Final answer:
527s and 501(c)(4)s are not subject to the spending limits of BCRA and cannot coordinate directly with campaigns, whereas political action committees (PACs) have different restrictions. Super PACs can raise unlimited funds but cannot contribute directly to candidates. Both types of groups significantly influence elections by supporting candidates indirectly without full transparency.
Step-by-step explanation:
527s and 501(c)(4)s differ from more traditional campaign finance groups such as political action committees (PACs) in several key ways.
Firstly, 527s are not subject to the spending limits of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
This means they can raise and spend unlimited funds on political activities, as long as they do not explicitly endorse a candidate.
Secondly, both 527s and 501(c)(4)s are required to adhere to a rule where they cannot coordinate directly with political campaigns, which is meant to create a distinction between independent expenditures and direct campaign contributions.
Importantly, while Super PACs, which arose after the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision, can also raise unlimited funds, they are a type of PAC that differs from traditional PACs.
These Super PACs are not supposed to contribute directly to candidates, while traditional PACs can, within limits. Despite these regulations, all of these entities dramatically influence the political landscape by supporting candidates indirectly through various forms of media and advertising, often without full transparency in their funding sources.
These groups play a significant role in elections and have become central to discussions about the influence of money on politics and the need for campaign finance reform.