inton administration proposal in 1997 to eliminate logging subsidies because of the industry’s $8 million in PAC contributions. This sheltering of such industries is a clear example of how the contributions of PACs influence the “buying” of congressional votes. People that side with the influence of PACs argue that the contributions are given from groups that the candidates already agree with anyway. But if most people in the general public, and including elected officials, agree that the use of tobacco is harmful and natural resources should be preserved, why do tobacco companies and logging companies that destroy the nation’s forests maintain their rights when voted on in Congress? The answer must be due to the influence of PAC contributions. To stop the influence of PACs in today’s politics restrictions must be set. For instance a donation limit from PACs should be set or even the abolishment of PACs could be a solution. Without PACs vote buying would not be an issue. Instead representatives would vote for issues on how their personal feelings or ideals would vote for an issue instead of the ideas of a rich group or lobbyist. Congressmen love the idea of Political Action Committees giving them money for their votes because it adds to their personal and campaign financing for the future, but that should not be the reason for the vote. Interest Groups play a great role in America’s political system by influencing government policies but PACs play far to great a role in “vote buying” and should have restrictions placed upon them. ...
