 With the rise in popularity of interest groups and political action committees or PACS, a lot of criticism was directed their way in the early 1970s. Seeing new rules were needed to keep the playing field level, Congress enacted considerable campaign finance reform legislation in 1971, 74, and 76. These early federal election campaign acts took the first step in controlling the influence of interest groups by limiting individual donations to candidates to $1,000. They also limited contributions to PACS to $5,000. In addition, PACS may only donate $5,000 to individual candidates. These acts however did not limit what became known as soft money. Soft money is donations given to political parties for general use. This loophole allowed the parties to accept unlimited donations and then distribute the money to the candidates as they saw fit. In 2002, Congress closed the soft money loophole with the McCain-Feingold Act. After one of the closest elections in our nation's history, there's only one thing the American people are unanimous about. They want their government back. We can do that by ridding politics of large unregulated contributions that give special interests a seat at the table. While average Americans are stuck in the back of the room, the Senate needs to act early on campaign finance reform. Senator John McCain, 2001 The McCain-Feingold Act prohibited raising soft money at the federal level. It also set limits on the use of soft money by political parties at the state level and increased the maximum individual contribution from $1,000 to $2,000. Prior to McCain-Feingold, one particular Supreme Court case had a dramatic effect on PACS and campaign financing. In the 1976 Buckley v. Vallejo decision, it was determined that the First Amendment guaranteed PACS to have the right to spend money indirectly to support a candidate. For example, a PAC could create an advertisement for a candidate without it counting toward their campaign donation limit. The Federal Election Commission, or FEC, is the agency set up specifically to oversee campaign finance. Created in 1974, it is an independent agency of the executive branch and is comprised of six members appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. The FEC places limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. It also requires political parties and campaign committees to report campaign finance data on a timely basis. The FEC mandates that any contribution of more than $5,000 must be reported within 48 hours of receipt. In addition, the FEC provides public funds to be used in presidential campaigns. However, if a candidate accepts any FEC funding, he or she may not spend more than a subsidy and may not accept funds from any other source. Minor party candidates can qualify for this funding if they are listed on the ballot and polled at least 5% of the vote in the previous election. Ross Perot received $29.2 million from the FEC to finance his reform party candidacy in 1996. There are very few requirements to meet in order to be eligible to run for president, the Senate or the House of Representatives. But to run a successful campaign, a candidate has to do a lot more than merely collect signatures, place his or her name on the ballot, and wait for election day. Candidates have to inform voters about their positions on issues and convince the voting public of his or her strength of character. To communicate these things is a costly venture. Very costly. During the 2000 presidential election, nearly $1.5 billion was spent in campaign funds, a sharp increase from previous campaign periods. The average Senate campaign in 2000 cost $7 million, and the average House campaign required $800,000 in funds. Nothing illustrates what afflicts our democracy so well as this. 94% of candidates who spend the most money win. Former U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers. Outspending an opponent certainly increases a candidate's chances at the polls, but it does not guarantee a victory. One of the reasons elections cost so much is that candidates must build a campaign organization to help them reach their goal. They also have to create campaign exposure. This can be done in several ways. They can travel to meet with and speak to voters face to face. They can also create communication materials such as signs, flyers, letters, and media advertising. Because running for office costs so much, few candidates can afford to bankroll their campaign. So one of the greatest tasks for their campaign organization is fundraising, and a variety of tactics are used. One of the simplest and most effective is sending direct mail advertising to people who have supported candidates with similar views in the past. Each year more than $1 billion is raised for candidates through direct mail campaigns. Candidates also hold events such as dinners, speeches, or rallies that constituents are charged to attend. And most politicians seek larger percentages of their funding from interest groups and political action committees, or PACs. Interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, American Federation of Labor, and Greenpeace are organizations of individuals who band together to influence legislation that deals with their particular interests. When interest groups begin electioneering or become directly involved in the electoral process by funding campaigns and recruiting members to volunteer services to particular candidates, they become known as PACs. There are currently more than 4,000 PACs, a number that reflects a sharp increase over the last 30 years. The main purpose of a PAC is to raise funds to help support politicians who share the same goals and viewpoints. This is why PACs tend to have a negative image with the general public. Many people believe PACs simply buy votes and have too much influence over politicians and the government. On the other hand, interest groups claim they are not buying votes, but simply gaining access to the system to make sure the voice of the public is heard when policy is formed. Interest groups are fairly common throughout the U.S., and a large percentage of Americans belong to one. The reason belonging to organizations such as these is popular is most Americans believe they can have a greater impact on policymaking and the government if they band together with other like-minded people.