PACs are political organizations that collect money, either from their members or the general public, and redistribute it to political candidates or parties that support their interests. Although some form of political action committee probably existed as early as the late 1940s (the Committee on Political Education is considered one such early example), PACs were only formally authorized with the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. There are two types of PACs: segregated fund PACs, which are allowed to collect money only from their members, and non-connected PACs, which raise their money from the voting public. PACs in modern American politics represent a wide variety of interests, ranging from environmental groups to conservative religious churches to pro-choice advocates.

PACs increase democratic participation in that they allow their members and contributors to effect political decision-making, at least indirectly, but their influence on the democratic process has become extremely controversial. For one thing, like political lobbyists more generally they are often suspected of subverting the public good for sectarian ends. Thus PACs representing occupational groups such as teachers or lawyers find themselves accused of directing legislation to the advantage of their members’ interests but to the detriment of the public good. Moreover, as their influence has grown, and more particularly as their monetary contributions have skyrocketed, they have helped increase the importance of fundraising generally As a result, professional politicians must now spend much of their time and energy raising money to help finance their campaigns, at least if they wish to be elected or to stay in office. This obviously reduces the amount of time and attention they can devote to the actual business of the legislature. It also raises the question of to whom, exactly the politician is beholden: the general public, or the special-interest PACs that provide the bulk of the campaign’s financial support? A related issue arose in the 1990s with the advent of so-called “soft money.” In an effort to reduce the importance played by money in politics, particularly in campaign advertising, some legislatures attempted to place restrictions on the amount that a candidate could spend in a campaign. However, as long as they advertised not directly for a particular candidate but for some issue or set of issues, special-interest groups such as PACs could spend unlimited amounts of money. These so-called “soft-money” expenditures seemed to allow campaigns to subvert the intent of the restrictions with highly charged and often partisan ads. In the 1996 federal congressional campaigns, for example, the AFL-CIO spent millions of dollars attacking Republican candidates.

Moreover, whereas candidates must account to the Federal Election commission for all of the money that they spend within their campaigns, PACs are not always under such requirements.

As with political lobbying more generally however, there are constitutional issues relating to freedom of speech and of assembly that have hampered most attempts to curtail the influence of soft money and of PACs more generally. As a result, many potential candidates for public office in modern American politics are judged on their viability that is whether and how well they can raise PAC and other special-interest money. This has only contributed to a growing cynicism about the ability of some private groups and individuals to “buy” politicians in order to determine public policy.