From: millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America a PAC?
Summary: Are PACs like interest groups?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:51:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Keywords: PAC, interest group, special interests
Followup-To: millerm@cs.colostate.edu

kloomis@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis) writes:

> millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller) writes:

>>> So, United We Stand America, voice of Ross "I hate Political Action
>>> Committees (PACs)" Perot, is going to form a lobbying entity -- i.e.,
>>> a PAC?  How interesting.
>
>>Sounds like you're unsure of the difference between an interest group
>>and a PAC.  There are several forms an interest group can take.  I
>>believe when Perot was talking about "special interests" he was
>>talking about interest groups which advocate specific government
>>support for specific constituencies or specific government programs.
>>Public interest groups like Common Cause also advocate something, but
>>what they advocate is more general:  Better government.  These
>
>
>To all the "abolish the PACs - PACs are evil" crowd:
>
>I'm sick and tired of this **** line of reasoning - yes, some PACS
>are just fronts for corporate interests, but - hold onto your
>seats- most "special interest" groups are supported by ....
>
>				PEOPLE!!!!
>
>
>Just like you and me, and every other person who gives money and/or
>time to a cause/idea/group/PAC that attempts to affect government in
>a way that person agrees with or supports. 

I am a bit confused by your statement (not much).  Maybe you can
answer this question.  Are PACs allowed to lobby?  If so, then they
could be considered a special form of interest group, in the same
league as all the other lobbying groups.  If not, it says to me that
the only way PACs can have influence is by donating massive amounts of
money to the same candidate election after election after election...
This gives an almost _unbeatable_ advantage to the incumbent.  Why do
you think 14 states have passed term limitations???  I will agree that
term limitations aren't a perfect answer.  I think they're a band-aid
measure.  What term limits really say is the voters are too stupid to
make a decision, so after a certain amount of time, the government
will make some of that decision for them.  Part of the reason though is
to break up the influence of PACs.  I am going by the poli-sci
definition of a PAC, that their sole goal is to gain super-access and
super-influence on a particular candidate in Congress (I am not trying
to exaggerate with the term "super".  I mean it in the sense that they
are getting influence over them above and beyond what the average
citizen has.).  And the way they do that is to give their candidate an
unfair (in my opinion) advantage over any challenger, so the
challenger 8 or 9 times out of 10 hasn't got a chance in hell of
winning an election, because of the money factor.  If you have less
money than the incumbent, the incumbent is going to be able to run
more radio and TV ads than you, hence being more visible than you.
Since many voters do not know much about the candidates, they will
most likely go with the one that was the most visible.  The definition
I was given is PACs do not necessarily want to forward causes, as you
suggest.  They want to gain influence on government, period.  The
candidate(s) they support wouldn't necessarily have to be
ideologically aligned with what they support, so long as they'll listen
to them when they call.

I can agree with your statement about "special interests."  I would
rather interests got influence by lobbying than by donating tons of
money to one candidate time after time.  At least with lobbying a
representative can turn an interest down and not necessarily have to
worry that they won't be re-elected next time for sudden lack of
funds.  You know what I am sick and tired of??  I am sick to death
of hearing stories about how one representative or Senator with the
best of intentions wants to get a good bill passed, that would help
the nation at large or those who are disadvantaged, and tries to
convince others in their branch of government to go along and also
pass it.  And what they run into again and again is Rep/Sen.'s
saying, "Gee I'd REALLY like to support this, and I think it's the
right thing to do, but golly gee, the people that donated the most
money to me in the last election don't like this, so I CAN'T vote
for it(!)"  Is that voting your conscience or what???  You can also
think of it another way.  PACs do not necessarily represent the
majority of the constituency that the Rep/Sen is SUPPOSED to, most of 
the time, represent, but they WILL most often listen to the PACs that
helped them get (re-)elected, over the voices of their constituents.

>For Pete's sake (hi Pete) - I would give money (if I wasn't a starving
>student) to NOW, the Women's political caucus, etc, because - GUESS 
>WHAT??? - I'M A WOMAN AND I CARE ABOUT WOMEN'S ISSUES!!! Golly, and 
>if I and 3 million of my fellow gender bearers all gave some amount
>of money to support candidates sympathetic to women's issues and money
>that paid for lobbying of the government to make abortion legal,  
>pass family leave, fight sexual harassment, promote child-care, then
>something may actually get done on these issues!! Gee, sort of like 
>the UWS people thinking the deficit is a big deal and supporting the
>lobbying of government to deal with it, or supporting candidates who
>have taken strong stands on deficit reduction. Each is a specific 
>interest supported by a group of people.

I won't dispute you there.  The question is does NOW donate lots and
lots of money to the same candidate time after time, or if a
challenger comes along that better represents their views, do they
support the challenger?  In other words, is the interest group's
interest to support the ideology of candidates, or is it to gain
influence in government?  There is a subtle difference which I will
ellaborate on further here.

>PACs may, in fact, allow more people who have less money to still 
>have influence with the government on issues they care about. Or would 
>you rather that only rich people (like Ross Perot, who gave thousands
>to GHWB in 1988) be allowed to influence politics? 

That is a good argument.  What you've said clears up my mind a bit
about the origin of PACs.  PACs were originally legalized in 1974 as a
reform, to offset the power of wealthy donors.  It has seemed to me,
and maybe this is a misperception, that the majority of PACs do in
fact represent wealthy interests, not the interests of the less
advantaged.

Your statement about Perot donating thousands to George Bush (nice
decoding on my part if I might say :-) ) is enlightening.  If he was
so smart why did he support a candidate who would run the economy into
the ground with Trickle-Down Economics?  And then he says,
"Trickle-down didn't trickle."  Interesting question.

>The moral of the story? When someone uses the label "special interest"
>they are simply trying to degrade a cause they don't support. God 
>forbid any Americans should have any special "interests". 

I think the "special interests" label is still valid.  I just wish we
had interests that didn't try to gain more influence over Rep/Sen's
than other interests, or communities.  I have also heard too many true
stories about the interests of industries that harm surrounding
communities getting more influence over the legslators, than the people
in the community who actively try to stop the destruction.  Don't
get me wrong.  I'm not saying they shouldn't try to get more
influence over legislation.  There would be no point to interest
groups without that.  What I don't like is interest groups having
more overall influence over LEGISLATORS than a lot of other
people (meaning, no matter what legislation comes up they listen to
the "special interests" over the interests of the people in the
communities they represent).  To me that is wrong.

|Mark Miller, computer science   |"Like a government, the operating system   |
|major at C.S.U.                 |performs no useful function by itself."    |
|millerm@cs.colostate.edu        |   --- Operating System Concepts           |
|mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu           |"Let me ask you something.  Is the         |
|   /                            |government worth preserving when it lies   |
| \/ --- The Mark                |to the people?" --- "JFK"                  |
|        "FATHER!...FATHER!...THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!" --- "Dune"          |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot