Super PAC Backlash
It was generally agreed in the 2012 campaign that the formation of a super PAC and the acceptance of large contributions was legal. However, a lingering question was whether super PACs are legal when examined on the basis of how they act. Two agreed-upon illegal actions were that a super PAC could not accept foreign funds and could not coordinate directly with a candidate. Super PACs were seen in the press as a possible means of allowing illegal donations from foreign entities – either individuals or companies – to be disguised. The concept of actions being illegal, when coordinated with a candidate, came out, in part, after a super PAC named American Crossroads requested permission to communicate to their favored candidate on an above-board basis. Paul S. Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center, stated that "the Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of contribution limits to preventing corruption, and that expenditures coordinated with candidates must be treated as contributions in order to prevent easy circumvention of the limits."
Long term, at least one analyst has interpreted court decisions, and in particular Speechnow.org v. FEC, to mean super PAC spending was legal "as long as they're not in cahoots with campaigns". Pew Research Center ran a poll in January 2012 to find out how many voters were aware of the ruling on Super PACs and whether they found Super PACs had a positive or negative effect on the political campaign. Pew found that, regardless of political affiliation, slightly over half of those polled were aware of the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and individuals to spend as much money as they want on political advertising as long as it is not coordinated with candidate campaigns. They also found that most (60% to 67%) felt that Super PACs had a negative effect on the political campaign process.
Read more about this topic: Political Action Committee