Super PACs. Dark money. Billionaires spending millions to influence elections. Americans are rightly concerned about where political money is coming from. But what is the solution? Is a new system required to put in place a transparent, regulated, and limited form of political giving?
Thankfully, the solution already exists (and has since the 1970s) in the form of traditional political action committees (PACs), also known as separate segregated funds for labor unions, businesses, and trade associations. Traditional PACs allow individual donors to voluntarily pool their money together, in small amounts and in the most transparent way.
Traditional PACs disclose their receipts and disbursements monthly or quarterly depending on how they are set up with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and operate under strict contribution limits overseen by the FEC. For decades, traditional PACs have provided a structured, accountable way for Americans to participate collectively in the political process. PACs were the original campaign finance reform of the 1970s, intended to allow small dollar donors the ability to have their voices heard, and it is a reform that has worked for over 50 years.
The biggest problem? PAC contribution limits haven’t changed in 50 years, making other, less-transparent or less-regulated avenues of giving far more attractive.
While federal campaign finance laws adjust the amount individuals can contribute to candidates every two years to account for inflation, PAC contribution limits remain frozen. Over time, inflation steadily erodes the real value of PAC contributions, even as other forms of political spending continue to grow.
This may sound like a minor technical issue. In reality, it has significant consequences for the transparency of our political system.
When traditional PACs become less relevant, political giving does not disappear. It simply shifts. Increasingly, that money flows toward less regulated and less transparent forms of political giving.
In other cases, political money simply concentrates in the hands of a few wealthy individuals who can give the maximum contribution to dozens of candidates. A couple can now give more money to a political campaign than a group of hundreds or even thousands of members of a labor union, trade association, or employees of a business.
None of these trends strengthen transparency or broaden participation in the political process.
To be clear, we understand why contribution limits exist. They are meant to strike a balance—allowing Americans to participate in elections while ensuring that no single voice dominates. But when limits for traditional PACs remain static for decades, inflation quietly rewrites the law that Congress originally intended.
Indexing PAC contribution limits for inflation would not dramatically reshape campaign finance. It would simply apply the same principle that Congress has already adopted for individual contributions: ensuring that limits maintain their intended value over time.
This kind of adjustment is routine in federal policy. Tax brackets, government benefits, and many other thresholds are regularly updated to account for changes in the value of the dollar. Campaign finance should be no different.
More importantly, maintaining the relevance of traditional PACs helps preserve one of the most transparent avenues for political participation.
Americans across the political spectrum are rightly concerned about the role of money in politics. Policymakers should be looking for ways to strengthen transparency and accountability, not inadvertently weaken them.
Updating PAC contribution limits to reflect inflation is a modest but meaningful step in that direction.
Congress should act to ensure that one of the most transparent components of our campaign finance system remains relevant in the years ahead.
G.K. Butterfield is a former U.S. Representative for North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District; Ed Perlmutter is a former U.S. Representative for Colorado’s 7th Congressional District; and Micaela Isler is CEO of the National Association of Business PACs.
The seasons are changing, but some things never change — like trial lawyers hunting for new ways to…
We Americans have always expected our food to meet changing needs. We want food that is safe, affordable,…
At the annual Medtech Showcase and Reception on Capitol Hill, members of Congress experienced more than 30 cutting-edge…
On the record or off. Lawmakers, staffers, lobbyists, journalists — if it belongs on Capitol Hill, we want to hear it.
Thanks for reaching out. We review every pitch and will follow up if we want to pursue the story.
