs spend tens of millions of dollars in presidential races.

Some of the most powerful include:

Right to Rise, a super PAC that spent more than $86 million supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Conservative Solutions PAC, which spent nearly $56 million supporting U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio's failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Priorities USA Action, which spent more than $133 million supporting Hillary's Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and backed President Barack Obama in 2012. Another prominent pro-Hillary super PAC is Ready for Hillary.

New Day for America, which spent more than $11 million supporting Ohio Gov. John Kasich's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Super PACs are Such a Big Deal in Presidential Elections Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A super PAC is a modern breed of a political-action committee that's allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals, and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Iron Triangles Explained: American Government Review

# data[].attributes.headline
Pressure Group/ Lobby Group/ Interest Group

# data[].attributes.subject
Pressure Group/ Lobby Group/ Interest Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interest Groups: Crash Course Government and Politics #42

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is the US Constitution so hard to amend? - Peter Paccone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is that a veto in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? Let HipHughes take five minutes of your life to explain how a pocket veto works and how it is different than a regular ole' veto. Perfect for dinner party conversation, weird Jeopardy Questions and AP Government class.

# data[].attributes.body
5 MARKER

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/ten-minute-rule-bill/

# data[].attributes.body
Print out Spec please!

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/ucorrigan28/cnlm8n6y3bov

# data[].attributes.headline
Watergate- a Visual Representation by James

# data[].attributes.subject
Watergate- a Visual Representation by James

# data[].attributes.body
10 Markers- Gerrymandering and watch video on Powerpoint also!

# data[].attributes.body
10 Markers- Veto and Pocket Veto

# data[].attributes.body
10 markers- Role of VP

# data[].attributes.headline
US President too much power under Constitution

# data[].attributes.subject
US President too much power under Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
Cabinet weakness/strength question

# data[].attributes.body
Cabinet weakness/strength question

# data[].attributes.body
5 MARKER

# data[].attributes.body
5 MARKER

# data[].attributes.headline
For the PM becoming more Presidential- a counter argument 

# data[].attributes.subject
For the PM becoming more Presidential- a counter argument 

# data[].attributes.body
http://nottspolitics.org/2013/07/09/the-british-prime-minister-has-become-more-prime-ministerial-and-less-like-a-president/

# data[].attributes.body
5 MARKER

# data[].attributes.body
5 MARKER

# data[].attributes.body
Overview of contrasts between UK/USA