Political Action Committees and the Campaign Finance Reform Debate: What Does the Future Hold for PACs?
Date
1997
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Haverford users only
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
This thesis explores the issue of political action committees (PACs) within the campaign finance reform debate. Since campaign finance reform is being discussed in the media and Congress, it is a very timely topic to cover. However, this timely topic has many implications for the way campaigns are financed well into the future. Closely intertwined in this debate is the future of PACs and how any new legislation would affect them. Beginning with a history of campaign financing, there is an introduction to PACs and where they began. The financing of campaigns has gone through many cycles, reflecting the changing needs of candidates throughout the years. Because of these changes, the rules and regulations regarding financing had to be written in the 1970's. These regulations brought about the first official recognition of PACs. The McCain-Feingold and Daschle campaign finance reform plans are studied in detail, specifically noting how these plans before the 105th Congress would affect the future of PACs. Both plans call for the elimination of PACs or a reduction in the amount PACs can contribute. Beyond these plans, other options such as full public financing and my own ideas for campaign reform are discussed. The importance of PACs within the financing system is also presented as reasons for them not becoming the loser in finance reform. Although there many be some perceived negative aspects of PACs, the positive actions outweigh the negative aspects. Most importantly, what is shown is that much of the reform that could occur would be symbolic. Also, the problem really lies in soft money. PACs as special interests are often blamed for the problems when they really lie in the under-the-table soft money contributions.