One of the most important trends in PAC behavior has been the coordination of PAC strategies by such umbrella groups as the Business-Industrial Political Action Committee and such party organizations as the Republican National Committee. This article assesses the degree to which one set of important PACs—those representing key defense firms—has succumbed to or resisted such “nationalizing” forces. An analysis of the behavior of ten defense PACs across two consecutive election cycles indicates that defense PACs generally have remained independent actors and that their behavior appears remarkably insensitive to changes in the political environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Congressional Quarterly (1978) Electing Congress. Washington, DC: Washington Quarterly, Inc
2.
DOMHOFFW. (1967) Who Rules America?Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
3.
EISMEIERT.POLLOCKP.III (1984) “Political action committees: varieties of organization,” in MalbinM. (ed.) Money and Politics in the United States. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House
4.
GOPOIANJ. D. (1984) “What makes PACs tick?”Amer. J. of Pol. Sci. (May): 259–277
5.
GORDONM. (1981) “Are military contractors part of the problem or part of the solution?”National J. (11 July): 1232–1236
6.
GREENWALDC. (1977) Group Power: Lobbying and Public Policy. New York: Praeger
7.
JACOBSONG. C. (1984) “Money in the 1980 and 1982 congressional elections,” in MalbinM. (ed.) Money and Politics in the United States. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House
8.
JACOBSONG. C. (1980) Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
9.
JACOBSONG. C.KERNELLS. (1981) Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
10.
KINGDONJ. (1973) Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper & Row
11.
LOWIT. (1969) The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton
12.
MALBINM. (1980) “Of mountains and molehills: PACs, campaigns, and public policy,” in MalbinM., (ed.) Parties, Interest Groups, and Campaign Finance. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute
13.
MALBINM. (1979) “Campaign financing and the ‘special interest.”’Public Interest56 (Summer): 21–42
14.
MEADOWSR. (1981) “Political advertising as grassroots lobbying: new forms of corporate political participation.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Cincinnati, April
15.
MOET. (1981) “Toward a broader view of interest groups.”J. of Politics43 (May): 531–543
16.
RAYB. (1980) “The responsiveness of the U. S. congressional armed services committees to their parent bodies.”Legislative Studies Q. (November): 501–515
17.
SCHATTSCHNEIDERE. E. (1975) The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden
18.
TRUMAND. (1971) The Governmental Process. New York: Knopf
