PAC Mentality
Let me just say that I am all for a limitation or an outright ban of PAC to PAC transfers. But the Alabama media need to take a deep breath. The media’s obsession with this one basic campaign finance reform has obscured the overhaul the system would truly require to be substantially more transparent.
If you read the Alabama papers, you’d think that the PAC-to-PAC ban was the silver bullet that would ferret all malfeasance, corruption, and hypocrisy out of our dysfunctional system (I’m looking at you Anniston Star). Nearly every outlet in the state has jumped on this bandwagon in both editorial and “news” content.
And yes, I imagine you’ll see the legislature and governor agree on some PAC-to-PAC reform and join hands and declare a “New Day in Alabama”TM. But will our system really have moved forward? Will our government really function in a more, open honest way? Give me a break.
The recent disclosure of an ill-timed AEA donation to the Honorable Phil Poole raised eyebrows and began a new round of hand wringing among our friends on the editorial pages and the good government think tanks. But the same people who decried it should have applauded this transaction. Didn’t AEA and Poole stand tall against the harsh wind of political expediency in making their transaction so transparent? Surely once PAC transfers are no more and all parties involved follow the Hubbert/Poole method then we’ll all be better off for it, right?
In reality the PAC-to-PAC ban issue gives everyone something to brag about. The elected officials can pass it and pat themselves on the back. The media can claim credit for using their bully pulpit to browbeat those scoundrels in Montgomery into finally allowing sunshine into the once darkened corridors of power.
But after the balloons are popped and the confetti is cleaned up, PACs will still exist and politicians will still benefit from their generosity. Yet the elected officials will have a fig leaf to run on in 2010 and the media will have another scalp on the wall.
And the Alabama voters will still have no better idea who is actually running things in Montgomery.
Still unanswered about the AEA/Poole transaction is the strongly implied quid pro quo of a payment one day and a changed vote the next. Is there anyone here who thinks Poole would have gotten that donation if he hadn’t agreed to switch his vote?
The transparancy was only an accident created by the HD 22 Special election. But for that we likely wouldn’t have known about it until Jan 31, 2008.
Comment by Susan — February 12, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Hi Susan, can you connect the dots a little more directly about how the HD 22 special election created the transparency that revealed the timing of AEA’s contribution to Poole? Thanks! Danny
Comment by Danny — February 12, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Sure. AEA (Alabama Voice of Teachers_ had to file a 5-10 day FCPA report because of the money they have donated in that campaign. They have to list all their expenditures and thus, the Poole’s donation showed up. Without a special election, it wouldn’t have shown up until the AEA’s 2007 annual report (to be filed in Jan 2008).
Comment by Susan — February 12, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Makes perfect sense. Thank you!
Comment by Danny — February 12, 2007 @ 4:10 pm