Thirty-five incoming members of Congress pledged not to accept corporate PAC money. (Photo: Getty)
Corporate PACs Cling to Relevance Amid Rise of Progressives Refusing Big Business Donations
A pro-corporate PAC lobbying group "clearly didn't get the resounding message that the midterm election sent"
The rise of progressive lawmakers who have refused to accept corporate political action committe (PAC) money has not gone unnoticed by big business, and corporate interests are mobilizing to save the outsized influence they've had on Washington, especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.
According to the Huffington Post, which obtained a PowerPoint presentation from a biennial conference held earlier this month by the National Association of Business Political Action Committees (NABPAC), the group presented a blueprint for "challenging the narrative" about corporations' toxic hold on American lawmakers--by combating anti-PAC rhetoric and gaining buy-in from politicians and political journalists who can help disseminate PAC-friendly views.
Along with several powerful Republicans, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were named by the group as potential "champions" for the cause.
As Politico reported earlier this month, NABPAC is also intent on lobbying for an increase in PAC campaign contribution limits from $5,000 to $10,000.
"I'm not sure NABPAC has talked to anyone outside of D.C. if they think the problem is that we don't have enough money in politics," Anne Feldman, a spokeswoman for End Citizens United, told the Huffington Post.
In its presentation, NABPAC sought to pit political action committees against unregulated Super PACS, which can accept unlimited donations--arguing that PAC money is "the cleanest money in politics."
The statement blatantly ignored the recent success of progressive candidates who have pledged to take no corporate PAC money for their campaigns--including Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Thirty-five new members of the House won their elections after refusing such donations, as well as 12 incumbent lawmakers.
"There is wide agreement that we need more disclosure, but to suggest that corporate PACs are the antidote is laughable," Feldman told the Huffington Post.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The rise of progressive lawmakers who have refused to accept corporate political action committe (PAC) money has not gone unnoticed by big business, and corporate interests are mobilizing to save the outsized influence they've had on Washington, especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.
According to the Huffington Post, which obtained a PowerPoint presentation from a biennial conference held earlier this month by the National Association of Business Political Action Committees (NABPAC), the group presented a blueprint for "challenging the narrative" about corporations' toxic hold on American lawmakers--by combating anti-PAC rhetoric and gaining buy-in from politicians and political journalists who can help disseminate PAC-friendly views.
Along with several powerful Republicans, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were named by the group as potential "champions" for the cause.
As Politico reported earlier this month, NABPAC is also intent on lobbying for an increase in PAC campaign contribution limits from $5,000 to $10,000.
"I'm not sure NABPAC has talked to anyone outside of D.C. if they think the problem is that we don't have enough money in politics," Anne Feldman, a spokeswoman for End Citizens United, told the Huffington Post.
In its presentation, NABPAC sought to pit political action committees against unregulated Super PACS, which can accept unlimited donations--arguing that PAC money is "the cleanest money in politics."
The statement blatantly ignored the recent success of progressive candidates who have pledged to take no corporate PAC money for their campaigns--including Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Thirty-five new members of the House won their elections after refusing such donations, as well as 12 incumbent lawmakers.
"There is wide agreement that we need more disclosure, but to suggest that corporate PACs are the antidote is laughable," Feldman told the Huffington Post.
The rise of progressive lawmakers who have refused to accept corporate political action committe (PAC) money has not gone unnoticed by big business, and corporate interests are mobilizing to save the outsized influence they've had on Washington, especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.
According to the Huffington Post, which obtained a PowerPoint presentation from a biennial conference held earlier this month by the National Association of Business Political Action Committees (NABPAC), the group presented a blueprint for "challenging the narrative" about corporations' toxic hold on American lawmakers--by combating anti-PAC rhetoric and gaining buy-in from politicians and political journalists who can help disseminate PAC-friendly views.
Along with several powerful Republicans, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were named by the group as potential "champions" for the cause.
As Politico reported earlier this month, NABPAC is also intent on lobbying for an increase in PAC campaign contribution limits from $5,000 to $10,000.
"I'm not sure NABPAC has talked to anyone outside of D.C. if they think the problem is that we don't have enough money in politics," Anne Feldman, a spokeswoman for End Citizens United, told the Huffington Post.
In its presentation, NABPAC sought to pit political action committees against unregulated Super PACS, which can accept unlimited donations--arguing that PAC money is "the cleanest money in politics."
The statement blatantly ignored the recent success of progressive candidates who have pledged to take no corporate PAC money for their campaigns--including Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Thirty-five new members of the House won their elections after refusing such donations, as well as 12 incumbent lawmakers.
"There is wide agreement that we need more disclosure, but to suggest that corporate PACs are the antidote is laughable," Feldman told the Huffington Post.