With the help of concerned Virginians, I am able to campaign for Congress, as a Democrat, to represent the 6th Congressional District of Virginia (www.SAM2008.com). Fourteen members of Congress have said they do not take any money from PACs. And I have decided to join them.
First, let me explain what PAC means:
A PAC is defined as a group that raises and spends limited "hard" money contributions for the specific purpose of electing or defeating candidates. Organizations that raise soft money for issue advocacy may also set up a PAC. A PAC can contribute $5,000 to a candidate per election, and up to $15,000 a year to a national political party. PACs may receive up to $5,000 each from individuals, other PACs and party committees per year.
Let me say that giving money to political campaigns may be good. If you make that choice for yourself, rather than a PAC, I very much hope you will decide to contribute to my campaign. So what is the problem?
Well, the problem is that money from PACs has become a pervasive, disruptive, and even corrosive force in Washington. Excess is the problem. There are many things in the life of individuals, organizations, and communities that are harmless, perhaps even wholesome, in and of themselves. But there is nothing that can not be carried to excess and/or misused. And that is where we are with PAC contributions today because they are the method used by groups with unwholesome intentions.
Every PAC contribution comes with assurances it is intended for better government. And some of our finest legislators, from both parties, are among the happy recipients. But we now have a long experience of decisions taken in Washington that prove to be absurd and/or probably the result of corruption. Thus, I believe that it will be best if I am free to represent you in Congress after consultation primarily with you, my 6th District voters. Of course, there will be input from other sources, but not from those who routinely pay and then want to play.
It should be noted that this very forum is run and paid for by Raising Kaine PAC, which does raise money on behalf of candidates, but which, I believe in this cycle, has not given directly to candidates, instead having raised via ActBlue. Also, the YouRoots community (button on the right) is a partner PAC of Raising Kaine's - DEMPAC, which also gives no money to candidates but instead recruits volunteers for them.
In both cases, because they advocate for political issues, these two groups, both doing good things in Virginia, and not attempting in any way to sway candidates through money or influence, are forced into the PAC moniker by the IRS and Virginia and federal law. Partly it's because of campaign finance, but also it's because a PAC is an easy-to-start entity that doesn't require the jumping-through-hoops and restrictive rules of setting up a non-profit (a PAC is still technically a tax-exempt entity).
Perhaps this represents a systematic flaw in the way political advocacy groups are forced to organize in the US.
Regardless, I applaud your decision not to take direct PAC money, and wish other candidates would do the same.
In fact, just as I believe most workers have should have the right to come together to fight for acceptable conditions (unionize), like-minded individuals should have the right to come together in unision and push for initiatives they believe in (democracy).
But if you refer back to my piece, I state the problem being is excess. This means that the political system must be flawed in how we bring our leaders to power.
ONLY when we stop electing the best fundraisers, and start electing the best people, will the dignity of our republic be restored.
You should reconsider or your are wasting your time if you are out to win.
Until the game changes, you get the money so you can get the message out. The only way the source of your money is a problem is if your donors are indicted (maybe) or convicted, or if the other guy takes enough money so that he/she can make a big enough deal out of your donors to hurt you at the polls.
This really was Andy's 'Achilles Heel" last year, and I'd have rather had Andy in office with ten million dollars of Wal-Mart /halliburton/exxon money than Tom Davis who's as dirty as they come.
It's not a sign of integrity to give up PAC money, it's a sign you're not willing to face the hard reality of American politics.
We need to get enough people elected to change the system, but they have to GET ELECTED.
I am a progressive who wants change and I want to change the system from within by pushing the limits, but the lines must be drawn somewhere.
A political system that is highly dependent on 30 second commercials is flawed. I am not a candidate who is going to whine about it, but WIN the olde fashion way, one person at a time. My congressional campaign will be a nearly two year campaign. Over the past 8 months we have been to over 200 events around our region listening to tens of thousands of views and dreams so we can carry those with us in our battle for better government.
Idealistic, you can call it that, but more candidates need to stand up and say I will not tip-toe around morality. Quality leadership is the fundamental problem we have in America, and those that disagree should ask themselves why did 60% of eligible Virginia voters NOT vote in 2005.
We need to stop trying to cater to the minority of people that do vote, and start trying to do what is best for all Americans. By believing in this message, the people will reward you with the honor of serving them.
There are a *ton* of different PAC setups, every local committee, and the state party itself, are technically PAC's. So I think it's really important to qualify this conversation. If you're lambasting Federal, soft-money 527's, I'm with you 100%. If you're making blanket statements about all PAC's, including state ones like Raising Kaine, then I'm more inclined to agree with Lowell and GH that you're giving up good money and making arbitrary distinctions.
But if you refer back to my piece, I state the problem being is excess. This means that the political system must be flawed in how we bring our leaders to power.
ONLY when we stop electing the best fundraisers, and start electing the best people, will the dignity of our republic be restored.
No condemnation is offered here, just an explanation of my choice. Though I do hope others will join in steps towards reforming how we bring our leaders to power.
This is where I have drawn my battle line, I happily accept donations from individuals knowing that I must raise the needed money to get elected and be a voice of change in the system.
I would much rather be listening to views of each citizen of my district (solicitation), than pandering to every crowd with $5k for me that expects a certain level of influence on my voting.
As you say you are not an expert. Well wht don't you become an expert by taking PAC money and get a real sense of the inside of PAC money.
When elected to congress how could you stand on the floor of the house and agrue against something you know little about.
Get the experience then change PAC's for the betterment of the system.
I just don't see why I would have to take their funds to learn about them. I'll try reading.
Refusing to take money from PACs is an empty gesture - will you also refuse to take individual contributions from several members of the same PAC? Would you refuse to take the maximum contribution from a wealthy individual?
From before: Idealistic, you can call it that, but more candidates need to stand up and say I will not tip-toe around morality. Quality leadership is the fundamental problem we have in America, and those that disagree should ask themselves why did 60% of eligible Virginia voters NOT vote in 2005.
We need to stop trying to cater to the minority of people that do vote, and start trying to do what is best for all Americans. By believing in this message, the people will reward you with the honor of serving them.
I understand the sentiment behind wanting to reduce the influence of money in politics but I don't understand the practical application.
I would not refuse the maximum donation from an individual. Excess is certainly subjective, but for a presidential candidate to have to raise twice as much in the 2008 cycle as in the 2004 cycle to be competitive, our system has gone terribly wrong.
I refer back to something I just wrote to Lowell:
I know you are not a fan of public financing (as I think you stated earlier)for federal elections, but I am. It is hard for me to defend soliciting donations from anyone, since I believe that the time spent soliciting on donations takes away from the real focus...what is best for America.
This is where I have drawn my battle line, I happily accept donations from individuals knowing that I must raise the needed money to get elected and be a voice of change in the system.
People give money to candidates for lots of different reasons, which they may make clear or not. PACs are formed for one purpose -- to influence legislation through the funneling of funds into politics. Of course there's a difference.
People and PACs give money because they want to elect someone who is going to vote the way they want. It may be on one issue or it may be on a range of issues but the end goal is the same.
PACs are formed for one reason. To put MORE money in a specific and targeted manner to get a result on a cause or bill. They're designed to avoid limits on contributions, and get more money into the hands of candidates. They are an incumbent's dream, a challenger's nightmare. Any guess how much PAC money goes to incumbents percentage-wise?
How is an individual who gives $4600 to twenty different candidates any less insidious than a PAC that does the same thing?
But with a PAC, you do know. Its very nature is to influence legislation by giving money. Why is that ever a good thing? We accept it because we're used to it, and and have become immune in this modern age. Reading about the "money race" in the Washington Post is disgusting, and makes you realize how our electoral system is fast becoming a farce. It didn't used to be this way, and doesn't have to be know.
But I want to bring to the forefront that corruption in our government is the largest single issue, and this has become so much worse in the past two decades. Not Iraq, healthcare, nor even educating our children trumps the issue of our withering republic.
We can rationalize all we want, but in our gut we know that decades from now, our nation will face great peril if we do not take a stand now.
We can never rid the government completely of corruption, but we can tip the scales back in the favor of good and progress. This is why we are democrats and this is why I want to serve you.
1. I will not accept gifts from lobbyists.
...
5. I will not put lobbyists' interests above yours.
It was so simple and to the point: she's not for sale. So PAC money or not, she makes a direct and pointed pledge that gets to the issue.
If I get another copy, I'll get the exact wording of all the points. Frankly, it's the best mailer I've ever seen.
It has already been mentioned that all PACs are not bad. Some PACs are very good friends of good Democrats.
Besides, the point is that PACs aren't the problem; corrupt politicians are the problems. That is, politicians who take PAC money and in return do the PAC's dirty deeds.
Is Ransoul really saying that he can be corrupted by PAC money?
I think Ransoul means that PAC money has corrupted too many other politicians and that he does not want to be tainted by the bad reputation that comes along with PAC money.
Lastly, who is Ransoul trying to impress with this tactic? Which voter group? It seems that he will not gain votes from right wingers and Republicans, and he probably has the liberals behind him already. After all, only liberals are worried about the influence of PAC money.
This is a poor start for Mr. Ransoul. He should rethink his position, and hope that this announcement fades away. Oh, check out the trial lawyers's PAC, as a prospect for a nice contribution.
As Sam said "A PAC can contribute $5,000 to a candidate per election, and up to $15,000 a year to a national political party. PACs may receive up to $5,000 each from individuals ..."
What he should have gone on to say is that each individual can contribute to multiple PACS, and that each PAC can caontribute to the same candidate. So that if I were a big rich lobbyist (I am not) who wanted to support one specific candidate for the House of Representatives, I could first donate my personal $4600 maximum, then I could form a PAC and donate $5000 to the PAC and have the PAC donate that money to the same candidate, then I could find other PACS interested in supporting the same candidate and donate money to these new PACS. In the end, I may have donated indirectly many times the federal limit.