In research conducted with Jeffrey Milyo, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Chicago, and Stanford political science doctoral candidate David Primo, Groseclose contends that there is a dearth of evidence to support the accepted wisdom that PAC money plays a nefarious role in American politics. Groseclose and his colleagues argue that the familiar mantra of reform is a simplistic view that plays on public ignorance about PACs, especially corporate PACs. Yet, says Groseclose, a recent survey by the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that only 4 percent of its respondents were aware that corporations are prohibited from giving directly to candidates. In fact, only their PACs can contribute. These PACs can raise money only from individuals.
None can come from company revenues.
And individual giving directly or through PACs and political parties is strictly limited. While Groseclose is skeptical that corporations really are buying influence, he acknowledges that soft money, not PAC money, would be the vehicle for doing so. In contrast to hard money, soft money donations are unrestricted and difficult to estimate. And while PAC spending remained level between 1992 and 1998, soft money spending more than doubled over the same period. It was expected to double again in the 2000 election.