OUTLAWING PACS NOT WAY TO ELECTION REFORM

Political campaign costs are exorbitant and the numbers escalate every year. The answer, some say, is the elimination of political action committees, known more commonly as PACs.

In theory, it sounds good. In practice, it won't work. Eliminating PACs won't stop the steady stream of money into politics. The dollars will find a new route.

What might better serve the political process is a more full and timely disclosure. A better accounting is needed for every dollar spent on elections before the ballots are cast. Especially lacking now is an accounting of outside expenditures PACs are spending dollars without a direct connection to the candidates.

More timely disclosure is also needed. As it stands now, the money collected in the final two weeks of an election won't be revealed until after the ballots are cast.

Ironically, PACs evolved as post-Watergate election reform as a way to take the influence away from wealthy individuals. As late as 1972, there was little accountability regarding campaign finances.

But the campaign financing law of 1974 banned direct contributions from corporations, labor unions and other groups. Instead, the money had to be funneled through these newly established PACs. Limits were also placed on contributions: $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 from PACs at the federal level.

Spending limits established in the mid-70s quickly lost their luster and effective restraint. The number of PACs snowballed. Single companies spawned numerous PACs. Despite restrictions, PACs contribute a growing chunk of money. In 1988 alone, PACs contributed more than $172.4 million.

The well-intended PAC legislation spawned some unintended consequences.

Although they are limited in contributions per candidate, PACs have learned they are unlimited in the amount of money they spend independently to promote or defeat a candidate. They can spend hundred of thousands of dollars on advertising without a candidate's direct blessing which will not appear on any campaign disclosure report.

Along the way, PACs have also picked up some perception problems. The public wonders how all this money flows without some favor in return. The PACs heavily favor the incumbents, which typically win re-election. Many incumbents today receive 50 percent or more of their campaign war chests from PACs.

People are tired of status quo in Washington. But eliminating PACs is not the answer. We must carefully consider the unintended consequences. The flow of money will not be stopped, only redirected. The result may be less, not more, public disclosure of campaign finances.