On PACS, lobbyists, bundling, and big money.

[MGKrebs]

I know there's a filibuster going on and all, but if you need something to think about while Elizabeth Dole or somebody is rambling on endlessly, I would like to explore PAC's and money in politics.

My premise is going to be that we often paint with too broad a brush when we condemn lobbyist money or PAC money in campaigns. I suspect that because we see the obscene amounts of money that churn through these campaigns, and we think of all the good things that could be done with that money, that we sort of automatically believe that all money going to campaigns is "dirty"... except for small individual donors like ourselves. I want to challenge that.

But first, I have a question about how PAC's work. The law says PAC's can only give up to $5000 to a campaign per cycle, and yet we see stories and charts showing hundreds of thousands of dollars from PAC's going to candidates. Does anybody know how this works? Are they just passing through dedicated donations from members or what?

Here are some points to get us started:

PAC's can only give $5000 to a candidate per election.

Many PAC’s are left-leaning, and many of the top-giving PAC’s too.

There are less than 5000 registered PAC’s.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050412pac/groupbyspending2004.pdf

Lobbyists are either individual donors or part of a PAC, just like everybody else.

The big dollars we see compiled on places like opensecrets.org divided into industry sector are largely made up of individual contributions which they have coded to fit into sectors. Therefore, they are not necessarily a good indicator of the “corporate” mentality. The management might be of a different mind than the hourly workers, but they all count as “insurance” if they work for Aetna.

Even for H. Clinton, the corporatist's dream candidate, 90% of her contributions come from individual donors, less than 10% from PAC’s (as of Q1).


This chart shows that 11 of the top 20 PAC’s gave primarily to Dems (all are either unions or lawyers):

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/topacs.asp?txt=A&Cycle=2006


But perhaps it’s not so much about the money as it is about “organizing”. You could call, fax, email, and write to your representatives all you want practically for free, but politicians can't represent all 8 million different viewpoints of their constituents, so they (mostly) pay attention to the ones who have organized themselves. Organizing is what takes, and sometimes it takes money to organize. MoveOn has been effective not because they are insiders, but because they got organized.

There are probably one or more PAC’s that work for your goals, but if we fail to support them because we think that “there is too much money in politics” we are ceding the game to those who will play. If we want to change the money situation, then fine, let’s try, but in the meantime, let’s help the Sierra Club or the Human Rights Campaign or Planned Parenthood or whoever you identify with, because they are trying to help us. If you can’t send money, then volunteer!

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q02&cycle=2006
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q09&cycle=2006
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q11&cycle=2006

[Casper]

1. Great post!

Krebs makes good points about the PAC situation. I spend a fair amount of time checking out individuals and corporations at www.opensecrets.org and www.newsmeat.com I rarely make a large purchase without first checking the donation records of the corporate leaders and employees of the manufacturer and retatiler from which I would purchase an item.

Sometimes we may feel that voting is not as effective as we would like it to be. So, vote with your pocketbook! If enough of us do it - it will have an effect.