Kay Hagan- Not taking PAC money "Unrealistic"

By the way, has anyone seen this article today??? The UNC Tarheel today quotes Kay Hagan as saying not taking special interest PAC money is "unrealistic."

http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2008/04/25...

"But Neal, who has never been in politics before and has sworn not to take any special interest or PAC money - something that Hagan calls "unrealistic."

As an Obama and Neal supporter, I take exception to Kay Hagan's view that not taking special interest PAC money is "unrealistic."

I think not taking PAC money is a great moral stand, and I wish more candidates would refuse it. That's the main reason why I am supporting Barack Obama and Jim Neal. In fact, I was amazed by the public safety lobbyist whose check was returned by Obama...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642

I really wish more candidates would take the moral stand not to take special interest PAC money.

What does everyone else think?

Comments

Unbelievably sad

If that's where Hagan draws the line on what's "realistic" ... why on earth would we ask her to tackle the world's most challenging problems? I want a Senator who understands the nature of possibility, not one who's trapped in a model of corporate and special interests.

From a grassroots point of view,

"political action" is (ideally) best accomplished by educating the voting public on the issues that are important to the group, so their (the voters) choices end up benefiting the PAC. This includes running television ads that support a specific candidate, although they often end up being tasteless and offensive.

But when they give direct contributions to candidates, not only is the public left wanting for knowledge, the aura of patronage appears on the scene. What is the money going to buy from the candidate? Nothing, or favors down the road? The fact is, we (the public) don't know, but we must assume that our equal representation is suffering for it.

The first step in regaining control of our government from corporate self-interests is doing what Jim and Barack are doing. But we need to assist in their efforts, by helping them raise funds from individuals and not equating fundraising numbers with actual popularity (or even electability).

As I've said before: there is a place between pragmatism and idealism, and that is the place where real change can occur.

Obama takes PAC money

He has taken $1.3 million.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

?

How so? I thought he claims he doesn't do that.

There's a difference between lobbyists and Pacs



Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Help me out here, Betsy

I may have missed something, but when I check opensecrets.org (which bases its reporting on the candidate's FEC filings), I see this:

Obama:

  • $250 in PAC and $921,217 in "Other" under Source of Funds.
  • BUT, I also see a total of $13,137 under PAC Contribution Breakdown.

For Clinton:

  • $1,216,842 in PAC and $11,330,635 in "Other" under Source of Funds.
  • $773,980 under PAC Contribution Breakdown.

For McCain:

  • $724,103 in PAC and $5,025,856 in "Other" under Source of Funds.
  • $537,715 under PAC Contribution Breakdown.

I do recall the unions running ads for Obama in one of the earlier primaries, and they would qualify as a PAC.

Dan B....here's the page I used

I also went to OpenSecrets. I admit...I didn't look very hard. The numbers look screwy to me b/c it has something about 2008 Race: Presidential District ES. After I posted I thought that maybe it was money raised by their Senate campaign committees.....b/c it clearly says Presidential. It certainly isn't overall fundraising.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Got it

Thanks for linking to the chart.

Those numbers do look screwy (I'm staring at the cash raised and cash on hand numbers), but it does clearly say that he's taken $1.3m of PAC money.

I checked on the FEC websiteand it seems more in line with the numbers I posted above.

I don't know why that page is labeled the way it is, but

I found the same PAC total on the page showing what he's raised since 2004, so that money could very well be in his Senate campaign. I think they lumped McCain's and Clinton's all together as well. If so, she's got a bundle in her Senate campaign....if that's what that is.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

I was wondering the same thing about the opensecrets numbers

So do you think he should more accurately state "I don't take PAC money for my Presidential Campaign". Kind of like he qualifies Lobbyists with "Federal" in front?

He also took lobbyist money as a Senate candidate.

But, at least he isn't taking federal lobbyist money now. That has to count for something.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Agreed

I mean, it's free money. Turning down free money is a tough decision. But I think Obama wants to show that his votes can't be bought be the highest bidder.

Absolutely...

I don't mind candidates taking PAC money as long as it is all out in the open. This is the first time I've found information on OpenSecrets that I couldn't figure out where they got it or what they were actually reporting. Maybe the page is simply mislabeled.

One thing I think is misleading is when OpenSecrets takes the employer of small(ish) donors and shows it as if the candidate is getting money from that "industry". It's confusing and makes it look like the candidate is taking corporate money.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

It is unrealistic

Why would we want to handicap our candidates? Labor Unions, pro-choice, GLBT....and numerous other issue-oriented organizations have PACs. The Human Rights Campaign (GLBT) has given $1000 this cycle. Do you think that was to buy his vote?



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Because "it's a complete fantasy"

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

BTW, this is why we should be missing John Edwards

Remember how everyone was against the special interests during every speech when JRE was in the race? How about now?

If it has already dropped from the dialogue, what do you think is going to happen when they are actually elected. THAT is why John Edwards was so good for the 2008 election and why we are worse off without him.

Thank God that some states, like NC, have candidates standing up to special interests. Thanks for Jim Neal to taking a stand that Kay Hagan would not.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

It's only a handicap

if some of the candidates don't take the money while their opposition continues, right?

And of course there are many PACs that operate aboveboard, and whose funds originated from individual donors who are happy about the way their money is used.

But those donors could just as easily have donated straight to the candidate in question, according to the PAC's "voter's guide" or whatever.

I contribute my little $10 and $20 to some PACs

I can't keep myself fully educated about every issue I wish to support, so I give some small amounts of money to a few PACs I believe in. If they support my candidates that's wonderful,and if they support candidates that I don't that is fine too because I trust them to advance the issue.

That being said, I imagine there are multiple significant problems with PACs. I don't know how eschewing them makes the system any better.

What does Democracy NC say about this?

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

HRC $1000 Donation

Whose vote? Obama's? Where did you see that?

Ooops....I meant to say

Human Rights Campaign has given $1000 to Brad Miller. I'm sorry. I thought it and didn't type it.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

I believe it depends on the PAC

To me, there's a big difference between groups such as VoteVets, Blue America, or Equality Giving and PACs associated with corporations, such as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Employee PAC or the Lorillard PAC.

Jim declined to meet with two energy PACs but he did accept an endorsement from Equality Giving which included a donation. I think he made the right decision.

What kinds of PACS might be good?

Hmm... interesting point Lee. What kinds of PACS does everyone think would be "appropriate?" I always envisioned them to be a little on the sketchy side.

Truth Be Told

I've never understood PACs and how they work.

I'd rather my candidate not take money from ANY of them until they're better regulated and their donor lists are public information.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Ahh...but you can see donors to PACs

If they contribute more than $200 per cycle. OpenSecrets is a great resource for that.

I do a lot of research into the Republican leadership PACs. More and more of this is out in the open. You just need to know where to look. Now, local PACs...I don't know about those. Local/State information is usually harder to find.

Go here and then scroll down to Ideological/Single Issue and then click on Democratic/Liberal. If you continue to click through you can find lists of donors.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

I should add...you can do that for all the other PACs....

I just picked the ones we might find interesting/curious/fun.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Still necessary

I agree that I would like, in an ideal world, for candidates to be able to turn down PAC and lobbyist money. I would prefer some kind of financing set-up in which candidates don't have to spend so much time fundraising.

But I also want to win this election, which is run by the current rules. I want Dole out. That's going to be expensive and I think that it is unrealistic to expect to be able to beat Dole without big money.