The media have given some play to the fact Sen. Maria Cantwell's pledge, going back to her 2000 campaign, not to take PAC money isn't exactly rock solid. Josh Feit at the Stranger has weighed-in here (you have to give him credit for the title and the closing line of this post) and here. David Postman has also examined it as well. In reality though, the use of PAC money helping Cantwell's cause doesn't capture the entire problem, the real issue is her living up to the heart of her pledge.
What was the pledge? Not to accept money from political action committees (PAC's) in running for the Senate, to supposedly avoid being "a tool of special interests". Her current campaign website also notes her desire to keep "special interests from wielding too much influence." Personally, I think the pledge is silly. I've worked with lots of politicians and have yet to see money buy votes as the concern about "special interests" implies. But, she made the pledge, and any pledge by a public official, especially when they are running for a given office for the first time, is an important barometer of that official and how they intend to serve their constituents.
Let's put this in context. I also think former Congressman George Nethercutt's term-limit pledge in 1994 was as silly as Cantwell's PAC pledge. Yet, once he made it while running to unseat Tom Foley, he deserved all the heat he took for reneging on it.
I would be perfectly happy if Cantwell never made her pledge to cleanse herself of the supposedly nefarious influence of "special interests," as would no doubt some of the Democrats trying to help her raise money, because I think any public official who is actually corrupted by receiving a legal donation from a PAC has bigger flaws. She made it though, so what has her record been on eschewing money from "special interests"?
She's taken lots of money from lobbyists - who work for those supposedly evil "special interests" - to the tune of $380,000 in contributions.
She's taken $141,000 in contributions from the campaign committees of fellow-members of Congress, whose campaign cash includes PAC donations.
Now she has ads running, paid for by the state Democratic party, which accepts PAC money. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also accepts PAC money, and like the state party is legally allowed to have a capped amount of coordinated expenditures, like TV ads, with the Cantwell campaign. To be polite, it's a peculiar gray area to have ads running that the Cantwell campaign has an active role in making, unquestionably paid for in part by PAC money.
If Cantwell really wants to live up to her pledge, there are obviously several ways to do that. One would be to return the contributions from lobbyists and fellow Members of Congress. They don't represent a huge percentage of Cantwell's contributions, but are undeniably bad symbolism. Another would be to say thanks but no thanks to the coordinated expenditures with the state party and the DSCC, leaving those organizations to their own devices to support her campaign as they wish. Then her campaign could avoid making "angry" calls to Josh Feit...that is, if they don't hire him first.
My experience confirms quite the contrary. Money may not routinely be used to buy specific votes, but it certainly buys certain politicians who can be trusted to vote certain ways on broad categories of issues. For example, when the growth industry funded the campaigns of Chris Vance, they weren't buying his vote on any specific project, but they were buying a politician that they could count on to vote their way and work their agenda no matter the issue.
PACs, not unlike Corporate contributions, are simply a means of expanding the contribution base beyond the individual contributor to revenue sources where big-time money can be distributed to impact and influence elections.
If it was up to me I'd ban it all, with the exception of the individual donors with rigid indentification requirements, including current employer. Failure of an individual to fully disclose identifying information would require contributions to be returned.
It would take unions, PACs, political parties and corporations out of the equation, and leave it to the people to fund campaigns. The result would likely be far less money in campaigns, but far less influence on the outcome by the likes of John Sweeney, Bill Gates, or Howard Dean.
Posted by: MJC on July 19, 2006 09:14 AMSen. Cantdowell does not and will not... ever represent me, or anything that I believe in!
My opinion ... Mr. Mike is a "G.I. Joe Republican" not unlike the ex- King County Sheriff...a lot of talk...a lot of bravado...and no BALLS! Mr. Mike and his handlers will use the Republican base to be elected. Then forget about use for the next 5 years, when the next election, cycle begins! It is a "Safeco" bet... so get your money down now at good odds!
The G.O.P. thinks Cantdowell is in trouble and will spend any amount of money and do what ever it takes to get Mr. Mike elected.
The D.N.C. feels that this Senate Seat is one that they cannot loose... at any cost. If they have to beg, steal or lie we all know they will do it!
There is an endless list of "G.I. Joe Republicans "out there, that have been elected in the last 10 years on the premise that any Republican is better than a Demo-rat...as for me I' am not drinking that kool-aide any more!!!
When you are young and Liberal it proves that you have a heart,...When you are older and Conservative it proves you have a Brain.
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on July 19, 2006 10:00 AMWhen yous guys gonna figure dis Repo / Demo thing out?
All dis election crap is about the Yale Frat Boys vs. Harvard Frat Boys widt the Princeton Frat Boys and the Stanford Frat Boys makin all da money
Forgetaboutit
Posted by: Joey bag of doughnuts on July 19, 2006 10:31 AMWhy are people in New York & Texas, contributing to Cantwell? What do they want & what are they receiving for their money? And would these favors work against the people of Washington State?
Posted by: Susu on July 19, 2006 10:50 AMOnly after the election was safely in the bag did we learn that most of the money that Cantwell gave her campaign was in the form of loans.
Loans which began to be repaid after she took office, and started soliciting contributions from lobbyists and other special interest types, for the purpose of......retiring her campaign debt.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 19, 2006 09:18 PM