Time to put controls on leader PACs

In politics, money is power. No secret there.

But we mean this in a different way than usual. Most of the time, when people worry about money in politics, it’s about the outside sources of funding that influence our government from the private sector.

There’s another way that money and influence circulate in the political scene, however — one at least as important but a little less obvious. And that’s the flow of money among politicians, and from politicians to donors in the form of luxury experiences.

That’s where so-called leadership PACs fit in.

Leadership political action committees ostensibly are ways for veteran politicians to support rookies, motivated by an unselfish desire to build up their political party. The veterans use their skills and influence to scare up some cash from the usual suspects, then distribute it among the needy.

In practice, however, the PACs are ways for legislators to show off their fundraising prowess to the party brass and to buy off novice members to create a team of allies for votes on bills, leadership elections, and so on.

But, because there are so few restrictions on the use of leadership PAC money, it is also an excellent way to reward donors and other friends with perks: tickets, meals, trips, and so on. And it can all be justified as “fundraising,” keeping donors happy so they’re ready to open their checkbooks down the line.

(Of course, the lawmakers don’t mind the sporting events and top shelf liquor and mountainside chalets, either.)

In the final analysis, these leadership PACs can become circular and self-justifying institutions: They raise money in order to reward their donors so they can raise more money and reward their donors more, until an asteroid or climate change or the Second Coming brings the era of human habitation of Earth to a close.

According to a Post-Gazette investigation, the two members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation who spend the smallest proportion of their leadership PAC money actually supporting other campaigns are from the Pittsburgh area: Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle.

While the national median is about 70% spent to support other candidates, Mr. Kelly spent 22%, and Mr. Doyle 26%.

Where does the rest of the money go? You guessed it: fundraising — as well as travel, food, and lodging justified in terms of fundraising. (Mr. Doyle also used a substantial amount of his leadership PAC to pay unspecified legal and compliance fees.)

The return on investment from these fundraising expenses is anybody’s guess. According to the paper’s reporting, there often isn’t a windfall immediately following major “fundraising” spending. That’s because, all too often, it’s not actually about developing fundraising capacity, but circulating money among the powerful.

While some of these expenses, such as those mentioned in a Campaign Legal Center ethics complaint regarding Mr. Kelly’s leadership PAC, may genuinely violate the rules, we think the bigger problem is the laxity of the rules themselves. Lawmakers should have to show, not just assert, how their spending is actually supporting the mission of their PACs.

And when the mission of the PACs seems to be little more than allowing public servants to live luxury lifestyles, we should question why these men and women are making laws to begin with.

These leadership PACs can become circular and self-justifying institutions: They raise money in order to reward their donors so they can raise more money and reward their donors more…