RESOURCE FILES

Chapter 10

The Architecture of Stratification: Social Class and Inequality

Political Action Committees

In 1950 sociologist David Riesman published a book describing the federal government in a pluralist society as a neutral body that is responsive to all interests and dominated by none.¹ In his view, the president and Congress make decisions based on the wishes of a particular interest group that happens, at that time, to have the largest amount of support from the people. In this way the political system is democratic.

Riesman argued that decisions of national and international significance are made in the interests of those groups that have the most popular support. People are free to join or otherwise support the groups that promise to best represent their interests. Power, then, is ultimately in the hands of the people.

Although Riesman felt that interest groups uphold democracy by representing the needs of the people, he could not have foreseen the enormous power and influence these groups have attained in their own right. They certainly ensure that a variety of interests will be represented at the highest levels of the government, but it's not clear whether the average citizen has much influence over them or is able to have his or her interests represented by them.

The most controversial type of interest group on the political landscape today is the political action committee (PAC). PACs are organizations formed to represent narrowly defined special interests, including big business (tobacco growers, banks, real estate, electronics, construction); professions (teachers, lawyers, physicians); labor unions (autoworkers, teamsters, sheet metal workers, postal workers); or ideological positions on single issues (gun control, human rights, Social Security, abortion rights).

PACs were born out of political necessity in the 1940s. When labor unions were prohibited from giving union treasury money to candidates for federal office, they came up with the idea of pooling donations and indirectly presenting that money to the candidates. The idea caught on with business and ideological groups.

By 1974 approximately 500 PACs were operating. Today, close to 5,000 PACs exist. They represent the whole political spectrum, from liberal environmentalists to conservative gun-rights advocates.²

PACs are allowed to collect funds from their members and make contributions much larger than those allowed to individual contributors. The amount of money PACs spent on political campaigns increased from $60 million in 1979 to nearly $190 million in 1990.³ In 1994, about 23% of money donated to political campaigns came from union PACs, 10% from single-issue PACs, and 67% from corporate PACs.⁴

Although financial contributions made by PACs have dropped slightly in recent years, these interest groups still exert tremendous control over candidates and the entire electoral process. That PACs have influenced the way our government makes decisions is undeniable:

May, 1995: The Senate approved a bill that killed a proposal that would have raised tobacco taxes and used the revenue for health care funding. A "yes" vote benefited the tobacco industry. The average amount of tobacco PAC contributions given to the 62 senators who voted "yes" was $19,003; the average amount contributed to the 38 senators who voted "no" was $2,436.

November, 1995: The Senate approved a bill that lifted the existing ban on the export of crude oil from Alaska's North Slope. A "yes" vote benefited the oil and gas companies. The average amount of oil and gas PAC contributions to the 69 senators who voted "yes" was $64,460; the average amount given to the 29 senators who voted "no" was $12,002.

March, 1996: The House of Representatives voted on final passage of the Assault Weapon Ban Repeal. A "yes" voted benefited gun-rights groups. The average amount of money given by Gun Rights PACs to the 239 representatives who voted in favor of the bill was $4,450; the average amount they gave to the 173 representatives who voted "no" was $33.⁵

Political ideology doesn't stand in the way of PACs' attempts to buy influence and ensure access to elected officials. Most big donors give money to both major political parties.⁶ Common Cause, a reform group that frequently criticizes the influence of PACs, studied seven Senate races in 1988. It found that 274 PACs gave money to both the Democratic and the Republican candidates in the same races. Federal Express Corporation, for instance, contributed to all 14 candidates in these races.⁷

What seems to matter to PACs is not the candidate's political affiliation but his or her power to affect legislation. Thus, the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 dramatically altered the political direction of PAC contributions. In the 1994 elections, while Democrats were still the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, business-oriented PACs gave 51% of their money to Democratic candidates. In 1996, business PACs gave 70% of their money to Republicans, who by then were in control.⁸

Given the power of PACs, how accurate is it to adopt Riesman's description of the American political system as pluralistic?

¹Riesman, D. 1950. The lonely crowd. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

²Makinson, L. 1993. Open secrets: The encyclopedia of congressional money and politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

³Makinson, L. 1995. The price of admission: Campaign spending in the 1994 elections. Washington, DC: The Center for Responsive Politics.

⁴Henwood, D. 1994. The state of the USA atlas. New York: Simon & Schuester.

⁵"Everyone's Price (Public Sector)." 1997. Harper's Magazine, May.

⁶Rosenbaum, D. E. 1996. "In political money game, the year of big loopholes." New York Times, December 26.

⁷Minzesheimer, B. 1989. "PACs play both sides of fence." USA Today, May 9.

⁸Cited in Welch, W. M. 1997. "PAC money plays follow the leader." USA Today, November 25.