Leadership Pacs 2.0

Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
Negative Abolish Leadership PACs

TOPICALITY:.............................................................................2
Not Technically Campaign Funds.......................................................................................................2
Not Even Used For Elections Any MoreOnly Used for Personal Benefit........................................2
INHERENCY:..............................................................................3
DEFINITIONS........................................................................................... 3
U.S. Code Definition............................................................................................................................3
General Definition...............................................................................................................................3
Federal Election Commission.............................................................................................................3
SIGNIFICANCE:...........................................................................4
SMALL AMOUNT
OF
MONEY........................................................................4
Only $41 Million..................................................................................................................................4

LPAC funding barely raises above 10% of expenditures.....................................................................4
A2- CONTRIBUTION LIMITS CIRCUMVENTED................................................5

Limits Eliminated for Individuals........................................................................................................5
LPACs subject to same laws as other PACs.........................................................................................5
LPACs cant accept Union contributions.............................................................................................5
A2- MONEY USED
AS
SLUSH FUNDS /
FOR
PERSONAL GAIN........................6
Money Used on a variety of things......................................................................................................6

Two categories of spending.................................................................................................................6
Subject to Legal limits.........................................................................................................................6
No New Money Enters the System.......................................................................................................7
SOLVENCY................................................................................8
POLITICIANS
WILL CIRCUMVENT................................................................... 8
Formal Laws Outweigh None..............................................................................................................8
DISADVANTAGES:.......................................................................9
1.
SMALLER CANDIDATES HURT...............................................................9
Link: LPACs allow transfers of money between candidates................................................................9

Impact: Challengers Helped while increasing competition................................................................9
Link Extension...................................................................................................................................10
Impact Extension...............................................................................................................................10
Impact Extension...............................................................................................................................10
2.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING LOST..............................................................11
3.
FREEDOM
OF
SPEECH...................................................................... 12
Link: Leadership PACs, like all PACs are funded voluntarily...........................................................12

Brink: Political Contributions is a form of Free Speech...................................................................12
Impact: Freedom Lost........................................................................................................................12
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
Topicality:
Not Technically Campaign Funds
CBS News, October, 2013, quoting Peter Schweizer.
(William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. A former

consultant to NBC News, he also served as a member of the Ultraterrorism Study Group at the Sandia National LaboratoryHe has appeared on ABC News,
NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and the BBC. Schweizer received his MPhil degree from Oxford University and his BA degree
from George Washington University) Washingtons Open Secret: Profitable PACs http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washingtons-open-secret-profitable-pacs
For example, when Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it plainly stated "a member shall convert no campaign funds to personal use." But soon
afterwards congressional leaders quietly invented something called leadership PACs, political action committees that
were not technically campaign funds and thus exempt from the personal use prohibition.
Not Even Used For Elections Any MoreOnly Used for Personal Benefit
CBS News, October, 2013 Washingtons Open Secret: Profitable PACs http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washingtons-open-secret-profitablepacs
Peter Schweizer: I think campaign fundraising is increasingly not just about winning elections. It's a lifestyle
subsidy. Peter Schweizer, is an author and fellow at the Hoover Institution. For the past few years, he and a team
of researchers have been investigating the way congressmen and senators have personally benefited from the
hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions that have poured into the system.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
Inherency:
Definitions
U.S. Code Definition
U.S. Code; Legal Information Institute (a non-profit, public service of Cornell Law School that provides no-cost access to
current American and international legal research sources online) 2 U.S. Code 434 - Reporting requirements Accessed
May 10, 2014 [DD]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/434#i_8_B
The term "leadership PAC" means, with respect to a candidate for election to Federal office or an
individual holding Federal office, a political committee that is directly or indirectly established,
financed, maintained or controlled by the candidate or the individual but which is not an authorized
committee of the candidate or individual and which is not affiliated with an authorized committee of the
candidate or individual, except that such term does not include a political committee of a political party.
General Definition
Congressional Research Service; R. Sam Garrett (Ph.D. in political science, M.P.A. and B.A. (summa cum laude), all
from American Universitys School of Public Affairs. He serves as Specialist in American National Government at the
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.) Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for
Congress April 4, 2013 [DD]
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42042.pdf
Leadership PACs are PACs affiliated with Members of Congress that provide an additional funding
mechanism to support colleagues campaigns. Although historically the purview of members of the
House and Senate leadership, many Members of Congress now have leadership PACs. Leadership PACs
are separate from the candidates principal campaign committee.
Federal Election Commission
Federal Election Commission (administers and enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that
governs the financing of federal elections.) Metadata Description of Leadership PAC List Accessed May 9, 2014 [DD]
http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml
Members of Congress and other political leaders often establish nonconnected committees, general
known as "leadership PACs," to support candidates for various federal and nonfederal offices. A
leadership PAC is defined as a political committee that is directly or indirectly established, financed,
maintained or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding federal office, but is not an authorized
committee of the candidate or officeholder and is not affiliated with an authorized committee of a
candidate or officeholder, so is not campaigning on behalf of that person's election.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
Significance:
Small Amount of Money
Only $41 Million
Kristin Kanthak (Ph.D. Political Science, University of Iowa; M.A. Political Science, University of Iowa, 1996 B.A.
Columbia University; Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Department of Political Science) Oxford
University Press Blog Five things you may not know about leadership PACs August 22nd, 2012 [DD]
http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/five-things-you-may-not-know-about-leadership-pacs/
No one is going to win an election on contributions from Members of Congress only. Sure, leadership
PACs made more than $41 million in contributions in 2010, and thats serious money to you and me. But
it is a tiny portion of the $3.6 billion in total campaign contributions in the 2010 Congressional election.
Leadership PACs really matter as signaling mechanisms to the big donors. An early donation from a powerful Member of
Congress may send a message to larger contributors: Contributions to this candidate will make me happy. So those same
contributors who seek to give money to a leadership PAC may also give to the candidates that PAC supports for exactly the
same reason. In this sense, leadership PAC contributions are not instrumental. It is not the money they provide, but rather the
road map they offer to the deeper-pocketed contributors.
LPAC funding barely raises above 10% of expenditures

Paul Herrnson (Director of The Roper Center and the founder and former director of the Center for American Politics
and Citizenship; Ph.D Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison; M.A Government Georgetown University) "The
Roles of Party Organizations, Party-Connected Committees, and Party Allies in Elections." Journal Of Politics 71, no. 4
(October 2009)[DD, MCs are membership pacs, which is a synonym for leadership pacs]
http://allman.rhon.itam.mx/~emagar/cv/cites/coxMagar/herrnsonPartyOrginEls2009jop.pdf
Candidates can make unlimited transfers from their personal campaign committees to party organizations. They also can use
their leadership PACs to make a maximum contribution of $15,000 to a partys national organizations and $5,000 to each
state party organization per year. During the 2006 elections, Republican MCs directed $37.3 million from
their campaign committees and leadership PACs to Republican party organizations; their Democratic
rivals provided about $51.1 million to Democratic party organizations.13 These sums, which do not
include the millions of dollars MCs raised for their party, represented 7.7% and 10.6% of the parties
total respective receipts.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
A2- Contribution Limits Circumvented

Limits Eliminated for Individuals
The New York Times; Adam Liptak (The Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times. Yale Law School JD)
Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap April 2, 2014 [DD]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?_r=0
The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its abolition of limits on election spending, striking down
a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year
election cycle. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will very likely increase the role
money plays in American politics.
LPACs subject to same laws as other PACs
Suzanne M. Robbins (Ph.D., Political Science, State University of New York; M.A., Political Science, University of
South Carolina; Professor at George Mason University; specializes in Interest Groups: strategy, behavior, and networks and
Campaign Finance) Cash Flows: Leadership PACs in the U.S. Congress from 1992-2008. 2010. Proceedings of the HI
Conference of System Sciences, published at IEEE Computer Society Press. [DD]
http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2010/3869/00/01-14-04.pdf
Leadership (or member) PACs are a subset of political action committees, governed by the same
campaign finance laws governing traditional PACs. Instead of being affiliated with business, labor or
civic organizations, elected officials (and former ones) create and chair these committees, which are
legally distinct entities from their respective campaign committees and the political parties. The
widespread use of leadership PACs is a relatively recent institutional development. Since the early 1990s, the number of
member PACs exploded, reaching 458 in 2008.
LPACs cant accept Union contributions

Brad Smith (J.D. Harvard Law School; Professor of Law at Capital University Law School; Former Chairman of
the Federal Election Commission; He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Election Law Journal, and the
Editorial Advisory Board of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Smith also serves on the Board of Trustees of the
Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Studies, is a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute) Competition and the Alleged
Leadership PAC Loophole [DD] July 31, 2006
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2006/07/31/competition-and-the-alleged-leadership-pac-loophole/
For most purposes, Leadership PACs are treated the same as any other PAC. They make contributions to other campaigns
and to political parties, subject to legal limits; engage in independent expenditures and get out the vote activities; and in many
cases pay for travel to make public appearances and the like. Most members of the Congressional leadership in
both parties, and a growing number of rank and file members, now operate leadership PACs. An
individual can give up to $5000 per year to a leadership PAC. The PAC is not allowed to accept
corporate or union contributions.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
A2- Money Used as Slush Funds / for Personal Gain

Money Used on a variety of things
National Journal; Shane Goldmacher (a congressional correspondent for the National Journal) Why Nearly Everyone in
Congress Has a Leadership PAC These Days July 22, 2013[DD]
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-nearly-everyone-in-congress-has-a-leadership-pac-these-days-20130722
The rules on how lawmakers can use such auxiliary accounts are loose. The only real limitation is that
they cannot spend the money to directly benefit their own reelection. But they can hire political
strategists and finance a political operation. Or they can bundle up contributions and hand them out to
curry favor with congressional colleagues. Those who raise enough money do both.
Two categories of spending
Connor Raso (J.D Yale Law School; Ph.D. in Political Science, Stanford University).. Leadership PAC Formation and
Distribution Strategies in the United States Senate. Stanford University Journal of Political Marketing 2008
Volume 7, Issue 1 pg 2547.[DD]
http://connorraso.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/6/2/20622148/jpm_2008.pdf
Leadership PAC disbursements fall into two general categories. First, funds may be used for expenses
necessary to operate the PAC and general expenses that are not directly related to campaigning such as
travel, staff salaries, consulting fees, direct mail, and equipment. Second, funds may be distributed to
colleagues. Fund distribution patterns vary widely. For instance, during the 2002 election cycle Senator
McCains PAC spent 98% of funds on administrative expenses, whereas Senator Frist spent only 52% on
such costs.
Subject to Legal limits
For most purposes, Leadership PACs are treated the same as any other PAC. They make contributions
to other campaigns and to political parties, subject to legal limits; engage in independent expenditures
and get out the vote activities; and in many cases pay for travel to make public appearances and the like.
Most members of the Congressional leadership in both parties, and a growing number of rank and file members, now operate
leadership PACs. An individual can give up to $5000 per year to a leadership PAC. The PAC is not allowed to accept
corporate or union contributions.
Page of
Lichlyter/Ward
NEG Abolish LPACs
2013-2014
No New Money Enters the System
Leadership PAC Loophole [DD, ellipse in original] July 31, 2006
Leadership PACs are prohibited from receiving any corporate or union contributions, All contributions
to Leadership PACs come from individuals in amounts regulated by the law i.e., they are all "hard
money." So no money is allowed into the system that is not already allowed into the system, whether in
source or amount. We hardly think that this "undermines the foundation of the nations campaign
finance laws."
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
Solvency
Politicians will circumvent
Formal Laws Outweigh None
For many years, members of Congress have established what are called, "Leadership PACs." These
organizations must be run separately from the members campaign committee, and may not spend
money on the members campaign. After years of allowing leadership PACs through informal rulings
and advisory opinions, in 2003 the Federal Election Commission (FEC) codified this practice. (Note: As
FEC Vice-Chairman at the time, I opposed this, based on my belief that the best reading of the statute
prohibited leadership PACs. I was unable to persuade a majority of my colleagues that this was the
proper reading of the statute, and recognizing that the statute was unclear and could be interpreted to allow leadership
PACs, and being of the belief that clear rules would be an improvement over the ad hoc policy that had
reigned until then, I joined the Commission majority in voting for the FECs Leadership PAC rules).
Other Ways of Getting Money Dishonestly: They Can Charge Interest
Breitbart, 2003. (News Journal) 60 Minutes: Congress Using 'Slush Funds' to Bankroll Lavish
Lifestyles http://www.breitbart.com/Big-
Journalism/2013/10/20/CBS-Congress-Using-Slush-Funds-to-Bankroll-Lavish-Lifestyle
The 60 Minutes special also revealed how members of Congress exploit a self-loan loophole that
allows politicians to loan their own campaigns money at high interest rates and then let the loans linger
to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in passive streams of profit for themselves. V
Real Problem is That Salaries are Too High
Daily Caller, 2011. Report: Members of Congress earn 3.4 times the average U.S. salary http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/27/report-members-ofcongress-earn-3-4-times-more-than-the-average-u-salary/
According to the report, members of Congress receive an annual salary of $174,000 which alone
puts them in the highest-paid 5 percent of U.S. workers. They also, however, receive a host of additional
benefits that put their total annual compensation at around $285,000. By comparison, the average fulltime American employee earns just $50,875 annually.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
Disadvantages:
1. Smaller Candidates Hurt
Link: LPACs allow transfers of money between candidates
Kristin Kanthak (Ph.D. Political Science, University of Iowa; M.A. Political Science, University of Iowa, 1996 B.A.
Columbia University; Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Department of Political Science) Oxford
University Press Blog Five things you may not know about leadership PACs August 22nd, 2012 [DD]
http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/five-things-you-may-not-know-about-leadership-pacs/
Leadership PACs exist because they solve a problem in the flow of money from contributors to the
candidates who actually need them. Big-money donors want to give to sure winners, but sure winners dont need big
money donations. Big money donors are attempting to buy access to Members of Congress, so any money that goes to a
losing candidate is wasted. (It bears noting, however, that there is virtually no evidence that lobbyists actually buy votes, or
even try to buy votes.) But candidates who might lose are exactly the ones who need money, and leadership
PACs solve this problem. Safe candidates with big campaign bank accounts like those in the partys
leadership can give their extra money to their partisan brethren, whose victories will help the safe
candidate keep or maintain the majority for their own party (cross-party contributions are vanishingly rare). And
marginal candidates can find their much-needed place in the flow of campaign dollars.
Impact: Challengers Helped while increasing competition

Member PACs may distribute their wealth to many different types of organizations, not just candidates.
In fact, a committee could make a direct contribution to a candidate (up to $10,000 per two-year electoral cycle), to the
national party (up to $30,000 per cycle), the state party ($5000) and any other PACs ($5000 each, annually), on top of what
the candidate committee can contribute. Leadership PACs provide a way for redistributing fundraising wealth
from safe, well-funded legislators to challengers and competitive races.
Page of
Lichlyter/Ward
NEG Abolish LPACs
2013-2014
Link Extension
Eliza Newlin Carney (Senior writer covering political money and election law for Congressional Quarterly Roll Call;
master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and a B.A. from Swarthmore College; She also
writes a Rules of the Game column for Roll Call that analyzes the latest developments in lobbying, political money and
ethics.) Members PACs Test Unregulated Spending[DD] October 9, 2012
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_27/Members-PACs-Test-Unregulated-Spending-218060-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
In this cycles costliest and most competitive House and Senate races, Members of Congress are
deploying a little-noticed but influential weapon: their personal political action committees, typically
known as leadership PACs. Long a staple of Member-to-Member campaign giving, leadership PACs are
now so ubiquitous that more than three-quarters of all lawmakers in Congress have them, and their
influence is growing. Once criticized as a means of skirting campaign contribution limits, leadership PACs are now
testing the more controversial waters of unrestricted money.
Impact Extension
Academic research on PACs spending and influence is divided on the actual purpose of cash and its influence on policy
outcomes; most ascertain that contributions either buy policy influence or political access, with about half the literature
concluding contributions have no direct influence [3][18]. Influence or access may not be a direct goal of a PAC contribution.
More accurately, a PAC contribution helps maintain (re-elect) or expand (support challengers) a
favorable coalition of legislators with similar policy preferences. Prior research suggests that leadership
PACs are strategic, supporting quality challengers and vulnerable incumbents. Members owning these
PACs may have both collective and individual goals in mind when distributing funds.
Impact Extension
Eliza Newlin Carney (Senior writer covering political money and election law for Congressional Quarterly Roll Call;
master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and a B.A. from Swarthmore College; She also
writes a Rules of the Game column for Roll Call that analyzes the latest developments in lobbying, political money and
ethics.) Members PACs Test Unregulated Spending[DD] October 9, 2012
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_27/Members-PACs-Test-Unregulated-Spending-218060-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
Though some top Congressional leaders are cozy with, and have raised money for, super PACs, most
have stuck with the more familiar vehicle of the leadership PAC to help colleagues and candidates.
But the face of leadership PACs, which unlike unrestricted super PACs may still raise and spend no more than $5,000 per
election, is changing. Once principally a means for ambitious lawmakers angling for leadership posts to curry favor with their
colleagues, some of the PACs are becoming multimillion-dollar operations unafraid to antagonize party leaders and weigh in
on primaries.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
2. Additional Funding Lost

National Journal; Shane Goldmacher (a congressional correspondent for the National Journal) Why Nearly Everyone in
Congress Has a Leadership PAC These Days July 22, 2013[DD]
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-nearly-everyone-in-congress-has-a-leadership-pac-these-days-20130722
What makes leadership PACs especially appealing to lawmakers is that they allow them to tap a donor
who has already given the maximum $5,200 to their reelection campaign. Such a donor can legally give
another $5,000 to the same lawmakers leadership PAC. The one thing I think we can all agree on: If
there were shared-contribution limits, there wouldnt be nearly as many leadership PACs, said Toner,
who served on the FEC from 2002 to 2007 and was appointed by President George W. Bush. Thats just
the reality.
Page of
NEG Abolish LPACs
Lichlyter/Ward
2013-2014
3. Freedom of Speech
Link: Leadership PACs, like all PACs are funded voluntarily
Running for federal office is expensive. The high cost of elections and historical evidence of corruption led to the regulation
of campaign finances in federal elections, including the U.S. House and Senate. Much of the law revolves around regulating
contributions and expenditures and providing transparency through disclosure laws. Many organizations, including banks,
corporations and labor unions, are prohibited from donating directly to campaigns; they are permitted to so via separate
entities called political action committees (PACs). PACs must be funded separately from the general treasury
through voluntary contributions. Finally, PACs are limited in the amount they can spend on candidates,
political parties, and one another.
Brink: Political Contributions is a form of Free Speech
Ilya Shapiro (senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court
Review.) The First Amendments Protection of Political Speech Extends to Both Donations and Spending
CATO Institute, April 3, 2014 [DD]
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/first-amendments-protection-political-speech-extends-both-donationsspending
As the Court explained in Roth v. United States, the First Amendment broadly protects political
expression in order to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and
social changes desired by the people.. Campaign contributions and expenditures facilitate such
interchanges and are thus vital to our democracy. Yet our current restraints unconstitutionally stifle
political speech and inhibit the unfettered interchange of ideas. While someone can spend an unlimited
amount on his own campaigns, what he can donate to parties, committees, and candidates is strictly
limited.
Impact: Freedom Lost
Ilya Shapiro (senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court
Review.) The First Amendments Protection of Political Speech Extends to Both Donations and Spending
CATO Institute, April 3, 2014 [DD]
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/first-amendments-protection-political-speech-extends-both-donationsspending
As Cato argued in its amicus brief, in a truly free society, people should be able to give whatever they want to
whomever they choose, including candidates for public office. The Supreme Court thus correctly struck
down aggregate contribution limits and gave those who contribute money to candidates and parties
(nearly) as much freedom as those who spend independently on campaigns and causes. But it shouldve
gone further.

Leadership Pacs 2.0

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Leadership Pacs 2.0

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Page of

NEG Abolish LPACs

Negative Abolish Leadership PACs

Only $41 Million..................................................................................................................................4

A2- CONTRIBUTION LIMITS CIRCUMVENTED................................................5

A2- MONEY USED

Money Used on a variety of things......................................................................................................6

Formal Laws Outweigh None..............................................................................................................8

SMALLER CANDIDATES HURT...............................................................9

Link: LPACs allow transfers of money between candidates................................................................9

ADDITIONAL FUNDING LOST..............................................................11

Link: Leadership PACs, like all PACs are funded voluntarily...........................................................12

(William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. A former

LPAC funding barely raises above 10% of expenditures

A2- Contribution Limits Circumvented

LPACs cant accept Union contributions

A2- Money Used as Slush Funds / for Personal Gain

Impact: Challengers Helped while increasing competition

from safe, well-funded legislators to challengers and competitive races.

2. Additional Funding Lost

También podría gustarte