Also known as: PACs · Political Action Committee
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An organization formed to raise and spend money to elect or defeat candidates or to influence legislation.
Prism Analytics retained Pavel Petrov to handle regulatory filings with a state agency. Petrov formed a PAC and directed substantial contributions to the incumbent governor's reelection campaign. The agency later awarded the firm the engagement after reviewing bids from several competitors.
Platinum Partners established a PAC to produce television ads supporting a federal candidate. The PAC accepted donations only from employees and shareholders. Citizens United later challenged restrictions that would have barred the same corporate speech outside the PAC structure.
Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation with an annual budget of about $12 million. Most of its funds come from donations by individuals, though it accepts a small portion from for-profit corporations. In January 2008, Citizens United released a 90-minute documentary film entitled Hillary: The Movie. The film mentions Senator Hillary Clinton by name and depicts interviews with political commentators, most of them critical of her. Hillary was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by making the film available through video-on-demand. In December 2007, a cable company offered to make Hillary available on a video-on-demand channel called Elections '08 for a payment of $1.2 million. The proposal was to make the film available to viewers free of charge. To promote the video-on-demand offering, Citizens United produced two 10-second ads and one 30-second ad. Each ad includes a short statement about Senator Clinton followed by the name of the movie and the movie's website address. Citizens United desired to promote the offering by running the advertisements on broadcast and cable television within 30 days of primary elections. Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, federal law prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate in connection with certain federal elections. BCRA §203 amended the law to prohibit any electioneering communication. An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election when publicly distributed so that it can be received by 50,000 or more persons in a relevant state. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating 2 U.S.C. §441b, Citizens United filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2007. It sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and that BCRA's disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements are unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the Federal Election Commission's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The case was reargued after the Court requested supplemental briefs addressing whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the relevant portion of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission should be overruled.
View caseA labor union created a PAC to make direct contributions to congressional candidates. Federal law capped the amount the PAC could give per election cycle. The union argued the caps violated its members' associational rights under the First Amendment.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Communications Act of 1934, and other statutes to address the role of soft money and issue advocacy in federal elections. Plaintiffs included a diverse group of entities and individuals such as the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union who alleged that BCRA was unconstitutional. Defendants included the Federal Election Commission and the Attorney General of the United States. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and heard by a three-judge panel pursuant to special procedures in BCRA Section 403. The District Court received a voluminous record from the parties and issued a judgment on May 1, 2003, that upheld some provisions of BCRA and invalidated others. All losing parties filed direct appeals to the Supreme Court within ten days, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction on June 5, 2003, ordering expedited briefing and argument on September 8, 2003. More than a century of federal legislation preceded BCRA, beginning with the Tillman Act of 1907 that banned corporate contributions in connection with federal elections. Congress later extended prohibitions to unions, required disclosure of contributions and expenditures, and enacted FECA in 1971 with further amendments in 1974 that imposed contribution limits, expenditure ceilings, and created the FEC. The Supreme Court addressed constitutional challenges to the 1974 amendments in Buckley v. Valeo. After Buckley, the FEC permitted political parties to fund mixed-purpose activities such as voter registration and generic advertising in part with soft money not subject to FECA's source and amount limits. Soft-money fundraising by the national parties grew from $21.6 million in 1984 to $498 million in 2000, with large corporate and union donations often motivated by a desire for access to federal candidates. National parties transferred substantial soft money to state parties, which could use higher percentages for mixed activities under FEC allocation rules. The use of soft money also supported so-called issue ads that avoided express advocacy of a candidate's election or defeat and therefore fell outside FECA's disclosure and source restrictions. These ads frequently aired in the 60 days before federal elections, referred to clearly identified candidates, and were funded by corporations, unions, and tax-exempt organizations using misleading names. A Senate investigation into 1996 federal election practices documented both parties' use of soft money to obtain special access for large donors and the coordination of issue ads with candidates. The District Court compiled extensive evidence from declarations, expert reports, and internal party documents showing that federal officeholders solicited soft-money donations, that parties maintained tallies crediting donors to particular candidates, and that large soft-money contributions were often made to secure influence rather than for ideological reasons.
View caseParagon Construction formed a PAC to advocate for deregulation of its industry. State law required the PAC to register and disclose donors before airing radio spots. The company claimed the disclosure rules imposed an unconstitutional burden on political speech.
Prime Logistics maintained a PAC that funded political advertisements. A shareholder sued, alleging the expenditures were not properly authorized under corporate bylaws. The court examined whether prior judgments against the company precluded relitigation of the authorization issue.
Patrick Phan ran for a state judgeship and accepted contributions from a business PAC. State canons prohibited candidates from personally soliciting funds but allowed PACs to raise money independently. Phan defended the arrangement as protected political association under the First Amendment.
Since Minnesota's admission to the Union in 1858, the State's Constitution has provided for the selection of all state judges by popular election. Since 1912, those elections have been nonpartisan. Since 1974, they have been subject to a legal restriction which states that a candidate for a judicial office, including an incumbent judge, shall not announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues. The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct containing this announce clause is based on the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct. In 1996, petitioner Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. During his campaign, he distributed literature criticizing several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions on issues such as crime, welfare, and abortion. A complaint was filed against him with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility challenging the propriety of this literature under the announce clause. The Lawyers Board dismissed the complaint, expressing doubt whether the clause could constitutionally be enforced, but Wersal withdrew from the election out of concern for his law practice. In 1998, Wersal ran again for the same office. Early in that race, he sought an advisory opinion from the Lawyers Board on enforcement of the announce clause but received an equivocal response because he had not submitted specific announcements. Shortly thereafter, Wersal and other plaintiffs including the Minnesota Republican Party filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. They sought a declaration that the announce clause violates the First Amendment and an injunction against its enforcement. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court found in favor of respondents, holding that the announce clause did not violate the First Amendment. Over a dissent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View casePAC stands for political action committee. It is an organization that pools contributions to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures.
Rule 7.6 prohibits a lawyer or firm from making or soliciting political contributions for the purpose of obtaining government legal work or judicial appointments. Contributions routed through a PAC are still subject to the rule when the purpose is to secure engagements.
Yes. Corporations and unions may establish a PAC to make expenditures for express advocacy or electioneering communications. The decision removed the prior ban on corporate independent expenditures outside the PAC structure.