I have had it with commentators across the spectrum failing to understand the nature of campaign finance and how PAC contributions in particular actually work. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh has a bit in his first hour talking about how Democrats are getting on board the issue of the port control sale to a Dubai based company. Limbaugh said that the International Longshoreman's Association PAC had given significant sums of money to various leading Democrats. In turn those Democrats are now blasting the port deal.
Limbaugh actually said to follow the money, hinting that the only reason leading Democrats were acting as they were was because of the money being given to the Dems from the labor union. THIS IS WRONG, and Limbaugh should know better.
Is there a causal connection between PAC money and politician positions? Yes, but not in the way Limbaugh and other commentators hint at or explicitly say.
Most people are under the belief that PAC money buys votes and action by politicians. But it does not worth that way in the least. Politicians have definite opinions of their own, positions they have arrived at based on their world view, upbringing and professional experience. Some positions on issues are shaped by their party because they have no particular inclination on those issues. That is fine. But the fact that a politician takes a position merely because a PAC gives them a $5,000 contribution is absolutely ludicrous.
The causal connection runs the other way. Interest groups have a vested interest in electing people who support their interests. Thus, when a politician comes on the scene, PACs don't start giving money right away, they wait. The PACs wait to find out where that politician stands. Thus when the politician takes a position on an issue, then and only then do PACs start giving money. So the causal connection is positions buy PAC money.
Get it right. If you don't know, spend a little time finding out.
No comments:
Post a Comment