THE ROLE OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS IN AMERICAN POLITICS Like political parties, pressure groups can be considered another system that connects the citizen more directly to the government. However, at the same time there are marked differences in both composition and function that define interest groups as different entities from larger political parties. According to VO Key Jr. in a composition aptly titled Pressure Groups; pressure groups “Usually… deal with only a narrow range of policies;” and unlike the objectives of political parties, their intentions are to “influence the content of public policies rather than the results of elections”. However, it is a known fact that special interest groups with mass membership are considered congregations with sufficient power to influence election results and "put pressure on party leaders, legislators and others in official positions to act according to the their wishes..." Although it is accepted that pressure groups do indeed exert pressure on policy in certain directions, it is an entirely different task to describe how pressure groups link public opinion to government action. Apparently the driving force behind the action is not as clear-cut as the image of the “lobbyist speaking for a united following, determined in his goals and ready to reward his friends and punish his enemies at the ballot box.” In fact, it may appear that spokespersons for mass advocacy groups are “unrepresentative of the views of their members.” This perception, however, does not take into account the wide potential for variability in political opinion that can occur within large groups. On the contrary, it is not an “evil betrayal” or a “deliberate departure from the mass mandate”; it is more likely that there are other theorems with which to explain this phenomenon. As with all other human groups, "opinions... do not fall between blacks and whites." In the essay Keys attempts to hypothesize that there are naturally layered layers of activism and pacifism within group membership. “It may be the nature of mass groups that attachment to the positions expressed by leading spokespersons varies with attachment to and involvement in the group.” When considering how these groups function in this way, it is logical to assume that special interest groups “invar…… half of the paper……sp; On the other hand there are those who defend the PAC system and profess that "contributions are an effect, not a cause" of political action; for these people, PACs are seen as a reward for support, not a method of purchasing it. PAC supporters also believe that authorizing the “PAC channel keeps the process regulated and under public control. Money from smaller donors can now be “shared with like-minded voters.” Jack Webb of HouPAC agrees with this position: “PACs involve people who might not otherwise be involved. They're a damn good thing." One thing that cannot be refuted by either side of the PAC thesis, however, is the enormous influence that PACs have had on the American political scene since their conception and growth in the 1970s. With the continued volume of money moving from PACs to candidates without major regulation, it is safe to say that PACs will continue to seriously influence the path of the American legislative process. Just as Michael Malbin, a policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, states, “Unless the First Amendment is repealed, people with private interests in legislation will continue to be.”