Also known as:political action committee · political action committees · PAC · PACs · super PAC
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An organization formed to raise and spend money to support or oppose candidates for public office or to influence ballot measures.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Lawyer Contribution Raises Ethics Concern
Pavel Petrov donates through a political action committee to a judicial candidate's campaign. The contribution is made shortly before Petrov seeks appointment as counsel for a state agency that the candidate oversees. The timing and purpose trigger review under rules prohibiting contributions aimed at obtaining government legal work.
Corporate Independent Spending Validated
Pulse Media forms a political action committee to fund advertisements criticizing a federal candidate. The committee operates separately from the company's treasury and makes only independent expenditures. The arrangement complies with limits on direct contributions while allowing robust political speech.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Casebooks
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission558 U.S. 310, 352 (2010)
Judicial Candidate Speech Protected
Phoenix Technologies contributes to a political action committee that endorses a judicial candidate who has announced views on legal issues. The contribution supports the candidate's right to discuss disputed legal questions during the campaign. Restrictions on such speech are struck down as violating the First Amendment.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002)
Copyright Term Extension Challenged
Premier Manufacturing donates to a political action committee opposing legislation that extends copyright terms. The committee argues the extension harms public access to creative works. The challenge fails because the extension falls within Congress's enumerated powers.
Eldred v. Ashcroft537 U.S. 186
Contribution Limits Upheld
Patricia Patel contributes to a political action committee that supports candidates accepting only limited hard-money donations. Opponents claim the limits disadvantage smaller candidates. The limits are sustained because they address corruption concerns without banning political participation.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission540 U.S. 93, 226–27 (2003)
Voter ID Law Sustained
Philip Powell funds a political action committee that advocates for stricter voter identification requirements. Challengers argue the requirements burden access to the polls. The requirements are upheld because the state's interest in preventing fraud outweighs the limited burden on voters.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board553 U.S. 181 (2008)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a lawyer's contribution through a PAC violate professional conduct rules?+
A contribution violates the rules when it is made or solicited for the purpose of obtaining a government legal engagement or judicial appointment. The public may question whether the lawyer was selected on merit rather than political support. The rule protects the integrity of the profession while preserving the right to participate in politics.
How do PACs relate to corporate political speech under the First Amendment?+
PACs allow corporations to make independent expenditures without directly contributing to candidates. Such spending receives full First Amendment protection when it is not coordinated with a campaign. Limits on direct contributions remain valid to prevent corruption.
Supporting sources
What distinguishes a political contribution from uncompensated services under the relevant rule?+
A political contribution includes any gift, loan, or deposit of value made to influence an election. Uncompensated services provided by a lawyer are excluded from the definition. This distinction allows lawyers to volunteer time without triggering the contribution prohibition.
392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)Criminal Procedure
…suspicion that a person is armed and presently dangerous, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest. The officer’s action was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference. The conviction is affirmed. Majority opinion Opinion of the…