Running with the PACs

COVER STORY

How political action committees win friends and influence elections

Like electronic images gobbling dots across a video screen, the PAC-men darted among the elegant rooms of the National Republican Club on Capitol Hill. At a fund raiser for Congressman Eldon Rudd of Arizona, they dropped their checks into a basket by the door or pressed them into the candidate’s palm, before heading for the shrimp rolls and meatballs. Downstairs, other PAC-men crowded into a reception for Delaware Congressman Tom Evans, which featured piano music and White House luminaries. A few stopped in at the party for Deborah Cochran of Massachusetts. Because she is a long shot challenger, they mainly left business cards rather than checks. But still she came out ahead; the cost of the event was picked up by the National Rifle Association.

Although Congress has adjourned and most members have headed home for the final stretch of the 1982 campaign, candidates can still be found buzzing back to Capitol Hill. They know that Washington is where the money is these days, or at least where one dips into the honeypot of contributions from political action committees (PACs). In a circular chase that is dominating congressional politics as never before, the candidates are courting the PACs, and the PAC-men are courting the candidates. “Harry Truman said that some people like government so much that they want to buy it,” says Democratic Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin. “The 1982 elections will see Truman proved right.”

There is nothing inherently evil about PACs: they are merely campaign committees established by organizations of like-minded individuals to raise money for political purposes, a valid aspect of the democratic process. In the wake of Watergate, Congress amended the federal election laws in 1974 to limit the role of wealthy contributors and end secretive payoffs by corporations and unions. The new law formalized the role of PACs, which were supposed to provide a well-regulated channel for individuals to get together and support candidates. But as with many well-intended reforms, there were unintended consequences. Instead of solving the problem of campaign financing, PACs became the problem. They proliferated beyond any expectation, pouring far more money into campaigns than ever before. Today the power of PACs threatens to undermine America’s system of representative democracy.

This year there are 3,149 PACS placing their antes into the political pot, up from 2,551 in 1980 and 113 in 1972. The estimated total of funds they will dispense for campaigns this year: a staggering $240 million. There is Back Pac, PeacePac and Cigar-Pac. Beer distributors have a committee named—what else?—SixPAC. Whataburger Inc. has one called Whata-Pac. The Concerned Rumanians for a Stronger America has a PAC, as does the Hawaiian Golfers for Good Government. And so do most major corporations and unions.

By law a PAC can give $5,000 to both a candidate’s primary and general election campaigns, while an individual contributor can give only $1,000 to each. Presidential elections are financed by federal funds, so most of the money is channeled into congressional, state and local races. Since PACs tend to run in packs, a popular candidate, particularly a powerful incumbent, may raise more than half his war chest from these special-interest groups. One example: Democratic Congressman Thomas Luken of Ohio, who has sponsored numerous special-interest bills and raised some $100,000 from PACs.

During Campaign ’82, PACs will directly donate at least $80 million to House and Senate candidates—a leap of more than 45% from 1980. Another $160 million may be spent by PACs on local races, independent political advertising, and administrative activities. Says Democrat James Shannon of Massachusetts: “PACs are visibly corrupting the system.”

Critics charge that PACs have distorted the democratic process by making candidates beholden to narrow interests rather than to their constituents. “Dependency on PACs has grown so much that PACs, not constituents, are the focus of a Congressman’s attention,” says Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer, whose citizens’ lobby is fighting to reform the system. Special interests, of course, should be able to fight for their own concerns, but the power of PACs has upset the delicate balance between private interests and the public good. Indeed, PAC victories—continued price supports for dairy farmers, the defeat of a proposed fee on commodity trades, a proposed exemption from antitrust laws for shipping companies—often come at taxpayer expense. “It is not surprising there are no balanced budgets,” says Republican Jim Leach of Iowa, who is one of fewer than a dozen members of Congress who refuse to take PAC money.

In addition, the close correlation between special-interest donations and legislative votes sometimes makes it seem that Congress is up for sale. Says Republican Senator Robert Dole of Kansas: “When these PACs give money they expect something in return other than good government.” Democratic Congressman Thomas Downey of New York is more blunt: “You can’t buy a Congressman for $5,000. But you can buy his vote. It’s done on a regular basis.” This is one reason why Michigan Democrat William Brodhead decided to quit Congress this year. Says he: “I got sick of feeling indebted to PACs. There is no reason they give money except in the expectation of votes.”

Another problem is that PACS have helped raise the cost of campaigning, just as the desire to buy more and more expensive television time increases a candidate’s dependency on PACs. Says Democrat Andrew Jacobs of Indiana, a critic of PACs: “It’s like getting addicted by a pusher. You become accustomed to lavish campaigns.” In 1974 the average cost of campaigning for the House was $50,000; in 1980 the average was $150,000, and this year races costing $500,000 are not uncommon. Says House Republican Leader Robert Michel of Illinois, who has raised more than $220,000 from PACs: “This year I’ll pay several hundred thousand dollars for a job that pays $60,000.”

Before the sanctioning of PACs in the early 1970s, corporations and unions were generally prohibited from donating to campaigns. Money from large special interests, however, was often funneled secretly in stuffed envelopes; Lyndon Johnson built his power base by serving as a conduit for campaign donations from oil tycoons and construction companies, and one of the key Watergate revelations was the pernicious influence of large corporate payoffs made under the table. But the national parties, and the local political machines, remained the dominant force in the control of campaign funds. By diminishing the role of parties, PACs tend to make elected officials more narrow in their allegiances. This lessens the chance for broad coalitions that balance competing interests. Says Stuart Eizenstat, former domestic affairs adviser to Jimmy Carter: “PACs balkanize the political process.”

Labor unions, which organized the first political action committees, will pump some $20 million into the 1982 campaign through 350 separate PACs. Business followed the union lead and soon overtook them: this year 1,497 corporate PACs will give $30 million to the candidates. Trade associations such as the National Association of Realtors and the American Medical Association (A.M.A.) account for 613 PACs, which will chip in another $22 million. An additional 45 PACs are run by cooperatives like the Associated Milk Producers, and will give $2 million this election. By far the greatest, and most worrisome, growth has been among the loose cannons of the PAC arsenal, ideological PACS not connected to any organization. Among them: the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms’ Congressional Club. The 644 nonconnected PACs are expected to donate only $6 million directly to candidates. But they will use most of their money for negative propaganda unauthorized by any candidate and for building up direct-mail lists that will help fund future political wars.

PAC money is mainly helping incumbents, since most PACs are guided by the pragmatic desire for access to power. Many corporate PACs that supported successful conservative challengers in 1980 are concentrating this year on solidifying Republican gains. Only 15% of the PAC money has gone to challengers so far this election. In the past this bias toward incumbents meant that Democrats fared slightly better with PACs than Republicans, but now the increasing strength of corporate PACs (which give 65% of their money to Republicans) relative to labor PACs (which channel 90% of their funds to Democrats) could mean that G.O.P. candidates receive slightly more money.

The PACs are playing a dominant role in many races around the country. When Ohio Republican Paul Pfeifer launched his challenge against Senator Howard Metzenbaum last spring, he was given so little chance that the pragmatic PACs shunned him. Metzenbaum’s $3 million campaign fund, on the other hand, included $350,000 in PAC money by the end of the summer, mainly from unions. But last month, while Metzenbaum was in Washington conducting a maverick crusade against special-interest bills, Pfeifer began showing strength in the polls. Suddenly PAC money started flowing to the challenger. Says a Pfeifer aide: “More than anything else, a poll will speak to the PAC community. They’re like a business trying to invest.” One-third of Pfeifer’s campaign donations are now from PACs.

Congressmen Ike Skelton and Wendell Bailey of Missouri have been pitted against each other by redistricting. Such a clash of incumbents inevitably triggers heavy PAC spending, and some groups like the A.M. A. have hedged their bets by donating to both. With dairy and labor PACs lining up behind Democrat Skelton, and corporate ones behind Republican Bailey, each side has raised $100,000 from special interests.

Another heated PAC showdown is the California race between Democrat Phillip Burton and Republican Milton Marks. When Marks first flew to Washington to solicit PAC money, he ran into Burton at a restaurant. “I’m here to raise money to run against you,” Marks proclaimed jovially. Of his 800 PAC solicitations, Marks hooked 100 donors, raising almost $100,000. Burton piously proclaims he will never take corporate PAC money. But he will take it from labor, progressive groups and conservationist clubs. More than half of his $450,000 re-election fund will come from such PACs.

A far different type of political influence develops when an ideological PAC targets a race. NCPAC, for example, is notorious for mounting negative campaigns against candidates it hopes to see defeated. In these races, NCPAC rarely makes direct contributions to a candidate, and thus can spend as much as it wishes. (In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that parts of the federal election law violated the right of free speech. It said that candidates may personally use as much of their own money as they want, and that unaffiliated groups, like NCPAC, can spend unlimited amounts on their own advocacy campaigns as long as their activity is not authorized by any candidate’s official organization.) Moreover, since NCPAC is not affiliated with a candidate, it is less accountable for the tone and content of its campaign. As NCPAC Chairman Terry Dolan has admitted, “A group like ours could lie through its teeth, and the candidate it helps stays clean.” NCPAC played a loud but indefinite role in the defeat of four liberal Senators in 1980, but since then it has waned in power if not in dollars (see box).

Liberal groups have responded to NCPAC and other right-wing organizations by forming PACs of their own. Among the new groups is Progressive PAC (ProPAC), which will spend $150,000 in this election, most of it having gone into now abandoned negative campaigns against conservatives. Another is Democrats for the ’80s (nicknamed PamPAC for Founder Pamela Harriman), which is spending $500,000. One of the richest ideological PACs is that of the National Organization for Women, which hopes to donate more than $2 million this year to candidates who support its feminist positions and who oppose Reaganomics. Says newly elected NOW President Judy Goldsmith: “We will proceed with work on defeating the right wing.”

The growing importance of PAC donations means that the scramble for such money has become an integral part of campaigning. “It used to be that lobbyists lobbied Congressmen,” says PAC Critic Mike Synar, a Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma. “Now, Congressmen lobby lobbyists—for money.” When that inevitable creature of the PAC explosion, the National Association for Association PACs, threw a party, 80 Congressmen showed up. “I’ve never seen such a group grope,” says Democrat Dan Glickman of Kansas. Republican James Coyne of Pennsylvania playfully installed five Pac-Man video games near the bar of one of his Washington fund raisers in honor of the real PAC-men who have donated $126,000 to his 1982 campaign. Other lawmakers shower the PACs with glossy brochures soliciting money.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah has already collected an astounding $750,000 from 531 PACs. Over scrambled eggs at a breakfast last Tuesday in Salt Lake City, he graciously accepted $5,000 more from the Association of Trial Lawyers. Such support, his campaign manager says, “shows a level of commitment to Hatch nationwide by thousands of people.” It also shows, critics say, that he is intensely pro-business and chairs the powerful Labor and Human Resources Committee.

Indeed, the pursuit of PAC money has given a national flavor to state campaigns. Two Democratic congressional hopefuls from California, Doug Bosco and Barbara Boxer, ran into each other this year in the Washington waiting room of a PAC they were both courting. Says Bosco: “You get kind of bored with yourself going from PAC to PAC to PAC. You get the feeling you are being processed.” San Diego’s Republican mayor Pete Wilson, running for the Senate, made a pilgrimage to Washington a few weeks ago and met with Bernadette Budde of the Business Industry PAC (Bl-PAC). He also held a $500-per-PAC-man reception at a hotel near the White House. Total take: $75,000.

Houston and Dallas, where the oil money runs thick, have become hubs of PAC activity. “We had a congressional candidate here from North Carolina recently and gave him a few thousand dollars,” says Jack Webb, executive director of the Houston PAC. “Then we took him around and introduced him to other oil folks and I’m pretty sure he left with more than $10,000 in pledges.” HouPAC plans to give away $200,000 this year, ten times its donations for 1980.

Deciding how to divvy up their bounty can be a complex process for PACS. The 20 trustees of the Realtors PAC held the last of a dozen strategy sessions in Chicago’s downtown Marriott Hotel two weeks ago, working late into the night and through the next day to cull the 150 worthy candidates who would receive the last of the $2.5 million allotted for 1982. Each trustee had a folder on supplicants that included voting records and “campaign intelligence reports” prepared with the aid of eight full-time field specialists. Washington staffers gave briefings on where incumbents stand on such issues as the balanced-budget amendment and the mortgage subsidy bill.

Candidates seeking the Realtors’ money must submit answers to a six-page questionnaire. In some cases the “correct” answers are all too obvious. “Do you agree or disagree [that] trade associations have a right and a responsibility to hold members of Congress accountable for their votes?” Others are trickier. One asks candidates to rank what contributes most to high interest rates: record deficits, restrictive monetary policy, excessive tax cuts, etc. (A: The Realtors have fought strongly against high deficits.) “Sometimes candidates plead with me to give them the correct answers,” says Political Resources Director Randall Moorhead.

Typical of the Realtors’ deliberation was their discussion of the Texas Senate race between Democratic Incumbent Lloyd Bentsen and Challenger Jim Collins. Although Republican Collins was very sympathetic to the Realtors’ philosophy and had been a supporter in the House, Bentsen is the incumbent and likely victor. He got the $4,250. Challengers are referred to as “risk capital ventures.”

The choices for smaller PACs are simpler. At a meeting this month to hand out the last of its $225,000 congressional donations, the PAC of the Grumman Corp., maker of fighter jets, gave another $1,000 to Democrat William Chappell of Florida, who is on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Says Grumman PAC Chairman Dave Walsh: “We have selfish interests. We dole out money to those on committees dealing with defense and those whose viewpoint is in line with ours.”

Small PACs often look to larger ones for guidance. The Chamber of Commerce, BIPAC and the AFL-CIO publish “opportunity lists” to lead like-minded PAC money where it will do the most good. The Chamber recently produced a video version of its list by broadcasting a four-hour, closed-circuit television show called See How They Run to 150 PAC managers in seven cities. It opens with patriotic music and a waving flag as Chamber President Richard Lesher extols “a brighter future for America through political action.” Presidential Assistant Kenneth Duberstein joins Chamber analysts in handicapping 50 key races. One of the Chamber choices, Pennsylvania’s Coyne, expresses the sentiment of the rest of the all-Republican lineup: “The key to my race is, Can we marshal the resources?”

An article in INC. magazine, which is aimed at independent businessmen, offers advice on “some ways to measure your return” from PAC donations. It explains how to compute the “equity share” and “cost-vote ratio” that can be “bought” for each candidate. “Special interests don’t contribute to congressional candidates for the fun of it,” the article advises. “They do so to get things done.” It dismisses any moral qualms: “If politicians want to sell and the public wants to buy, there is not much you can do to stop the trade.”

The question of whether PAC donations actually buy votes or only reward members who tend to vote properly is akin to that of the chicken and the egg. One thing is certain: the combination of chickens and eggs fertilizes the legislative process. The National Automobile Dealers Association, which will contribute more than $850,000 to congressional candidates this election, was able to kill a regulation requiring that buyers be informed of known defects in used cars for sale. The United Auto Workers (U.A.W) is handing out more than $1 million this year while it lines up support for a “domestic content” bill that requires foreign firms to use a high percentage of American parts and labor in cars they sell in the U.S. Lockheed Corp., like its competitor Boeing, donated heavily to the House and Senate armed services committees as it fought to win a Government contract for its C-5B cargo plane. The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) will give away $1.3 million this year, some of it to help Senate Judiciary Committee members who approved a law loosening gun-control regulations (see charts).

Although lobbyists and Congressmen deny that votes are for sale, the link to donations is often uncomfortably clear. The U.A.W. PAC in New Jersey has long backed Congressman Peter Rodino. But last month Rodino was informed that future support would be contingent on his agreeing to co-sponsor the domestic content bill. When his office said he would, the union publicly announced that its endorsement came “following Rodino’s decision to sign on as a cosponsor” of the bill. The appearance of coercion annoyed Rodino. Said an aide: “He thought it was the most heavyhanded thing he had seen during his career.” Rodino withdrew as a cosponsor, although he is still backing the bill.

An example of how donations and votes go hand in palm is the House passage of a bill that would allow the shipping industry to fix prices, which could raise freight costs by about 20%. The Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has long been a safe harbor for special interests. “Any bill coming out of the Merchant Marine ought to go straight to the grand jury,” jokes one Congressman. Both labor and business groups formed an alliance to pass the price fixing bill, with the Seafarers’ Union and Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. leading the lobbying by 13 interested PACs. Their total donations to Merchant Marine Committee members: $47,850. After passing the bill 33 to 0, the committee got the House rules suspended to allow only 40 minutes of debate. Since most Congressmen had little idea of what was in the bill, many voted in response to thumbs-up signs from committee members. The bill passed 350 to 33.

Among other PAC-man specials:

The Professionals Bill. The A.M.A. and American Dental Association have been lobbying for a law that would exempt professionals from Federal Trade Commission regulation and thus permit them to fix prices. The bill is still awaiting House action. Since 1979 the two groups have given $2.3 million to House members, 72% of it to 213 co-sponsors of the bill. Each sponsor got an average of $7,598, according to Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader’s Congress Watch. Thomas Luken, the prime sponsor, got $14,750. Luken, one of Congress’s most notorious PAC-men, also sponsored the bill revoking the used-car regulation.

The Beer Bill. Brewers want to be allowed to designate monopoly territories for their distributors, which could raise the cost of beer 20%. The legislation is pending in the House. SixPAC has handed out $35,000 to members of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Monopolies. Democrat Jack Brooks of Texas, the chief sponsor, got a $10,000 contribution, a $1,000 honorarium for a speech and a trip to Las Vegas from SixPAC this year.

The Bankruptcy Bill. The credit industry is pushing for a law that would fundamentally change the legal concept of a “fresh start” for those who go broke. The pending bill would require individual debtors, but not businesses, to pay back debts after declaring bankruptcy. Six credit PACs, led by the American Bankers Association and Household Finance Corp., have donated $704,297 to 255 Congressmen co-sponsoring the bill.

Commodity Traders’ Fee. PACS representing three major groups of commodities brokers have been fighting a Reagan Administration proposal to set a 6¢ to 12¢ fee on each trade to finance the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They have contributed to most members of the House and Senate agriculture committees, both of which voted to reject the fee. “It isn’t buying votes,” said Michael McLeod, a lobbyist with the Chicago Board of Trade. “It’s just how the political system works.”

Clean Air. The House Health and the Environment Subcommittee voted this year to weaken considerably the Clean Air Act. The twelve members who voted for the relaxation got a total of $197,325 from the PACs of the seven major industries affected. Republican Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, who got $97,500 during his 1980 campaign from affected industries, dutifully introduced one industry amendment after another. “It was clear he had no idea what was in those amendments,” says one Senator. Members of his committee even privately mocked him, asking, “Which campaign check had that amendment attached to it?”

When a bill emerges from committee, and the debate becomes publicized, it becomes harder for special interests to be effective. Grass-roots pressure by those in favor of the Clean Air Act, and perhaps also the growth of environmental PACs, make it likely that the act will pass without being significantly weakened.

Defenders of the PAC system say that contributions are an effect, not a cause; and that they are given to those who are already known to be supportive of a PAC’s position. “The idea that there’s a quid pro quo is balderdash,” says Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel of Minnesota. Argues BIPAC Budde: “PACs are not buying anyone. They’re rewarding.” Because a single PAC is limited to $5,000 a race, the power it can command, while large, is not overwhelming. The most you can purchase, proponents claim, is access. Says Grumman PAC Chairman Walsh: “We don’t expect contracts because we gave someone $5,000. But the likelihood of us getting in to see the Congressman is much higher.”

The backers of PACS point out that, like rivers to the sea, special-interest money will find a way to flow into campaigns, and the PAC channel keeps the process regulated and open to public scrutiny. Small donors, who once felt they had no impact, can now pool their money with like-minded voters. “PACS have redistributed political influence,” says Phil Gramm of Texas. “They’ve taken power away from the smoke-filled room.” Agrees Jack Webb of HouPAC: “PACs get people involved who otherwise might not be. They’re a damned good thing.”

There is no argument about one major PAC fact: within ten years, PACs have become a significant method of financing congressional campaigns, accounting for more than one-fourth of all money raised by candidates, and more than one-third of all money raised by incumbents. The average candidate now gets three times as much money from PACs as from a political party. This year, the national campaign committees of the Republican Party have been revitalized by a surge of donations. Even so, unless the laws are changed, PACs are destined to remain much more important than national parties as a source of funds for candidates. Says Herbert Alexander, a professor at the University of Southern California who has written about campaign finance: “The decline of the parties is, in part, a consequence of election reform gone awry.”

PACs have become so important and controversial that they are now an issue of their own on the campaign trail. Their proper role is being debated, for example, in the Senate race in Montana. Democratic Incumbent John Melcher is receiving contributions from a wide array of labor, corporate and association PACs. They have given him more than $350,000, over half his campaign fund. “How can you work for your constituents when you’ve got $10,000 chits out?” demands Republican Challenger Larry Williams, a self-made millionaire. Melcher is countering by making an issue of the fact that NCPAC has waged an irresponsible $250,000 independent effort to defeat him. One of Melcher’s television ads depicts NCPAC operatives flying into the state with money-stuffed briefcases to “defeat Doc Melcher.”

Democrat Joseph Kolter is also trying to turn PAC donations into an issue in his bid to unseat Republican Congressman Eugene Atkinson of Pennsylvania. Last year Atkinson made a dramatic switch in party allegiance. As a Democrat, he had piously refused on principle to accept PAC money, but since becoming a Republican he has raised $40,000 from business-oriented PACs. In his campaign speeches, Kolter reels off a list of Atkinson donors, referring to General Public Utilities Corp. as “the people who brought you Three Mile Island” and to a group of major industries as “the filthy five.” Kolter has his own PAC sources; he is drawing the maximum donations from the United Steel Workers, the U.A.W. and other unions.

Any attempt to reform the PAC system is vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences. Individuals, groups, corporations and unions will continue to have the desire and resources to support favored candidates. They also have the right, and even the responsibility, to do so. Trying to restrict such efforts too severely could just divert them into other, less worthy approaches, like the one followed by NCPAC. Says Michael Malbin, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute: “Unless you repeal the First Amendment, people with private interests in legislation will be active.”

Public financing of campaigns would solve many of the problems. The same arguments that were persuasive at the presidential level—the need to lower the role of fat-cat donors and special interests—are at least as compelling when it comes to Congress. (In the primaries, presidential candidates raise money, some of it from PACs, that is matched by federal funds. The general election is fully financed by federal money.) But such a process presents practical difficulties: some districts and states are much more expensive to campaign in than others, and incumbents (who make the laws) are unlikely to vote for a system that removes their own built-in advantage. “It’s like sending goats to guard the cabbage patch,” says Andrew Jacobs of Indiana, one of the Congressmen who refuse PAC money. Moreover, public financing could be expensive.

Raising the $1,000 limit that an individual can contribute to a campaign would help dilute the power of PACS. The individual limit has stayed the same since 1974, despite inflation. “Individual contributions are far less effective than those from a PAC,” says Republican Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick of New Jersey. “The PAC’S lobbyist will come and twist arms.” In her race for a Senate seat, Fenwick has refused PAC money.

Individual donations from corporate leaders, of course, can exert the same type of influence as money from PACS. Indeed, the PACstemious Fenwick has raised $13,650 from the top executives of a Wall Street investment firm, far more than the limit imposed on the firm’s PAC. But the greatest threat posed by individual contributions in the past was the secrecy surrounding them and their disproportionate amounts. A new $5,000 limit would seem reasonable in light of today’s strict reporting requirements.

Another option would be to limit the total amount each candidate can accept from PACs. A bill setting a $70,000 limit on the amount a House candidate could raise from PACs passed the House in 1979, but died in the Senate. A new measure has been introduced in the House setting the PAC money ceiling at $75,000.

The ideal reform would incorporate elements of each of these proposals. Partial federal financing, either by direct grants or matching funds, could water down the importance of PACs. So could raising the private contribution limit. Increasing the amount people can donate to the national parties, currently $20,000 each year, could strengthen the role of the parties. Finally, setting a reasonable limit on the amount a candidate can get from PACs, certainly no more than $75,000 an election, would rein in the PAC-men.

The difficulty is not so much finding solutions, but persuading Congressmen, who benefit so handsomely, to change the present situation. “It is a lot easier to raise money from PACs than from other sources,” observes PAC Critic Barney Frank, a Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts. “You sit there, somebody hands you a check for $3,000, and you say ‘Thank you.’ ” In the end, it is pressure from the voters that may limit the power of the PACs. Some lawmakers, like Missouri Democrat Richard Gephardt, detect rumblings of reform. Says he: “There is a growing sense that the system is getting out of hand.” — By Walter Isaacson. Reported by Evan Thomas/Washington, with other bureaus