CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE AIM AT LEADERSHIP PACs

Congress must take steps to reform its institutional behavior. A recognition of this is spreading at the U.S. Capitol and a committee has been formed to study possible changes. Beyond adding internal controls, though, Congress should close some arteries of funding that members utilize for their elections. In particular, so-called "leadership PACs" should be abolished. Such a distribution of money does nothing to nurture good government ... and does a great deal to tie the hands of congressional members.

Political action committees, commonly known as PACs, are both cursed and revered as part of the election process. Some say they corrupt the system, others believe they level the playing field of constituent influence. Few argue that PACs are insignificant in the election of congressmen and senators. Lesser known by the public are PACs controlled by congressional leaders not solely for the purpose of their election, but the election of others who are attuned to their thinking.

For example, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, a Missourian and big-time player in leadership PACs, has a re-election committee as well as something called the Effective Government Committee. Originally formed in 1984 to finance his travels and political aspirations, the Effective Government Committee contributed $252,000 to House and Senate candidates during the 1989-90 election cycle. The same PAC has given $48,000 to two dozen candidates in this election season, with plans made for other contributions of up to $150,000.

This type of donation is not the exclusive domain of Democrats. The most active leadership PAC in the 1989-90 election cycle, an organization called Campaign America, was controlled by Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole, who doled out about $300,000 to GOP candidates. House Speaker Tom Foley has such a PAC ($124,000 given to candidates through this July) but so does House Minority Leader Robert Michel ($76,000 this year).

Keep in mind that these lawmakers are doing nothing illegal, which is the point. Federal election laws allow PACs to contribute a limited amount of money to a candidate, in addition to contributing to a PAC controlled by that candidate. In turn, these candidates can distribute this money to other candidates, effectively distributing loans whose payback is a political favor here and there. As a result, the influence of special interests grows and the leverage congressional leaders have over lawmakers with less seniority increases. If Rep. Gephardt (or Sen. Dole) casts out the net of financial largess, the will of an individual legislator to vote independently is weakened. Telling your benefactor "no" is a bad career move on Capitol Hill.

Clearly, this system needs some revision. As part of the effort to reform Congress, more than lip service needs to be paid to the system of financing congressional campaigns. Within that effort, the leadership PACs need to be done away with.