PACs are Good. Just ask North Carolina's elected Democrats

We have had conversations on BlueNC about branding before. James is pretty much an expert at it.....or darn near close. We've talked about how Republicans built a negative brand around the words "liberal", "Progressive", and "Democrat" and back in 2006 we even discussed how we wanted to work to build our own positive brand around the word "Blue". This is why I"m surprised to see so many here buying into the right wing branding of the term "special interests". If you recall, that's a term they linked to liberal or Democrat to help brand it as bad and some folks here have bought into it hook line and sinker.

Special interest PACs include MoveOn, ActBlue, LGBT groups, NEA, labor unions and many others. They are regulated by the FEC and like any regulated group, they must list contributors who give $200 or more. PACs may make contributions directly to candidates, they can provide training and/or GOTV assistance. PACs are organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

There are other "special interest groups" called 527 groups that are organized under the same section of the Internal Revenue code (Section 527) however, they do not report their donors. Unlike PACs they may not make direct contributions to candidates. These groups are allowed to run issue ads, but may not directly advocate for or against a candidate. They also may not coordinate with campaigns. It is this type of advocacy group with their secret donor lists that most people are thinking of as the bad special interests, but these groups can't give money to candidates so there are no contributions to turn down.

In a way Barack Obama has done a disservice to other Democrats who rely on PAC money to boost their coffers. If you're on the Obama email list, then you're getting the same emails I am. The man has his own shopping network. Every item is a limited edition. Make a contribution and get a magnet or button or bumper sticker. How many other candidates can hawk items with their name on it and bring in large sums of money? How about a David Price bumper sticker or a Brad Miller button or a Mel Watt mug? I'm not knocking this for Obama. He's able to replace large sums of PAC money with even larger sums of money from individuals and he avoids the claims from the right that he's being controlled by special interests. It's brilliant, but it isn't an avenue that's realistic for other candidates.

John Edwards is about the only Democrat from North Carolina I can find who didn't take PAC money. Of course, he was able to lend/give his campaign over $6 million dollars. Compare that to the $500,000 Bowles took in PAC money in 2004 and the $1.2 million Obama took in 2004. Edwards didn't need to take PAC money. He was his own bank.

Democratic candidates who can't self-finance rely on pooled contributions from teachers, nurses, bakers, bricklayers, bus drivers, maintenance workers, carpenters and other folks with not so big incomes who want to help make a big impact. Soliciting contributions is an expensive undertaking. It's much easier to apply to a PAC for $2000 than it is to solicit ten $200 contributions from individuals.

Every single Democrat serving in Congress from North Carolina takes large sums of PAC money. Most of them are showing more in donations from PACs than from individual donors at this point in the cycle. Mike McIntyre and Mel Watt are the only NC Dems whose contributions received from PACs is less than 50% of their overall contribution totals. In the 1st CD, Rep. G.K. Butterfield has received $321,866 in PAC money which is 70% of his total contributions in the 2008 cycle. Heath Shuler has received $456, 171 which is 57% of his total contributions. These numbers are found on OpenSecrets.org and are accurate as of the end of 4th quarter 2007.

Claiming a candidate shouldn't take PAC money shows a lack of understanding of PACS and of what it takes financially to get elected. It also shows a complete acceptance of the Republican meme that "all special interest money is bad." It's appalling how quickly some Democrats have bought into this. Is it really all that honorable to turn down money from nurses, maintenance workers, bakers, carpenters, bricklayers and teachers?

Unproven, first-time candidates usually have a hard time getting PAC money. Neither Hagan nor Neal has run in a statewide race before, but Hagan's fundraising has shown a commitment to the race. Since she started in October, 85% of her individual donations have come from inside North Carolina and close to 90% of her small dollar donors live in NC. Fortunately for Kay Hagan, her State Senate track record and the huge NC buy-in has impressed a lot of folks holding the purse strings. In the first quarter of 2008 she received over $109,000 in PAC donations. There were 31 PAC contributions and 10 were from unions accounting for 40% of the total PAC donations. Leadership PACs, those connected to other elected officials, account for 7 of the 31 contributions and 25% of the dollar total.

Amalgamated Transit Union gave $2500. If you look up their donors you will see they are mainly "transit operators". In other words, a lot of these folks drive buses. Do you really think they believe they are buying access to Kay Hagan with their donations? Do you really think they believe they are buying her vote? I doubt it. However, if anyone is going to gain access to a U.S. Senator, don't we want it to be nurses, teachers, bakers, bricklayers, carpenters, independent pharmacists and bus drivers?

Sure, there are lawyers, doctors and CEOs giving money to our elected officials through PACs. Their donations aren't any larger or any more important than those of the regular folks giving through their union PACs and/or other groups that are important in their lives. In this way, PACs are an equalizer. A PAC full of lawyers has the same cap on donations as a PAC full of teachers. A PAC from the oil and gas industry has the same cap on contributions as a PAC from the human rights sector.

Some here think it is honorable for Jim Neal to stand up and say he isn't taking special interest money. For a man with $18,000 in his coffers and not all of that available for the primary battle ahead, that's a pretty bold statement. The problem is, Jim Neal has said he would apply for special interest endorsements from the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. That typically is accompanied by financial support in some form. He clearly said he would be going through the process with HRC and The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund in his interview with Pam Spaulding at her place.

N: ....I believe you asked me about the Victory Fund and HRC -- they've got a process they go through, like all special interest and advocacy organizations do, and we're going to go through it with them -- and I look forward to receiving their endorsement.

So he's going after endorsements that may be accompanied by a check, but he's going to turn that check down?

Lucky for Neal, HRC, like many groups directs their donors' giving in multiple ways. One is by taking contributions directly from supporters and then turning around and disbursing it to candidates they think are friendly to their cause. Another way they influence giving is to post a list of endorsements on an ActBlue page directing their donors to the candidates they think should receive financial support.

The second method sounds like a great way to avoid the look of receiving "special interest money", right? Wrong. That money is disbursed through the largest Democratic/liberal ideology PAC in operation - ActBlue. But wait! ActBlue isn't a special interest like Choice, LGBT, Unions and Environmental groups. ActBlue is regular people giving money online to support candidates and causes they like. Exactly and that is just what the teachers, nurses, bricklayers, carpenters, bakers, bus drivers, nurses and hotel workers think when they send a donation to their union PAC or other PAC of choice. They are just regular people wanting to make a difference.