Nowadays, political campaigns are taking a different sophisticated dimension and growing to a thing of the rich. For candidates to achieve their political dreams, it is left to whose Political Action Committee, Pac, works the best. In a quest to achieve the best of a political prowess, super PACs are consequently on the rise. Super PACs include independent organizations, individuals and groups who pool together and are constitutionally mandated by the Supreme Court to take unlimited funding and contributions towards the campaign of a political candidate. This paper aims to discuss campaign financing and the impact of super PACS during and after campaigns (Petechuk, 2016).

In the 2016 Republican primary the super PAC, Trump for President, Make America Great Again, went guns blazing on through a series of campaigns across America, through the media and in online platforms against Hillary Clinton. The campaign which hit the $333,127,164 dollar mark underlined Trump, a republican candidate, as the best suit for America. On the other side, Hillary Clinton super PACs, Priorities USA Action, which put on a campaign worth $132 million, highlighted Hillary as the best fit for America, and Hillary for America too posting approximately $563 dollar-campaign in support that Hillary was the real deal for America (Petechuk, 2016).

Borrowing from the 2016 presidential campaigns, I strongly believe that super PACs  may take the both sides of the coin, in that they  may help a country realize the best fit candidate, or may too be a disgust for a blessing for they may uphold an unfit candidate at the expense of the most fit. Super PACs may take the offensive and tainting side against a candidate who may not be able to flex their financial muscles to overdo the dirty part as such super PACS. They may also work to censure the bad part of an unfit candidate and paint them as saints while they are wolves in a sheep’s skin. Therefore, not unless and otherwise super PACs are constitutionally put on check and controlled, democracy may be undermined and compromised (Norden, 2016).