One generation’s reform is often the seedling of the next generation’s corruption. In the 1970s, Congress tackled widespread abuses in campaign finance by wealthy individuals and in effect directed candidates’ fund raising toward industry, union and issue-oriented gifts from regulated political- action committees. The device proved effective beyond anyone’s imagining: since 1974, the number of PACs has risen from 608 to 4,092, the number of contributors has grown to about 4.5 million, and total donations may reach an estimated $125 million — perhaps a quarter of all funding — for this year’s House and Senate races. Most PAC money goes to incumbents and comes from groups seeking legislative favors.
Despite growing alarm about the role and power of PACs, cracking down on them amounts to spurning campaign contributions — something politicians ( hardly ever do willingly. Not unexpectedly, a bill to impose strict limits on PAC participation has languished in Congress for a year. Last week, to the surprise of even the bill’s sponsors, the measure emerged and was approved by the Senate, 69 to 30, with its sternest rules intact.
The proposal was co-sponsored by Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater and Oklahoma Democrat David Boren, one of three Senators who accept no PAC funds (the others: Democrats William Proxmire of Wisconsin and John Kerry of Massachusetts). It limits House aspirants to a total of $100,000 in PAC money for each election cycle. Senate candidates could accept from $175,000 to $725,000, depending on the size of their state, and all candidates could take an additional $25,000 if involved in a primary campaign. A PAC could give no more than $3,000 to a candidacy, vs. the current $5,000, and the bill would close a loophole that has allowed some PACs to channel considerably more money. Those ceilings would still leave PACs as major players. Admits Boren, who once used a broom as a campaign symbol: “This is only a first step.”
Opposition was led by Republican Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota, who argued that reform would once again have unin- tended consequences. He predicted, for example, that PACs could simply increase so-called independent expenditures, which aid candidates but are not controlled by them. The measure’s real opposition, however, is not Boschwitz but the calendar. Many members, even those who voted for the proposal, privately hope it will lapse. The House has shown no sign of acting. But as Boren said optimistically after the vote, “At least we’ve now got this on the national agenda.”