Of PACs, Newspapers and Candidates

Today, the Washington Post carried this story about the Maryland Senate race, arguing that because the leading candidates have accepted PAC money, their claims as "outsiders" are not valid.

Taking PAC money, in and of itself is not an indicator of whether a candidate is on the "inside" or the "outside" any more than it is a cause of why some legislators vote one or the other. Raising PAC money is simply that, raising money.

Generally, raising PAC money is much easier on the candidate than raising money from individuals. Candidates raise money for their campaigns in one of three ways--contributions from individuals, contributions from PACs and/or loans. Since loans from anyone other than individuals and the candidate are unlikely, I will not discuss those here.

Contributions from individuals comes in a couple of different forms. One can sell tickets to a fundraising event, like a dinner or lunch. Usually, this requires a great deal of outlay in terms of overhead, from renting a place to have the dinner, to food and perhaps booking a big name draw to help bring in the donors. Thus, fundraising events are by their nature tend to draw high end donors since teh campaign needs to cover the costs of the event plus make something akin to robber baron profits. These type of events tend to get press attention (whether intentionally or not) because of the presence on wealthy donors, which in turns feeds the beast of "candidates are bought by the wealthy" that dominates most mainstream accounts of fundraising.

Second, a candidate can "dial for dollars," but this method is time intensive for the candidate. Because teh candidate's time is limited, he/she must spend their time talking to big donors. Again, this provides more grist for media complaints of capture by the wealthy. The drawback for hte candidate is that they must listen to donors who may have an opinion on all matter of issues, using up more of the most precious commodity on a campaign--time.

Finally, all candidates use some form of direct mail, which yields the greatest number of contributions, if not the greatest total. Direct mail is relatively cheap, and with internet and email appeals, practically costless. This type of work gets scant media attention, since the bulk of these contributions are small, usually less than $100. But these contributions should be the media's biggest clue as to whom is getting support--particularly in primary election cycles. Since small donations are not itemized on FEC reports, though, they don't get the attention they deserve.

However, raising money from PACs is generally easier. First, the candidate may not need to do much of it himself since there are always willing individuals in teh PAC community willing to take on the task. Second, PAC managers are professionals, they know when the candidate calls, the PAC manager is not likely to spend a great deal of time on the phone. Finally, a candidate can go to a small, one hour reception and raise $30,000, $50,000 or even $100,000 in a short span of time. Little effort, lower cost and a lot less hands to shake.

But PACs are something else--a entry into organizations that can push their members to support the candidate. Generally, a PAC is made up of individuals who have some common identity. If the PAC supports a candidate, generally, the organziation does too. That key factor can move voters to support a candidate. This factor usually escapes the notice of the media, but PAC support often means, in most cases, some sort of tacit or even explicit assistance from teh organization that may provide even more support than monetary.

Raising PAC money means very little as an indicator of "outsideness" or lack thereof. Rather raising PAC money should be viewed as no different than any other form of fundraising.