LETTERS: PACs BACK THOSE WITH SAME VIEWS

To the editor:

It is rare that Alan Journet and I agree on anything, so I was pleased to see him voice his opposition to vote fraud. However, having agreed on this one issue, he then extends the distance between our views by voicing his opinions on PAC funds and once again by attacking U.S. Sen. Christopher Bond. Mr. Journet mistakenly believes that public concerns and industry's concerns are the opposites of each other, and that his concerns always represent the concerns of the general public. The public whose livelihood depends on the jobs industry provides, the public that desires or needs the products that industry produces and the public that provides services and support to industry and industrial workers all share a concern that industry be allowed to produce its product in a competitive marketplace. It is in the interest of the public and of industry alike to ensure that industry provides products to the public that are desirable, reliable, safe and affordable. To ensure that governmental overreach doesn't hamper the efforts of industry to maintain its competitive edge, industries establish PACs to lobby government to keep regulation within the bounds of reason. Those whose interests conflict with industry's similarly establish PACs to lobby for restrictive and costly regulation on industry. Frequently this regulation offers little, if any, real benefit to the general public. Mr. Journet seems to suggest that Senator Bond's position on environmental issues is a direct result of the industrial PAC money Bond receives. I would argue that the opposite is true. Bond receives a large share of industrial PAC money because of his position on environmental issues. If it were as Mr. Journet seems to suggest, then the environmentalist PACs need merely outbid the industrial PACs for Bond's favor and his vote. I have, however, seen no indication that Bond's vote is available to the highest bidder. Bond has been consistent in his position on nearly all issues, and those who agree with his positions have been willing to contribute to his campaigns in order to maintain his presence in Washington. I belong to various groups which maintain PACs to further their efforts to pass or thwart legislation which impacts our common cause. These PACs contribute to the campaigns of those who have proven their leadership in the support of the particular issue they support. They have never purchased a candidate but have helped those candidates purchase the air time and print space necessary to notify the voters of their candidacy and their positions.

I could send my money directly to the candidates I support, but there are two problems: First, without the work of the PACs, I would not have the information available on the positions and records of the candidates, and I would have to take the word of the candidate that he supports my issue. Far too many candidates straddle the issues or try to be all things to all people. Second, there is seldom a candidate with whom I agree 100 percent, so I want my donation to indicate which issues I agree with the recipient on. I may give $100 to Bond, and he may know the donation came from me but probably will not know why. On the other hand, I can give my $100 to the NRA, and it in turn can give the money to Bond. In this case, he will not know the money came from me, but he will know for which issue he received it. My interest is in issues, not candidates. I want my money and my vote to support the issues I support, and I want the candidates who receive both to know why. Of course, some PACs are troubling indeed. There are groups that receive their financing from governmental revenue, which they in turn use to lobby for more governmental revenue. Elected officials who accept money from these PACs have in essence written themselves a check right out of the U.S. Treasury. It is no doubt difficult to oppose an appropriation for a particular group or cause when you know that a percentage of that appropriation will wind up in your own bank account. Scandalous indeed, but a common practice nonetheless. If Mr. Journet really wants to reform campaign finance, the solution is simple. He should demand that our elected and appointed officials adhere to the letter of the Constitution. With proper constitutional restraint, there would be no EPA with broad power to trample the rights of property owners. Thus, there would be no need for the PACs to contribute large sums of money to influence regulations that will not pass constitutional muster. Take away the ability of government to influence the daily lives of American citizens, and you take away the incentive to try to buy that influence.

SHAPLEY R. HUNTER

Tamms, Ill.