Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee

Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee opened the door wider to extensive campaign spending and the continued political influence of PACs. Many believe the campaign finance system creates distrust and cynicism in the public and undermines concepts of integrity and fairness. To many, government seems increasingly remote from their influence and a tool of the rich and powerful special interest groups. However, reform is a strongly partisan issue as Republicans have demonstrated a greater ability than Democrats to raise large sums of funds, thus gaining a seemingly greater advantage in elections. President Clinton, recognizing this disadvantage of the Democrats, undertook extraordinary efforts to raise campaign funds for his 1996 re-election. The various tactics drew considerable debate.

Facts regarding the dangers of PACs are not clear, complicating reform efforts. Studies show that life spans of individual PACS are brief, particularly the conservative citizen PACs. FEC v. NCPAC came at the time of maximum influence exerted by NCPAC and FCM. As quickly as 1986, NCPAC came into debt and by the early 1990s exerted only a minor influence in campaigns. Corporate and labor PACs, proven more stable due to a more definite, cohesive supporter base, largely replaced "ideological" PACs. Extensive reform proposals include public financing for Congressional elections, and limitations on PAC "soft money" contributions and independent spending. Congressional efforts at reform died again in early 1998. Reforms passed in the 1990s tended to focus more on disclosure of activities to the public rather than actual regulation of activities. Despite strong disagreements over the role and influence of PACs, they persist in the American political scene and continue to enjoy protection under the First Amendment.