Political action committee

Based on Wikipedia: Political action committee

The Strange Alchemy of American Political Money

In 1943, while American soldiers were fighting across North Africa and the Pacific, a quieter battle was being waged in Washington. Labor unions, freshly banned from donating directly to political candidates, needed a workaround. So they invented one. The Congress of Industrial Organizations, under president Philip Murray, created something called the CIO-PAC—the first political action committee in American history.

It was a hack. A legal fiction. A way to pool money from individual workers and spend it on politics while technically obeying a law designed to keep unions out of elections.

That improvisation would eventually reshape American democracy.

What a PAC Actually Is

A political action committee is, at its core, a money-pooling machine. It collects contributions from individuals—union members, corporate executives, concerned citizens—and channels those funds toward candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The moment an organization receives or spends more than one thousand dollars to influence a federal election, it becomes a PAC in the eyes of the law and must register with the Federal Election Commission.

Think of it as a middle layer between individual donors and politicians. You can't write a hundred-thousand-dollar check directly to your favorite congressional candidate—federal limits cap individual donations at a few thousand dollars per election. But you can write that check to a PAC, which can then spend money in ways that benefit candidates.

The key word is "benefit." Not "donate to." That distinction matters enormously.

The Rules of the Game

Federal multi-candidate PACs operate under specific spending limits that might seem arbitrary until you understand they're the product of decades of legislative haggling and court decisions. A PAC can give five thousand dollars to a candidate for each election—and primary elections count separately from general elections, so that's potentially ten thousand dollars per candidate per cycle. PACs can also give fifteen thousand dollars to a political party per year and five thousand to other PACs.

But here's where it gets interesting.

PACs can make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party. If a PAC wants to spend ten million dollars on television ads praising a senator or attacking their opponent, they can do exactly that. The catch is they can't coordinate with the candidate's campaign. In theory, this means the PAC and the campaign operate as strangers, unable to share strategy or messaging.

In practice, well, campaigns have gotten creative about what counts as "coordination."

The Original Sin: Corporate and Union Money

The story of PACs is really the story of American anxiety about whose money should influence elections.

Back in 1907, the Tillman Act banned corporations from contributing directly to federal political campaigns. This wasn't some progressive fever dream—it was signed by Theodore Roosevelt, who had grown alarmed at how much corporate money had flowed into his own 1904 campaign. The ban on union contributions came later, in 1943, through the Smith-Connally Act.

But banning direct contributions didn't eliminate the desire to influence politics. It just changed the shape of that influence. Corporations and unions couldn't donate from their treasuries, but they could sponsor PACs and cover the administrative costs. The PACs themselves could then raise money from executives and shareholders, or from union members.

This created a peculiar ecosystem. A company like AT&T can't write a check to a congressional candidate. But the AT&T PAC can—and does, to the tune of several million dollars per election cycle. The money comes from individual AT&T employees, but the company decides how to spend it.

The Citizens United Earthquake

For decades, this system held roughly stable. Then came 2010.

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission didn't invent PACs or even super PACs. What it did was far more fundamental: it declared that the government could not prohibit corporations and unions from spending money on political speech. The reasoning was straightforward, even if controversial. If the First Amendment protects political speech, and spending money is a form of speech, then limiting how much money corporations can spend on politics is limiting their speech.

The decision left intact the prohibition on corporations giving directly to candidates. But it opened the floodgates for independent expenditures—money spent to support or oppose candidates without coordinating with their campaigns.

Within months, a new creature emerged: the super PAC.

Super PACs: Unlimited Money, Unlimited Complications

A super PAC—officially an "independent expenditure-only political action committee"—can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups. It can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising. The only thing it cannot do is coordinate with candidates or give money directly to their campaigns.

This theoretical wall between super PACs and campaigns has proven remarkably porous in practice. A super PAC supporting a presidential candidate might be run by the candidate's former staffers, advised by the candidate's current strategists, and funded by the candidate's longtime donors. Everyone involved maintains the legal fiction that they're operating independently.

The result is a system where a single billionaire can pour hundreds of millions of dollars into an election through a super PAC, while being prohibited from giving more than a few thousand dollars directly to their preferred candidate. It's as if we tried to prevent people from drinking alcohol by banning them from buying it in bars—while allowing unlimited purchases from liquor stores next door.

Connected, Non-Connected, and Leadership PACs

The taxonomy of PACs has grown baroque over the years.

Connected PACs, sometimes called corporate PACs, are established by businesses, unions, trade groups, or nonprofit organizations. They can only raise money from a "restricted class"—typically managers and shareholders for corporations, or members for unions. There are about 1,600 corporate PACs and around 270 labor union PACs registered at any given time.

Non-connected PACs have no such restrictions. They can accept money from anyone: individuals, other PACs, any organization willing to write a check. These are often ideological groups or single-issue organizations. They're the fastest-growing category of PAC.

Then there are leadership PACs—and these deserve special attention.

A leadership PAC is controlled by a current or former elected official. It cannot be used to fund that official's own campaign. What it can fund is travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and—crucially—donations to other candidates.

This creates interesting dynamics. A powerful senator or representative can use their leadership PAC to funnel money to colleagues and challengers in other races, building loyalty and influence. It's a way of converting fundraising prowess into political power.

Leadership PACs donated nearly sixty-nine million dollars to federal candidates in the 2024 election cycle. That's real influence.

The Scandals Tell the Story

The history of leadership PACs is littered with stories that illuminate how the system actually works.

Former Representative John Doolittle of California ran a leadership PAC that paid fifteen percent of its receipts to a firm whose only employee was his wife. Over four years, she received nearly three hundred thousand dollars. The Justice Department investigated for years before dropping the case without charges.

Former Representative Richard Pombo used his leadership PAC to cover hotel bills exceeding twenty-two thousand dollars and buy baseball tickets for donors.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's leadership PAC was fined twenty-one thousand dollars for accepting donations above federal limits.

And in a particularly colorful example, President Trump's Save America PAC spent six hundred fifty thousand dollars on portraits of him and the first lady destined for the Smithsonian, two hundred thousand at Trump Hotel properties, and one hundred thirty-two thousand on the first lady's fashion stylist.

These aren't necessarily illegal expenditures. They're often perfectly legal under the rules. That's precisely what makes them worth examining.

Following the Money

Who actually donates the most PAC money to federal candidates?

The answer might surprise you. It's not technology companies or oil giants or pharmaceutical manufacturers. For years, the single largest PAC donor has been the National Association of Realtors. In 2024, their PAC gave nearly four million dollars to federal candidates.

The top ten list is an eclectic mix: beer wholesalers, telecom companies, sugar producers, health insurers, and unions representing operating engineers and sheet metal workers. Blue Cross Blue Shield, America's Credit Unions, the American Bankers Association—these are the organizations that have mastered the art of converting member contributions into political access.

Why realtors? Real estate transactions are regulated at every level of government—zoning laws, property taxes, mortgage rules, fair housing requirements. The industry has enormous stakes in political outcomes that rarely make headlines.

The same logic applies to beer wholesalers. Alcohol distribution is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America, with a byzantine three-tier system separating producers, distributors, and retailers. Every legislative session brings bills that could reshape the industry. A few million dollars in PAC contributions is cheap insurance.

The Numbers in Perspective

It's worth stepping back to consider scale.

PAC contributions to federal candidates have grown substantially over the past three decades—from three hundred thirty-three million dollars in 1990 to four hundred eighty-two million in 2022. That sounds like a lot of money flooding into politics.

But here's the counterintuitive part: PAC contributions make up only about twenty-three percent of the money raised by House candidates and just ten percent for Senate candidates. The majority of campaign funding comes from individual donors, not PACs.

Media coverage tends to emphasize PAC money because it's more dramatic—shadowy organizations pooling corporate cash to buy elections makes for better headlines than millions of ordinary citizens sending small checks to candidates they believe in. The reality is messier and more democratic than the narrative suggests.

This doesn't mean PAC money is insignificant. Access matters. A PAC that has given regularly to a member of Congress will find it easier to get a meeting, to make their case on legislation, to have their concerns heard. But the raw dollar amounts represent a smaller slice of campaign funding than most people assume.

Hybrid PACs and the Continuing Evolution

The system keeps evolving.

A hybrid PAC, sometimes called a Carey Committee, represents a relatively recent innovation. It operates like a super PAC in that it can make unlimited independent expenditures. But it can also give limited amounts directly to campaigns and committees, like a traditional PAC. It's both things at once—hence "hybrid."

This structure emerged from a 2011 federal court decision and represents the kind of creative lawyering that has characterized campaign finance for decades. Whenever regulators close one door, political operatives find another one to open.

The Deeper Question

Understanding PACs requires grappling with a fundamental tension in American democracy.

On one hand, money enables political speech. Running for office costs money. Advertising costs money. Organizing costs money. If we restrict spending on political activity, we restrict political activity itself. The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that such restrictions conflict with the First Amendment.

On the other hand, concentrated wealth creates unequal political voice. When one person can spend a hundred million dollars on an election and another can spare only twenty dollars, their ability to influence outcomes differs enormously. This offends intuitions about democratic equality.

PACs exist in this tension. They allow groups to pool resources and speak collectively—unions, professional associations, ideological movements. They also allow wealthy individuals and corporations to amplify their voice far beyond what any ordinary citizen could achieve.

Whether this system is working as intended depends entirely on what you think it should be intended to do.

The Labor Movement's Legacy

There's something poignant about the origins of PACs in the labor movement.

Philip Murray and Sidney Hillman created the CIO-PAC because workers needed a way to participate in politics after Congress had banned their unions from doing so directly. The PAC was a tool of collective action—individual workers pooling small contributions to match the political influence of wealthy industrialists.

Eighty years later, PACs are more commonly associated with corporate influence than worker empowerment. Of the roughly 4,600 active PACs, the vast majority are connected to businesses, trade associations, and professional groups. Labor unions maintain several hundred PACs, but they're a minority presence.

The tool created by workers to amplify their voice has been adopted most enthusiastically by the interests workers created it to counterbalance.

That's not a moral judgment. It's just history—a reminder that political innovations rarely stay in the hands of their inventors.

Where This Leaves Us

The American system of political action committees is neither as corrupted as its harshest critics claim nor as democratic as its defenders suggest. It's a Rube Goldberg machine—a contraption of laws, court decisions, and regulatory interpretations that has grown more complex with each passing decade.

Money finds its way into politics. It always has, in every democracy throughout history. The question is whether we channel that money through transparent, regulated pathways or push it underground into dark money organizations that don't disclose their donors.

PACs, for all their flaws, at least operate in the light. They file reports with the Federal Election Commission. They disclose contributions above two hundred dollars. Researchers and journalists can track who's giving and who's receiving.

That transparency may be the system's greatest virtue—not that it prevents the influence of money in politics, but that it lets citizens see that influence clearly.

Whether they choose to look is another matter entirely.