Final answer:
Comparing PAC contributions for incumbents and challengers demonstrates that incumbents receive considerably more support from PACs and super PACs, reflecting interest groups' preference for influence and power. Incumbents' significant financial advantage is evident in their election campaign fundings and is a contributing factor to the high incumbent reelection rates. Despite the influence of PACs, most campaign contributions come from individual donors, not PACs.
Step-by-step explanation:
When comparing the PAC contributions received by incumbents to those received by challengers, several conclusions can be drawn from the data and patterns of funding. Particularly, incumbents tend to receive significantly more from Political Action Committees (PACs) and super PACs than their challenging counterparts. One key reason is that many interest groups prioritize candidates' power and potential for influence over their respective ideologies or voting records. For example, committees and subcommittees that deal with policy areas relevant to a particular interest group often find favor with PACs, as evident in the case of Enron, where the majority of members investigating the company's scandal had received campaign contributions from either Enron or Arthur Andersen.
Furthermore, some corporations and interest groups form PACs explicitly to distribute money to candidates who support their issues. Restrictions on PAC contributions exist, such as the limit of $5,000 per candidate per election and $15,000 a year to a national political party, contrasting with super PACs which permit virtually unlimited funding though not directly to individual candidates. The influence of incumbent funding is significant, as shown in 2020 where Senate incumbents on average raised substantially more than their challengers, revealing a financial advantage that contributes to the high rates of reelection among incumbents.
Lastly, while PACs are influential, direct campaign contributions predominantly come from individual donors, which may contrast with the public perception of PACs being the major source of campaign finance. Nonetheless, super PACs continue to exert considerable influence through their capacity to spend large amounts on behalf of political candidates, as facilitated by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.