Skip to content
Subscribe

Komen debacle, Super PAC spending demonstrate skewed priorities

Published:

The confluence of the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle and the growth in anonymous corporate donations to presidential candidates serves as a reminder that the nation’s spending priorities are seriously skewed from the common good because of politics.

Susan_G_Komen_Planned_Parenthood_Super_PAC_Money

On one hand, plutocratic multi-millionaires are shelling out unprecedented amounts of cash through Super PACs that are outside the control of the politicians they support or the party apparatus.  On the other, political concerns appear to have influenced the Komen Foundation – a 501(c)3 charitable organization focused on finding a  cure for breast cancer – to first pull its funding from Planned Parenthood and then, under heavy media-driven pressure, restore it.  Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest provider of women’s health services such as breast screenings and reproductive counseling.

Planned Parenthood has been under attack for years by conservative organizations ostensibly because it provides abortion services.  But there is also a general discomfort among right-wing groups with the kinds of reproductive services (including contraception) that Planned Parenthood offers.  Some conservative politicians have incorrectly identified abortions as the largest part of Planned Parenthood’s services.  In reality, abortion services represent just 3 percent of the organization’s activities, though others claim it's a higher percentage.

The Komen Foundation announced last week that it was withdrawing its annual $680,000 stipend that supports Planned Parenthood’s breast-cancer screening program.  Before Komen had reversed its decision, the funds had largely been replaced by voluntary contributions, including $250,000 from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Komen argued that de-funding Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with the agency’s abortion services and was based on a new rule that it may not fund agencies under investigation.  Planned Parenthood is undergoing a highly partisan Congressional investigation to determine if any government-provided funds go toward abortion services, which is illegal under the Hyde amendment.

The Planned Parenthood funding is chicken feed in comparison with the kind of campaign contributions being collected and spent by presidential candidates through their doppelganger Super PACs.  Tens of millions of dollars have been funneled into these near-anonymous funding structures that have little or no accountability to candidates, parties or truth.  Super PACs were the unintended consequence of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that declared money spent by corporations for political purposes is a form of free speech. Under the Constitution, freedom of speech is a protected right of all U.S. citizens that may not be abridged by campaign finance reform laws or regulations of the Federal Election Commission.

In my view, something seems grossly off-kilter about the fact that Planned Parenthood and Komen – two organizations devoted to public health issues – are fighting over less than $700,000 in funding, while politicians spend millions to buy votes.  The public benefit of political spending at this level must be questioned when the country has so many other needs:  infrastructure, education, and health care among them.

If wealthy individuals and corporations can afford to drop millions of dollars into political campaigns, why shouldn’t they be required through taxation to devote a larger percent of their wealth to the public good?  It’s hard to imagine a more wasteful use of money than the ephemeral political campaign.  The good done for society through millions spent on campaign contributions simply doesn’t hold a candle to contributions in support of curing a disease, making college educations more affordable or repairing our roads and bridges.  Other than the purchase of influence and an improved revenue stream for media outlets, there doesn’t seem to be much societal value to Super PAC spending.

It would be a shame to see more tax legislation enacted to correct these skewed prerogatives, but it’s equally shameful to watch resources that could be available for the public good instead go down a rabbit hole of political campaigns.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Komen debacle, Super PAC spending demonstrate skewed priorities

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us