The Most Dangerous Game

AS COMMUNITIES around America work to shut down video game arcades, their elected representatives are playing and more with PAC-men. These PAC-men don't swallow quarters; they plunk bigger bucks into pockets of Washington politicians, a far more dangerous type of gaming that should be restricted immediately.

Political Action Committees (PACs) currently have a stranglehold on Congress. A determining factor in the 1980 Presidential election, PACs wield awesome power, capable not only of granting sizeable campaign contributions to House and Senate members but also of spending for or against a candidate independent of his official campaign committee.

In the Congress, the PACs--basically political finance arms of corporations, trade associations, and unions--are limited to a $5000 contribution per candidate, but they can give to as many candidates as they wish. In Presidential elections, however, they can spend an unlimited amount of money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, so long as no official connection exists between the candidate and the PAC. In both instances, money is corrupting the political process in each, solutions exist that Congress should initiate in this upcoming session.

The invasion of PACs on Capitol Hill was unintentionally encouraged by federal election guidelines passed in the early 1970s. In establishing public financing of Presidential elections, Congress effectively eliminated private donations and it eased the spread of PACs by allowing government contractors to contribute to Senate and House candidates.

With campaign costs as astronomical as they are, candidates are beholden to PACs for financing, and the PACs have happily bartered their funds for the chance to manipulate legislation. When beer distributors wanted monopoly territories for their distributors, their PAC--appropriately named SIXPAC--gave a total of $35,000 to members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Monopolies. Not surprisingly, the monopoly territories won approval.

The PACs have gotten maximum bang for the buck by focusing on committee members and other legislators whose constituents are not affected by a specific bill. Such members are only happy to receive a check in exchange for a vote that won't hurt their chances for reelection. In the words of Sen. Russell Long (D-La.): "When you talking in terms of large campaign contributions...the distinction between a campaign contribution and a bribe is almost hair's difference."

There is, of course, usually no formal deal between PAC's and legislators, just an understanding, but if a dairy association shows up at a candidate's fundraising party with a $5000 check, both the giver and the taker understand that the PAC is not rewarding him for a vote on foreign aid. The lobbyist is quite openly giving the money for a favorable vote on dairy legislation. PACs are throwing around a disproportionate amount of weight in Congress. As long as PACs can give with ease, Congressmen have to play the game and accept the badly needed campaign money.

THOSE SAME LEGISLATORS, however, can act to release money's grip on them. A first step would be to act on an election financing bill sponsored by Congressman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Thomas Railsoack (R-III.). This proposal would limit the total amount a Congressional candidate could receive from a PAC to $70,000 and limit individual contributions a PAC could give to $3000. The legislation would limit to some degree the impact of individual PACs, by preventing them from contributing to as many legislators and therefore dominating whole committees or forming voting blocs. This would be a good start.

In the long run, though, the way to eliminate PAC influence on Capitol Hill is to introduce public financing for House and Senate races. As in Presidential races since 1976, each citizen would have an opportunity to check off a dollar on his income tax form. This money would be given to candidates who had reached certain qualifying goals. It would prevent private contributions and thus free the process of PAC money.

The other major problem is the proliferation of PACs established to support or oppose a candidate that are operated "independent" of the official campaign committee. While Presidential candidates who choose to receive public funds are forbidden to accept any private contribution or coordinate outside expenditures, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that restricting the expenditures of those independent committees was a violation of their freedoms of speech and association rights. However, the "independent" status of the PACs which supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 to the tune of $21.5 million is a matter of some debate. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), honorary chairman of the Congressional Club PAC, said it quite well:

Well, as you may know we have an independent effort going on in North Carolina. Uh, the law forbids me to consult with him [Mr. Reagan] and it's been an awkward situation, I've had to, sort of, talk indirectly to Paul Laxalt [Reagan's campaign chairman] and hope that he would pass along... I think the messages have gotten through all right..

The official Reagan committee and the independent groups also shared a pollster, a political consultant, a direct mail firm, a telephone solicitation firm, and in one case an assistant treasurer. These overlaps, however small, seem to cast doubt whether Helms's idea of "independent" is what Congress had in mind. Reestablishing the $1000 limit each PAC could spend on a candidate who has accepted public funds would eliminate this danger.

A good alternative would be to arrange for candidate who are victims of independent expenditures to receive a certain amount of cheap television and radio time. This would not restrict the PACs but would allow opponents who do not have PAC support--which is not necessarily an indication of popularity--an opportunity to respond to this inequality of information.

It is imperative for the purity of the electoral system that Congress stop the PACs. As Alexander Hamilton stated about the electoral process in The Federalist Papers: "It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. "Currently, there is both tumult and disorder. Some small changes will help rectify that.