How to Break a Democracy, in 3 Minutes

Super PACs aren't just bad. They're a legal mistake.
This video serves as an entry in the #CancelSuperPACs contest! - cancelsuperpacs.com/
In 2010, a lower court made a huge mistake that opened the floodgates of dark money, jeopardizing American democracy and radically driving up the risk of corruption in politics.
-
Support us on Patreon: / spectaclesmedia
Hang out on our Discord: / discord
-
Spectacles is a love letter to democracy, its values, its caretakers, and its ideas. Around the world, individual rights and representative government are facing unprecedented attacks from the forces of reaction and revisionism. But despite liberal democracy’s real shortcomings and today’s all-too-fashionable cynicism, we remain committed to its preservation and improvement. Join us as we explore just what liberal democracy is, how it comes about, and how it can best be maintained in a changing world.

[@spectacles-dm]

Hey, thanks for watching! This video was made as an entry for a contest. You can read more about it here: cancelsuperpacs.com/

[@occam7382]

Something I think is worthy to note is that usually people don't bribe politicians to support whatever bills they want... anymore, anyways. Nowadays, the common approach is to find someone who already supports something you support and then throw a bunch of money at them to give them a soapbox, because surprisingly, that's a lot cheaper than hiring out a mercenary politician. Knowing Better did a video on this a few years ago, and he did a pretty good job explaining the whole campaign finance shebang.

[@sagn1962]

​@@occam7382people don't bribe, corporations bribe

[@davidshi451]

"The political spectrum in America isn't from right to left, it's from top to bottom" -Molly Ivins

[@peterkelly4873]

I know it differs from your normal content, but I thought this was a great video on a topic that I believe is immensely important. Thanks!

[@spectacles-dm]

Thanks so much!

[@19MAD95]

Calling it a “mistake” might imply an unintentional error in judgment. I would call it intentional act by a conservative majority court. See Citizens United

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

This isn't just a conservative thing, all politicians benefit from retaining the system keeping them in power..

[@WalkerKinsler]

@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5tsIt’s true that both parties are currently benefiting from this, but it’s a common liberal platform to call for the overturning of Citizens United. Democrats can’t do anything with the current 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

[@haydent4461]

They're calling it a "mistake" because that's the language used in the contest they're participating in. See the link that was posted in the description and pinned comment.

[@The_Midnight_Bear]

@@WalkerKinsler As a non-american, wasn't the 2010 Supreme Court pretty balanced, if not dem-leaning? I know they instituted progressive rulings at the time.

[@WalkerKinsler]

@@The_Midnight_Bear There were five conservative-appointed justices and four liberal-appointed justices in 2010, though conservative John Stevens was practically flipped by then. But yes, there were three liberal justices who supported the ruling. I was talking more about the liberal platforms now that disagree with it.

[@speedyx3493]

2:30 Hmm, so some court decided it is okay for hundreds of milions of dollars to be transfered into organisations tied to politicians. Hmm, I wonder if that court may have had any neferious reason to do that, surely not?

[@urubissoldat5452]

I really need to make my own Super PAC..

[@allanflippin2453]

The hard problem here is "how"? If the Supreme Court created the loophole, who can fix it?

[@spectacles-dm]

It was another court that ruled that unlimited contributions to SuperPACs were legal, as we note in the video-it's never come up before the Supreme Court, even as the "risk of corruption" standard from the 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo, still stands. In theory, the Supreme Court could rule against this if it came before them!

[@allanflippin2453]

@@spectacles-dmGot it. Sorry for my confusion.

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

​@@spectacles-dmthx

[@UniquelyUnseen]

When I was studying political science in university the amount of sheer mental gymnastics my professors did to say "oh no its not corruption, you're just being contrarian".. Unthinkable that this is the status quo.

[@JohnnyMarksVideos]

The density of this video is insane. Also love seeing you guys experiment with formats!

[@TheEgg185]

This started in 2010? I thought this was happening forever.

[@lancerhades971]

just found your channel and this is great! early is cool!

[@Frank-ju8qr]

Nice vid mister Spectacles, spectacular even

[@Dawn.tless.]

10/10 pun

[@maxernst299]

man the editing was amazing here

[@spectacles-dm]

Thanks, Max!

[@woomy_boy]

ty for the tutorial, will use! :D

[@JohnSmith-mc2zz]

Spectacles coming out on the side of good.

[@prudentibus]

I am really dissapointed that there were no Vsause reference "Or is it?" at 1:40

[@spectacles-dm]

Vsauce was a big inspiration for the video's structure and opening bit!

[@Dog_Bro27]

Thanks man this will be helpful

[@Zyzyx442]

Good video, never knew how it worked, but I hate the rectangle aspect ratio or whatever, is it for mobile phones?

[@user-jp6es8px2z]

Great video!

[@mingcr9470]

> sees title > prepares to take notes passive-aggressively oh, this isnt actually a tutorial........ nvm......

[@RealChrisPoole]

although your longer videos are amazing, I think you nailed it semi short-form content

[@majl7917]

Money, greed and power, you say? 🤔 No risk of corruption. 👍💯

[@TheEgg185]

We get to see what he looks like in this video. 🎉😊

[@AKASH-dl9me]

Ello there , Can we talk , Not here that is .

[@majl7917]

No risk of corruption. 🙄 Used by everyone sarcastically, used by a court literally.

[@larryl3416]

But the problem is that the people who run the campaigns for the politian also work for the Super PAC

[@bladepeterson778]

A simple and short explanation about the problems with super PACs. Excellent job!

[@stg213]

Say no to AIPAC, say no to cancel culture!

[@strabo1st]

i never knew some things in this vid.

[@baileykeller288]

Engagement

[@Goatcha_M]

Your video is informative and accurate, but also annoying because its phone wide. Don't adopt the annpyingness of shorts!

[@MeczennikFitnessu]

Interesting how this is your shortest video, and the least viewed one...

[@lux2094]

end citizens united.

[@RogerAckroid]

The Supreme Court decision is logical based on the first amendment. The court decision was not a mistake but logical. Probably super PACs should have other rules that they have right now but banning political speech is a big no no for the free speech tradition of the USA.

[@spectacles-dm]

The supreme court decision is logical. That would be Buckley v Valeo, wherein the Supreme Court permitted congress to limit donations to prevent the risk of corruption. The DC Circuit Court, which contradicted the Supreme Court's Buckley precedent in SpeechNow, was mistaken and illogical. "banning political speech is a big no no for the free speech tradition of the USA." Indeed. But restricting donations isn't. We've been doing that since 1976. Thank you for watching and commenting!

[@ShankarSivarajan]

@@spectacles-dm You know better: the relevant precedent to _SpeechNow_ is _Citizens United,_ not _Buckley._ And of course it's a First Amendment issue; the specifics of the case _and_ the arguments presented by the government to the court in that case make that abundantly clear: the goverment sought to suppress a film critical of a political candidate and argued for being able to ban books critical of candidates.

[@chrisfisher1100]

I HAVE A SUPER PACK OF CIGGARRETTES ... CAN I HAVE 10 MILLION DOLLARS???? LOL. GREAT JOB !!!

[@willhebert576]

I wish I could grow a third arm... what's your secret?

[@spectacles-dm]

SOMEBODY COMMENTED! We really liked that gag, but nobody we previewed the video with noticed or commented smh...

[@sammyjones8279]

​@@spectacles-dmi use captions and it sadly blocked your glorious, thick, manly arm 😔

[@thevocatiousunspeakables709]

Well, it isn't illegal. Otherwise, people would actually be sued for this. Duh.

[@sebby324]

Don’t let the Chinese and Russian governments see this one lol

[@markusklyver6277]

Jeff is immoral

[@Antek104]

Usa politics are insane, its illegal almost everywhere else in the world lol. The more l learn about us the happier i am to be an European

[@MattOlsen294]

As an Australian that is a bit of a foreign politics hobbyist, and has consumed a lot of US Pol in my time, I never understood why politics and political fundraising in the US was so obviously run by big money from the rich. It feels like re-amended laws to stop super PACs is an objectively fantastic idea no matter how you vote!!! 🔴🔵🫡

[@urubissoldat5452]

Except all elected officials benefit from it and will never remove it..

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

​@@urubissoldat5452 no wonder the biggest type of loophole that supports corruption will never be willfully shut And this sort of shet aid the reason why humans will never make a utopia