Inside D.C.

To PAC or not to PAC

Given we’re about midway through the current two-year election cycle and it’s about seven months from the midterm congressional elections, I’m going to steal and modify an old business management axiom on whether a company or association should have a political action committee (PAC). It goes like this: If you’ve got a PAC, get rid of it; if you don’t have a PAC, by all means get one.

My cynical self reasons PACs have a simple function: They help to elect friends and defeat – or prevent election – of enemies. It’s all about enlightened self-interest; you want a Congress which supports your organization’s philosophy of government, entitlement programs and economy. That on its face is not a bad thing.

You can have a corporate PAC, an individual member organization PAC, a general PAC, there’s a PAC for everyone. Businesses have PACs, farmers and ranchers have PACs, environmental, animal rights and consumer “protection” groups have PACs, teachers and social movements have PACs. There are federal rules applying to all, and there are rules specific to the type of PAC and the candidates supported.

I’ve managed PACs for a long time, and from an administrative standpoint they’re a royal pain. Fundraising (ugh), accounting (more ugh), Federal Election Commission (FEC) reporting (ugh again). There’s “event participation,” a seemingly endless stream of mind-numbing campaign breakfasts, lunches, dinners, receptions and meet-and-greets for congressional hopefuls, all in hopes your face and affiliation sticks in the candidate’s mind. Get a candidate in a candid moment and he/she will generally confess fundraising is the worst part of running for office.

PAC critics contend these financial machines are just a way to buy votes.  To this I say, bunkum. Strict contribution limits seriously mitigate the degree of “influence” a PAC contribution buys.  Plus, companies and associations are every bit as successful representing their interests in passing good legislation and preventing bad legislation  having never spent a PAC dollar.

Likely the biggest advantage is access. Campaign supporters by natural law get attention from the person receiving the support. If you’re a reliable supporter and have supported a member over time, you’ll likely get that call back before the newbie PAC supporter and almost assuredly before someone who’s never written a check. Notice I said “attention,” not necessarily support that translates to votes in your favor.

AgriPulse this week published its annual ag PAC review, as in who has the PACs, how much money have they raised and how have they contributed by party.  Anyone who wants to see the specifics of any PAC registered with the FEC – from President Obama down through the newest House member or the largest corporation or activist group – can find dollars raised and dollars spent by going to www.fec.gov and following the financial disclosure prompts.

Using FEC data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) – a fascinating website for political junkies – it’s not surprising that as this point in the two-year election cycle, two-thirds of agriculture PAC dollars — $8.3 million contributed so far in 2013-2014 – have gone to Republicans, with most being pocketed by incumbents. This probably reflects the conservative nature of aggies and business in general, but also, I think, frustration with congressional deadlock and inaction, and a general feeling of neglect among the food and ag sector when it comes to the sitting Administration. However, AgriPulse reports that prior to 2012 – going back 20 years – Democrats collected the majority of ag support.

The good PACs eschew notions of straight partisan giving and “incumbent-only” contributions. Good PACs do their homework, research the candidates six ways from Sunday, take into account the real world chances of victory and then make an appropriate PAC investments. To do otherwise is lazy, and reflects a lack of intestinal fortitude.

To invest in incumbents can be the only logical way to go, particularly if that member has held the seat for several terms, has earned seniority, sits on committees controlling your or your employer’s economic fate, and who consistently wins reelection with over 65% of the vote. However, to avoid contributing to a bright challenger out there is short-sighted and a waste of PAC dollars if your support of the incumbent is simply the “safe” move.

I like to see PAC accounts showing 60-40 or so partisan splits and a good chunk of challenger support. I like to see support shifts from one cycle to another. I look to the moderate side of both parties. I’ve met more than my share of ag-ignorant GOPers who support animal rights and other non-ag friendly issues, while I can create the same list of “odd” Democrats who march in CYA lockstep and who know less about where food comes from than the average 12 year-old.