Are Political Action Committees (PACs) A Threat To American Democracy?

The number of Political Action Committees (PACs) in the United States from 1990 to 2015, with a sharp spike after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010.

The foundation of America’s democracy relies on the honesty and fairness of our elections, as it gives a voice to all in the government, regardless of one’s race, income, or gender. But in the modern era, the influence of financial power in American politics has reached unprecedented levels. At the center of this issue are Political Action Committees, commonly known as PACs, which have, in some ways, transformed the political language and polluted the transparency, fairness, and democracy of American elections. 

What Are PACs? 

PACs are tax-exempt organizations that form to aggregate donations to fund and push for campaigns, legislation, and ballot initiatives. In order to be considered as a PAC, a committee has to receive or spend more than $1,000 to influence a federal election, which automatically initiates registration with the Federal Election Commission, better known as the FEC. 

However, not all PACs are created equal, as there are many different types of PACs. The three most common types of PACs are Traditional PACs, Super PACs, and Hybrid PACs. Traditional PACs donate directly to candidates and political parties. Therefore, if a person donated $500 to a traditional PAC, the PAC would combine that donation with the donations of other individuals and give the final amount directly to the candidate or political party they were supporting. However, these PACs have harsh limits on the amount of money they can donate. Traditional PACs can only give up to $5,000 per election to a candidate, $15,000 a year to a national party, and $5,000 per year to another PAC. Thus, Traditional PACs usually represent interest groups like teachers’ unions, business associations, and environmental organizations. Traditional PACs typically rely on single donations from individuals. Corporations and unions can sponsor a traditional PAC by covering administrative costs like salaries and paperwork, but they cannot donate directly to the PAC, as it is illegal.

The second most common type of a Political Action Committee is a Super PAC, also called an Independent Expenditure-Only Political Action Committee. Super PACs were born from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case, which found that corporate funding of independent political parties during elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. Essentially, Super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, or other PACs, but unlike Traditional PACs, they can’t give the money directly to political campaigns and candidates or coordinate specifically with those campaigns. Super PACs allow wealthy corporations and individuals to donate enormous amounts of money. For example, a single billionaire could give a Super PAC $30 million to run ads for their favorite candidate. 

The influence of Super PACs can be seen in the decade between 2010 and 2020, as non-party independent spending grew from $750 million to $4.5 billion, with dark money groups—groups that don’t disclose their donors—having contributed over a billion dollars during just that period. These dark money groups are dangerous because they undermine the principles of democracy. By clouding the information on who actually funds certain political campaigns and candidates, it becomes difficult to assess the true motives and influences behind them. Super PACs have to disclose all of their donors to the FEC, but dark money groups, which are nonprofit organizations, do not. Thus, Super PACs can receive donations from these dark money groups and have the original source of the funds concealed.

The least common type of a Political Action Committee is a Hybrid PAC, which, like its name suggests, combines the functions and characteristics of a Traditional PAC and a Super PAC. Hybrid PACs maintain two separate bank accounts, where one bank account operates under the rules of a Traditional PAC, which means capped donations for direct candidate support. Meanwhile, the other bank account functions like a Super PAC, allowing for large sums of money to be raised. Though Hybrid PACs can’t directly fund political campaigns or help candidates with money from this account, they can use it for unlimited spending on ads and other independent activities. 

Impact of PACs on American Politics

The steady growth of PAC spending (in millions of dollars) from 1978 to 2012.

All of these different types of PACs are created to sway and influence elections through financial support. Traditional PACs often contribute modestly to candidates, political campaigns, and groups. By donating money directly, these PACs show support to candidates who share their interests in hopes that they will be elected. 

Super PACs are when the big bucks come in. Because Super PACs can receive an unlimited amount of donations, they usually dominate the atmosphere during election season. They can use this money to spend on advertising campaigns on television, radio, and social media to either promote their candidate or badmouth the opposing candidate. A Super PAC could easily spend $50 million for ads on Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok to promote their candidate. Furthermore, these Super PACs often use their money to hire political consultants for their favored group or candidate to discuss campaign strategy, polling, and messaging, all with the hopes that their candidate or group will win. 

Hybrid PACs can do both, which can make them a very attractive type of Political Action Committee. However, data from 2023 to 2024 shows that 2,526 of the 9,233 federal PACs, or about 27%, were Super PACs. It’s also well-known that a majority of PACs are Traditional PACs, so in reality, Hybrid PACs actually make up a very small portion of the total.

Why Are PACs Frowned Upon?

Many Americans are protesting against the existence of Political Action Committees, arguing that they make America’s voting process less democratic. Although PACs cannot legally buy votes or bribe politicians, large donations often give the donors of these PACs more access and influence over the elections. This creates an unequal system because wealthy individuals and corporations can donate millions and have greater influence over an election, thus allowing them to have more say in the government than the average American. This is an issue because it means that candidates and campaigns will prioritize the needs and wants of wealthy donors, whether it be an individual or a corporation, over those of the average American, as they would have donated more money. 

PACs have become financial engines of American politics because they have fueled the elections of America’s political candidates. These PACs, ranging from Traditional PACs to Hybrid PACs, offer wealthier individuals and corporations in America to have a larger voice in American politics than an average citizen. As political campaigns grow more influential and expensive, a question arises about the future of Political Action Committees: Does the growing political influence of PACs, via monetary support, weaken the democratic foundation of America by tipping the scales toward those with the deepest pockets? The answer will, in many ways, define the future of American politics.