Political Action Committees

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES, (PACs), groups that collect contributions from their members or politically like-minded citizens, represent a single interest group, and use their funds to influence the legislative and executive branches of government. PACs attempt to gain support for their interests by contributing to political campaigns, hoping their favors will be returned once candidates reach office. Because federal-level political campaigns cost so much during the late twentieth century, candidates who eschewed PAC money could not compete with those who accepted PAC donations, unless they were independently wealthy.

The origin of PACs can be traced to the American labor movement and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The first PAC was formed during World War II, after Congress prohibited the assets of organized labor from being used for political purposes. The CIO created a separate political fund in 1943 to receive and spend voluntary contributions, calling it the Political Action Committee. A PAC called the Committee on Political Education (COPE) was formed in 1955 after the CIO merged with the American Federation of Labor. Other PACs, such as the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC) and the Business-Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC), were formed during the 1950s and 1960s, but it was not until the reform legislation of the 1970s that the number of PACs began to increase significantly.

Although labor unions formed PACs during the 1940s, corporations were not allowed to support candidates until the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, which allowed corporations to use their money to set up PACs. FECA was amended in 1974 and 1976, giving trade associations and corporations a new role in politics. As a result, FECA changed its guidelines for raising political money, sparking a tremendous growth in the number of PACs and the amount of money spent to influence the political system. Even though revisions in FECA set limits on the amount of money PACs could contribute to individual candidates and political campaigns ($5,000) and set a $1,000 limit on individual contributions per candidate per election, PACs were able to get around these limitations and still influence the political system.

Observers argued for reform of the election process, insisting that PAC money should be eliminated or at least severely limited. Even when there were legal limits, individuals and groups circumvented them by giving so-called soft money to political parties instead of directly to candidates. Officially, soft money was to be used for maintaining the parties themselves, but parties managed to pass on some of the cash to candidates. Gifts of soft money tended to obligate party managers to PACs and their political goals. The existence of PACs after the 1970s ran up the tab on elections to such an extent that congressional elections routinely involved millions of dollars in campaign expenditures. By 1988 the number of PACs had increased to approximately 4,200, with $132 million in contributions, primarily to incumbents. This increase raised public criticism of PACs and led to congressional proposals to eliminate them in 1991 and 1992, but no significant action was taken.

During 1997 and 1998 some 4,600 PACs raised approximately $503 million and spent about $471 million, contributing $220 million to federal candidates, some of whom would run for election in future years. As in the past, incumbents received most of the PAC money, with Republican candidates receiving slightly more than Democratic candidates. PACs spent money to support favored candidates, but they also spent a lesser amount toward the defeat of candidates they opposed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennett, W. Lance. The Governing Crisis: Media, Money, and Marketing in American Elections. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.

Sorauf, Frank J. Money in American Elections. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown College Division, 1988.

Stirton, Ian. "FEC Releases Information on PAC Activity for 1997–98." Federal Election Commission, U.S. Government. Available from http://www.fec.gov/press/pacye98.htm.

Wertheimer, Fred, and Susan Weiss Manes. "Campaign Finance Reform: A Key to Restoring the Health of Our Democracy." Columbia Law Review 94, no. 4 (May 1994): 1126–1159.

Alan Chartock / a. g.

See also Corruption, Political ; Election Laws ; Elections .