PACs' Punch

Giving the company way

"A clean means of business involvement in politics," argues Lawyer Stanley Kaleczyc of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Counters Senator Edward Kennedy: "They are multiplying like rabbits, and they are doing their best to buy every Senator, every Representative and every issue in sight."

This debate is raging over the fastest growing and most controversial phenomenon in U.S. politics: the corporate political action committee (PAC). Last week 13 experts at a seminar in Washington argued about the impact of the groups on the November House and Senate elections and could agree on only one thing: corporate PACs pack a lot of punch.

The new clout of PAC stems from the campaign amendments of 1974, limiting individuals' political contributions to $1,000 a candidate. This blocked corporate executives from donating huge sums to pro-business politicians. But the legislation encouraged the formation of corporate PACS that can give candidates up to $5,000 apiece per election. The PACs raise most of their money from executives and stockholders. The law also allows them to appeal twice a year to rank-and-file employees for anonymous donations."

In four years the number of corporate PACs has risen from 89 to 776. They contributed some $8 million to congressional candidates, about 15% of their total campaign receipts. The business groups' spending was equal to that of the 263 PACs operated by labor unions. By 1980, campaign fund-raising experts expect corporations to field about 1,000 PACs and greatly increase their spending.

Union PACs favor Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of about 12 to 1. By contrast, the corporate donations this year were split about equally between Democrats and Republicans. Most of the money went to incumbents with lots of seniority. Says John Bonitt, head of Bendix Corp.'s PAC: "That's where the committee chairmen are." Louisiana Democrat J. Bennett Johnston, who heads Senate subcommittees on energy and appropriations, received at least $192,000 from about 190 PACs, though he had only token opposition in the primary and none in the general election. Why so much support? Says a former Johnston aide: "He is known as an articulate and effective spokesman for the free enterprise system."

Corporate executives see nothing sinister about the PACs' spending. Says Glen Woodard, vice president of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a large Southern supermarket chain: "It's just as much a civic responsibility as helping the Heart Fund." This year Winn-Dixie gave $120,000 to 70 candidates, most in districts where the company has retail outlets.

Many liberal and labor leaders fear that the corporate PACs will get special favors for their contributions and demand that Congress weigh new regulations. Says Fred Wertheimer, vice president of Common Cause: "We are heading for a time when PACs, particularly corporate PACs, will be the dominant force in financing Senate and House campaigns." Some of the criticism is blatantly partisan. Admits AFL-CIO Lobbyist Victor Kamber: "When labor had more influence, I was comfortable with the system."

Beneficiaries argue that the PACs may revitalize politics by helping fill the vacuum left by declining parties. They also believe that by soliciting funds, PACs solicit involvement. Says Illinois Senator Charles Percy: "PACs provide for broad-based, open participation in the political process." Not surprisingly, most members of Congress like the system and have no intention of changing it. -

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.