BOOK REVIEW
By JAMES H. ANDREWS

A defense of PAC's

Alfred Balitzer. A Motion of Associations: The Origin, Development and Theory of the Political Action Committee, Washington, D.C.: published jointly by the American Society of Association Executives (1575 Eye Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005) and the American Medical Political Action Committee (1776 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006), 1981, 104 pp.

THIS SHORT book is an argument in support of PAC's — political action committees. These are the groups, independent of the Republican and Democratic parties, that reported 1980 election campaign expenditures of $131 million, 64 percent of the amount spent by the two parties combined. Common Cause says that these groups spend so much money that they undermine public confidence in the political process.

"Perhaps no institution of contemporary American politics," Alfred Balitzer writes, "is more controversial and less understood" than the political action committee.

This booklet is an attempt to make PAC's better understood. To do this, the author says, one must see the PAC as "a form of political association, itself an elaboration of the long-established tradition of voluntary associations in the United States."

The first half of the book makes theoretical arguments in favor of voluntary associations, factions and "self interest." The author supports his view with analyses of the Federalist Papers, the growth of the two-party system, and Alexis de Tocqueville's observations on America made during his travels in 1830.

The second section of the book offers a "history of voluntary associations in America," moving from the colonial experience through the 18th century, Jacksonian America, the industrial and commercial development of the 19th century, the Progressive Era and so forth. The reader may feel that every association except the quilting bee is cited: the Congregational Church of colonial Massachusetts, the Granger movement, the business corporation, the International Workers of the World.

The climax is "the Age of the Political Action Committee." It began, in the author's view with the Non-Partisan League, which dominated the Republican party in some northwestern farm states around 1916 into the 1940s. "Its successor" was the Political Action Committee of the CIO. Growth in numbers of PAC's and in money raised and spent increased dramatically after organization of the American Medical Association PAC in 1961 and passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. In 1978, almost 3,000 PAC's registered with the Federal Election Commission — 42 percent of them corporate PAC's; 28 percent "trade, membership/health" PAC's, and 15 percent labor PAC's — each category, Balitzer reports, spending around 30 percent of the total PAC money used in federal elections.

A final section of the book deals with contemporary opposition to PAC's, which he says is led by elected officials and bureaucrats. "At bottom, the hostile attitude of elective officials traces to their dislike of competition" (emphasis his). Proposals for government funding of election campaigns, in Balitzer's view, reflect this dislike of competitive seeking of support from private sources.

There is much that is valid in the argument of this book. Americans have always associated with each other in a variety of ways, and many of these associations have had direct political as well as economic and social impact. One can surely see the PAC's of the 1980s in this tradition and regard them as contributing to the legitimacy and vitality of our public life and the policies that govern us.

Further, the pursuit of special interests (a term Balitzer does not like) or self-interest (which he does like) is indeed an integral part of the theory that supports and explains our constitution and government.

There is, however, another tradition, which sometimes complements and sometimes contradicts the tradition argued by the book. Madison wrestled with this in The Federalist, even as Balitzer quotes him. This tradition says that we have a common interest in structuring the competition among associations so that conflict does not destroy the Republic or popular faith in its institutions and processes. The Constitution is itself an attempt to balance diversity and unity, special and more general interests. Regulatory legislation, ever since 1907 in the author's chronology, represents a continuing effort to come to grips with the two traditions.

This effort involves answering quite practical questions: What specific limits on organized efforts to elect and influence public officials are necessary and consistent with democracy? Should any person or group be allowed to give anything of value to any candidate or official under any circumstances? Should all associations be regarded as the same, for political purposes?

And when money is raised through organizations with power over individuals — such as employers, or unions — should the law try to protect persons who may see their interests better served by other groups or other forms of political action?

A Nation of Associations is a pamphlet that PAC's can distribute in explanation of their origins and in defense of their activities. Its argument would have been strengthened by more careful treatment of the second tradition, in both theory and history, and the practical considerations it imposes. □

James H. Andrews is a political science researcher and consultant in Homewood. He works with organizations, communities and local governments to identify and build consensus for defining and making decisions.