Posted by 
I don’t think that I am going so far out on a limb to predict that some legislation banning PAC-to-PAC transfers is going to pass this year. Riley has asked for it, the Democrats’ legislative agenda (i.e, “Covenant for the Future“) has directly called for it, and the Republicans’ legislative agenda also indirectly supports it. (The Republicans’ “Handshake with Alabama” doesn’t mention it specifically although they have embraced the Governor’s proposals.) In addition, any number of editorials have called for it.
We will have real theater to behold in listening to their tortured explanations if they do not pass the legislation.
The key question waiting to be answered will be in how strong or meaningful the legislation is. I know the bills that Rep. Jeff McLaughlin (D – Guntersville) has introduced on PAC-to-PAC transfers over the years have varied in their strength, depending on his take on the legislature’s appetite for the issue. He would like as strong a bill as possible, but he wants a bill that will pass. The real question to be answered is if we will get something watered down or something strong and effective.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
A former legislator said he thinks a bill will pass because incumbents have come to view it as protection for them in that it any challengers will then have to have their sources of funding available for public scrutiny, thus putting a damper on some large contributors who wouldn’t want to be identified. Does that make sense?
CORRECTION TO LAST POST THAT HAD A TYPO:
A former legislator said he thinks a bill will pass because incumbents have come to view it as protection for them in that any challengers will then have to have their sources of funding available for public scrutiny, thus putting a damper on some large contributors who wouldn’t want to be identified. Does that make sense?
That former legislator might have a case if he/she could point to a challenger that defeated an incumbent because of large contributors that would not have given except for being able to hide their identities.
Most money flows to incumbents regardless. That being the case, I think we are all better served by transparency in the process.
Plus, I think we are cynical enough to believe that if banning PAC-to-PAC transfers would protect incumbents’ seats, it would have passed long ago.
I favor total transparency too, and I doubt there are many incumbents who have been beaten because of large contributions to a challenger, but Senator Dial did bite the bullet at the hands of some of his fellow senators, didn’t he? The former legislator said that is when legislators began to come around to thinking it would be a good idea to do away with contributions that could be hidden. Apparently they don’t trust all of their colleagues.
I have also heard that the expensive primary campaigns against the so-called dissident Democrats is when some legislators realized that a little more transparency could be a good thing. Nothing like experiencing a problem first-hand to open up someone’s eyes… I’m glad that they are also seeing the value of transparency in the process.
If you were to say whether PAC-to-PAC transfers worked for or against incumbents, you could make the argument that in that instance the answer would be both – in that they worked for incumbents (Barron, Sanders, et al) and against an incumbent (particularly Dial).
[...] PAC-to-PAC transfer bill dies in Senate – again. A bill to ban PAC-to-PAC transfers has passed the House for five consecutive years. Because both parties declared legislative platforms that supported passage of the bill, surely the sixth time would be the charm. No. [...]
Here it is over two years later and no PAC2PAC ban, which again died in the State Senate. Senate President Pro Tem Rodger Smitherman, who happens to be my state senator, is in charge of assigning bills to committees, normally done within a few hours or at most a few days, after passing the House. This one sat in the basket for two months before Smitherman gave it a committee assignment, conveniently just days before the Legislative Session ended. “It’s an honest delay,” Smitherman said. “I’m in full support of PAC-to-PAC transfer limitations.” (http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/metro.ssf?/base/news/1239956163187630.xml&coll=2) And the people, “End of story.” ???