By: Larry Sabato Associate Professor,
Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs
University of Virginia

In this report, Dr. Larry Sabato, a political professor at the University of Virginia and a leading expert in the field of campaign finance, responds to a number of "myths" about political action committees. Professor Sabato's responses set the record straight about PACs, noting many of their positive aspects while correcting misleading information put forth about them by their critics.

Myth: PACs buy Congressional votes.

Fact: This argument is insulting not just to PACs but to elected representatives. Almost all the impartial political science studies of the subject strongly suggest that legislators cast their votes on the basis of party affiliation, ideological orientation, and, most of all, the needs and the desires of their constituents. After all, the contest between PAC money and votes in the home district is an easy one for legislators to resolve since only votes in the district can deliver reelection to the legislator.

Myth: PACs have reoriented legislators' loyalties to interest groups.

Fact: As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers, interest groups have always played a substantial role in U.S. politics. Moreover, as Madison suggested, the health of American democracy depends on active and diversified interest group participation. As long as many interest groups are active, they will check one another, and one or a few groups cannot come to dominate the system.

Myth: PACs have created fragmented special interest politics.

Fact: Again, PACs did not create interest group politics; they are a product of the natural development of group politics in a healthy democracy. "Special-interest" politics is far more the result of the decline of political parties. That fragmentation is of concern, but PACs are not the culprits.

Myth: PAC contributions assure PAC sponsors of easier access to officeholders.

Fact: Most PACs represent substantial interests in the districts or states of Congressmen and Senators. Even without giving a dollar of PAC money, most of these unions, corporations or associations would have little difficulty gaining access to their elected representatives. In any event, access does not equal influence. Few officeholders will take any action or cast any vote that contradicts their basic political instincts or constituency needs.

Myth: PACs generally support incumbents and have reduced competitiveness in election campaigns.

Fact: PACs overwhelmingly support incumbents, but so do individual contributors. Both PACs and individuals make rational decisions in their own self-interest, and since most incumbents win reelection, they naturally support them. Yet when political conditions permit, and when opportunities for turnover are greater, PACs are usually the first on the scene with the vital seed money necessary for challengers to have a reasonable chance of victory.

Myth: PACs raise money through heavy-handed tactics.

Fact: The Boss Tweeds of modern politics are not found in PACs. The vast majority of PACs are extremely cautious in their fundraising practices, and take extraordinary care to ensure that giving is voluntary and not coerced. Even many PAC critics acknowledge as much.

Myth: PACs have nationalized campaigns.

Fact: Long before PACs came into the forefront in American politics, American campaigns were being nationalized. The new campaign technologies, political consultants and especially television have had much greater impact on the nationalization of the country's electoral life. Also, many PACs are decentralized; they raise money, choose candidates, and determine their priorities on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis.

Myth: PACs do not reflect the choices of their contributors.

Fact: If this charge were true, then total PAC giving would be on a sharp decline instead of the increase we have observed over the years. Dissatisfied contributors would simply cease to give. Most PACs go to great lengths to solicit the opinions of their contributors, and any fair survey of PAC givers would show as much.

Myth: PACs have fueled excessive campaign funding and have contributed to the mindless increase in campaign costs.

Fact: PACs may be funding increases in campaign costs, but by no stretch of the imagination have they generated the skyrocketing expenses of American politics, Those concerned about the cost of campaigning would better direct their attention to the political consultants who sell the expensive new campaign technologies and transfer technologies from state to state and district to district, and also television. Television advertising costs have increased on an average four times the Consumer Price Index over the last couple of decades, and in Congressional campaigns today between a third and a half of every dollar raised is devoted to producing and airing television commercials. If anything, PACs can be commended for helping to fund the very necessary communication which must take place between candidates and voters.

Moreover, American political campaigns in many cases are less costly than campaigns in many industrialized democracies; and they are certainly less expensive than commercial product advertising campaigns in our own country.