PAC Mentality

PACs and incumbents: [Based on the year 2000 statistics] PACs continue to give more to incumbents than challengers, and to House Members more than to Senators. The numbers have stayed remarkably steady: typically more than 40% of the money House members raise comes from PACs, compared to 20-25% for Senators. Overall, more than three-fourths of all PAC contributions went to incumbents.

The above analysis is from The Campaign Finance Institute regarding campaign financing from 1978 through 2000 (related chart here).

While listening to Washington Post Radio this afternoon I heard a brief snippet of conversation with reporter Jeff Birnbaum regarding spending by political action committees (“PACs”) in which he remarked upon the habit of most PACs to give overwhelmingly to incumbents. Indeed, his article in today’s paper says as much (emphasis added):

The loyalties of most PACs — which are pools of money from individuals that are dispersed by companies, labor unions and interest groups — aren’t predictable. Corporate PACs in particular are notoriously fickle. When ranked for their partisan leanings by the CRP, many company-controlled PACs fall in the category of “fence-sitters” — neither overwhelmingly Republican nor Democratic in their campaign donations. These include some of America’s most prominent corporations such as Citigroup, BellSouth and General Electric.

If such companies do give more to the lawmakers of one party, that party is almost always the one in power or the one that’s about to be in power. That’s why Democrats this year have been getting a bit more money than usual from some PACs. The latest full set of fundraising numbers don’t come out until the end of this week. So far, several of the country’s largest PACs, such as those of the National Association of Realtors and United Parcel Service Inc., have given a slightly higher percentage of their dough to Democrats than they did two years ago.

[...]

That’s why 80 percent of the money donated by PACs to federal candidates go to people who are already in office. They are, after all, the people who can vote in Congress. What’s more, they also usually win reelection — 90 percent of the time or better. Some PACs are actually prohibited from contributing to non-incumbents for these reasons.

“To maximize their dollars, nearly all PACs — particularly among business groups — give the overwhelming proportion of their campaign dollars to incumbents,” the CRP’s Web site says.

To be sure, there are particular PACs that give overwhelmingly to one party rather than another (e.g., Big Pharma to Republicans; Unions to Democrats), but on the whole 80 percent of PAC money goes to those already in office. That is a staggering statistic.

Why? Because it clearly signals what is wrong with the federal government — it has entirely too much power. How do I know this? The PACs, they tell me so.

The primary beneficiaries of these PACs, those who set them up and contribute, recognize that they get more bang for the buck spending on incumbents rather than challengers. In short, money follows power, and all that power in Washington attracts more than its fair share of money. The longer one is in Congress, the greater power one has. Incumbency brings greater power by virtue of getting on, and presiding over, specific committees that create rules, initiate legislation, and write all of those nifty exceptions into laws so dense even the signers don’t read them. Greater power in the hands of congressmen incentivizes the populace most affected by the congressmen’s legislation to protect themselves from the legislation. Such power also creates opportunities for limiting market competition, and thus business PACs have a great deal to lose and much to gain by contributing to incumbents’ campaigns.

I am not providing any blinding insight here; most people who pay attention to politics are aware that incumbents bring home more money to their districts, wield greater power in committees, and are generally more visible to the the national electorate. But by paying so much attention to the money in politics, we forget that money is only good for buying something. We are asked to focus on the means of purchase instead of what is being purchased — Power. If we truly want to get money out of politics, the only sure way to do so is to disperse all that power accreted in Washington back to the States and to the People. Without the power, the PACs have nothing to buy.

Until then, so-called campaign finance reform is nothing more than competition limiting law, passed for the benefits of incumbents. Where incumbency means power, and power means money, real reform involves changing the equation. Stop focusing on the the symptoms (PACs, 527 organization, soft money, etc.) and get to the heart of the problem: incumbent politicians consolidate power for themselves and leave the voters out to pasture. The simplest way to do this would be to enact anti-incumbancy measures and let the power slowly devolve back to the States where it belongs, but the Supreme Court ruled against such acts. Accordingly, to get politicians out of Washington voters must vote them out. If you want less money in politics, then that’s exactly what you should do.

[Tags] PAC, campaign finance, Washigton Post Radio, Jeff Birnbaum, incumbency [/tags]