Proposed PAC law unacceptable to Birmingham News
I think this sums it up pretty well.
The old way: A donor to a political candidate doesn’t want the public to know he’s giving. So the donor sends the money through one or more political action committees, “laundering” it with other money before the candidate gets it. Presto! No one can say for sure the money was the donor’s.
The new way: A donor to a political candidate doesn’t want the public to know he’s giving. So the donor sends the money through a political action committee, which runs the money through a legislative caucus, “laundering” it with other money before the candidate gets it. Presto! No one can say for sure the money was the donor’s.
And the new way is better how?
Some people seem to think Jeff McLaughlin is selling out by offering the compromise bill. McLaughlin consistently introduces a bill to completely ban PAC-to-PAC transfers, and has seen his bill go no where for years. I assume he hopes the compromise bill will be easier to pass and could be a baby step toward his ultimate goal.
I’m sure it’s hard working on something for so many years and seeing it go no where. I guess I’ll need to start my new political party after all — The Money Laundering and Racketeering Party of Alabama. I wonder if that’s too long for a website domain name.
Comment by Don
The problem with accepting a compromise is that money can still be laundered and when someone mentions money laundering again in future legislation we will be told that was taken care of in the ban on PAC-2-PAC bill that was passed in 2008.
Comment by walt moffett
Does sound like a handy way to concentrate power in the legislative leadership and say they have done something. I suspect we’ll see a similar reform of double dipping laws.