tandard-bearers to spend an immense amount of time and energy (Washington Post).
Meanwhile, unions and other interest groups spent millions of dollars for political purposes that actually benefit specific candidates. All of that money filtered through the system independent of the reporting requirements or spending and contribution limits. Moreover, those groups could finance the ads on their own, without using their political action committees (PACs), which were restrained by $5,000 contribution limits and strict reporting requirements. Distinguishing between the interest group ads and those of the candidates would have been impossible for the average voter during the 1996 election (Washington Post).
This proved somewhat ironic because during the 1980s, most reformers viewed PACs as the major problem in campaign finance. By leveraging contributions from many individuals or companies, PACs wielded enormous clout. But the limitations on PACs ($5,000 per candidate or $15,000 per national party committee) proved insufficient for the bottomless pit that is campaig
...