News Items
April 22, 2008
Leadership PACs: To Give or Not to Give
The number of Leadership PACs has grown dramatically. The FEC’s “unofficial” list is now lists more than 210 such entities that currently report to the agency. What purpose do they serve? Should you contribute to them? Is there any stigma attached to not supporting them?
First, let’s be sure we know what we’re talking about. A “leadership PAC” (LC) is a political committee regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Like “regular” PACs, LCs may accept contributions from individuals and other PACs and they report to the FEC similarly. LC contribution and disbursement limits are the same as other PACs. As originally conceived, such PACs were established by the leaders in each party (Majority and Minority Leaders, for instance), committee chairmen and others whose “leadership” positions allow them to influence the direction of their respective party organizations. More recently, though, we’ve seen LCs formed by rank and file Members, including freshman Members in both Houses.
Why would you contribute to a Leadership PAC? By contributing to a leader’s PAC, you are providing the means for that Member to assist other Members of his/her committee or party with their reelection efforts. Such funds are often used by the “leader” to visit the congressional district of the Member being assisted and demonstrate to the voters the working relationship between the “leader” and their elected official. In other situations, the LC may directly contribute to the reelection campaign committee, especially in the case of Members in marginal or “toss-up” districts. Your contribution to an LC under these circumstances in generally well received and appreciated.
Why would I contribute to an LC instead of directly to the Member’s re-elect committee? Having a leadership committee generally implies that the sponsor is in a “safe” district or has minimal opposition for re-election. Therefore, the “leader” has the luxury of suggesting to willing donors to direct contributions that otherwise might go to the re-elect committee to the LC. It’s always a safe course of action to determine in advance where the Member would prefer to have the contribution directed.
Is there any downside risk for not contributing to an LC? Like so much in politics, there aren’t any bright line measurements. Commitment to a candidate’s success is always a tenuous pursuit. Ducking the issue of supporting a valued Member’s LC seems awkward at a minimum and leaves room for misunderstanding. A better approach is to open a line of communication and pursue avenues where the opportunity to support the Member’s interests remains the focus. If directly supporting the LC simply isn’t an option there’s undoubtedly a sound reason for it which can be shared with the Member and then alternative ways of assisting the candidate need to be explored.
An important consideration is the availability of funds for such disbursements. Your principal focus should be on candidate selection and direct candidate support. Determining the appropriate funding levels for these candidates should take precedence over support to leadership committees. After addressing that matter, if there are PAC funds remaining, the opportunity to consider LC disbursements then becomes an option.
Many PACs have a policy along these lines: “As a general rule our PAC only makes contributions to candidate committees. And BY EXCEPTION our PAC will make contributions to LCs on a case by case basis.” That appears to take some pressure off that the PAC has to contribute to all leadership committees. To some degree I’ve never understood the rationale for this policy anymore than one that says the PAC only contributes to Republicans, or Democrats, and then goes on to make contributions to the other side on an "exception" basis. A better disbursement strategy seems to me to be along the lines that the PAC will financially support candidates and other committees on the basis of what is in the best interests of the contributors as determined by the PAC Board.