pac

On Friday morning, Fred Thompson sent out an e-mail to his 2008 presidential list through his PAC telling people to go directly to donate to Jim Tedisco.

Our fundraising total for the now 80K for NY-20 campaign stood at around $28,000 when the e-mail went out. Since then, over $23,000 has come in, bringing the public total to over $51,000 at this writing. It's prudent to assume that about $20,000 of this came in through Fred's e-mail list.

This is a very smart use of a PAC's list that too few Republicans leadership PAC take up. Effectively, Thompson has maxed out x4 to Tedisco's campaign, not by circumventing the legal $5,000 limit on PAC contributions, but by directing his donors to give directly to Tedisco.

Every cycle, the Congressional committees lean on their members to write checks to the committees and targeted races. And PACs are pressed to write $5,000 checks. That's the Old Way. The New Way is to aggregate contributions over and above the $5,000 from your supporters, $25 or $50 at a time, thus amplifying your influence. To anyone whose responsible for generating more money from PAC and campaign committees, have you considered allowing these PACs to count indirect contributions from grassroots donors toward their goals -- a far more leveragable source of resources for battleground Republican campaigns?

If you ran in 2008, don't just send Tedisco a $5,000 check. Help him find 500 -- or 5,000 -- new donors from your campaign e-mail list. Fred has shown the way here. Who will follow?

Disclosure: My company designed the Tedisco fundraising widget and is helping the campaign with online fundraising.

The Republican National Committee needs to deal with some very basic facts. First, less than 2% of the RNC's money came from PAC's and lobbyists in 2008. Second, 69% of Americans believe corruption is a major problem in Washington. Third, 44% of Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle corruption.

By refusing to accept PAC and lobbyist money, the RNC will powerfully show that they are committed to real change. This move would be a powerful counter-argument against what will be a protracted and ugly battle over what to do with Senator Ted Stevens. It would also help rebuild the Party's battered image as a reforming institution.

Instead of mindless attacks against Republicans taking money from amorphous special interests, Republicans as a whole will be able to say that their party is taking real steps to ensure that it's the interests of Americans, not K Street lobbyists, that are guiding the party. This change in emphasis will not only send a message of real change to the American people but will result in a change of attitude within the Party.

Beyond that, can anyone honestly say that spending that 2% of the RNC's budget on 3 obscure Congressional campaigns would be able to change the political landscape as much as reducing the 44% of Americans that trust Democrats on corruption? Even the most basic cost-benefit analysis would find that changing the public's perception on corruption would be worth far more than the 2% of donations they would lose (not counting the individual contributions they might actually gain).

This change will be extremely hard because it will go against every powerful special interest in Washington. Doing this will fundamentally alter the political landscape of Washington. If Republicans are satisfied with what currently looks like a long march to a meaningless minority, then they should probably keep playing by the same rules. If not, they should adopt changes like this one and others offered on this site.

Americans want real change. To get it, we’re not just going to have to change who we send to Washington. We're going to need to change how the game is played once they get there. If the Republican Party fails to participate in that fundamental change, Republicans will lose what little power they have left. And they'll deserve to lose it.

If you think this is a good idea, please vote for it at http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/suggestions/67317 so that we can send a message that Republicans are committed to becoming the party of real change.

Also, while I obviously am for the idea of Republicans not taking PAC and lobbyist money, I could be totally wrong. If you think I am, plesae fill up the comment boxes below if you disagree with me.

In his self-serving, disingenuous video opting out of the public financing system today, Obama claimed that his decision to run the first corporate-funded general election campaign since Richard Nixon and CREEP represented "true" public financing and that it was necessary to fight back against a McCain campaign funded by PACs and lobbyists.

Obama has long raised the PACs and lobbyists canard to squeeze more money out of the pocketbooks of his small donors, even though he dramatically outraised and outspent Hillary Clinton in the primary campaign. Obama's campaign doesn't take lobbyist or PAC money, and since Obama became the nominee, neither will the DNC.

But just how big a factor are PACs and lobbyists in Presidential election fundraising?

Not much. Read on.