By Kathy Gill, UW senior lecturer in the Master of Communication in Digital Media Program

Most political action committees represent special interests: business, labor or issue/ideology. But a growing number are run by U.S. senators and representatives.

In the 2006 election cycle, 291 leadership PACs contributed $42 million to incumbents and challengers running for Congress. In the 1998 cycle, there were only 120 leadership PACs contributing $11 million. A four-fold increase in eight years -- yet the number of traditional PACs peaked in 1988.

In the 2006 election cycle, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised, and spent, almost $8 million but contributed a mere $356,000 (5% of expenses) to other candidates. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) raised $4.4 million, spent $3.7 million and contributed $595,000 (16% of expenses) to other candidates. Finally, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) raised $2.9 million, spent $3 million and contributed $297,000 (10% of expenses) to other candidates. Her PAC ended the cycle with only $31,000 on hand (like McCain, at $33,000, but not like Obama, who ended with $678,000).

That's about $15 million raised (ostensibly) to help get your party elected or re-elected to Congress. It's almost enough to have given $5,000 (the limit per campaign cycle) to every congressional (Senate and House) race. But that's not how the money seems to be spent.

According to a 2006 report in the Washington Post, one of the reasons leadership PACs are controversial is that they are so unregulated: for example, the "personal use" prohibition that applies to campaign committees is absent. Does that explain all the travel expenses in McCain's and Obama's PAC statements?

Under Federal Election Commission rules, a leadership PAC is known as a "nonconnected PAC" -- after all, it's not connected with an organization; it's associated with an elected official. The only restriction on spending is that the senator or representative cannot use the funds to directly support his or her personal campaign. Indirect support through polling or consulting? Sure.

But as we can see from looking at the campaign contribution to expenditure ratios for the three presidential candidates, not a lot of money is going to other campaign funds. It's going into travel (charters and limos), polling, direct mail, other political consultants.

PACs have been around since 1944. The FEC limits how much they can contribute per candidate per election cycle ($5,000) and how much an individual can contribute to the PAC per election cycle ($5,000).

And although PACs symbolize the problem with money and politics to many people, a 2007 report by the Congressional Quarterly noted that the PAC issue has become secondary to concerns over special interest monies through other channels (pdf). The number of PACs peaked in 1988 at 4,268. However, in 2004, incumbent members of the House received 41% of their campaign contributions from PACs, suggesting that they still have influence. In presidential elections, however, they are inconsequential.

"Should Senators Operate PACs," by UW Senior Lecturer Kathy Gill, posted Thusrsday, April 3, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

By Kathy Gill, UW senior lecturer in the Master of Communication in Digital Media Program

Super-Delegate System By Design
If I were an elected Democrat -- governor or other statewide officer, senator or representative -- I'm not sure what I'd make of the current nomination competition between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But I'm pretty darn sure that this contest is almost exactly what the Democratic Party leadership was thinking of when it established the super delegate system in 1984. The Party had come off of bruising battles, internally (1968, Humphrey v McCarthy; 1980, Carter v Kennedy) and in the general election (1972, McGovern v Nixon), and had survived the nomination of a little-known-outsider (1976, Carter v Ford).

The super-delegate system was designed so that party leaders -- those people with Democrat beside their elected name -- would have some control (not as much as initially proposed) over the nominee that they would be supporting by virtue their being in the same party. Their only other option would be to quit the party (a la former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, D-CT).

Most media reports aren't providing any context or explanation for the super-delegate system. And fewer yet note the differences in the Democratic party proportional allocation of delegates and the Republican winner-take-all system (in most states). By the way, if the Ds used those ("un-democratic") rules, Obama would have the nomination wrapped up.

1984 versus 2008
After the 1980 battle, congressmen, stung by the lack of impact they had been able to have on the 1980 process, and fearing that 1984 would be a repeat, banded together to ask that 2/3 of the Democratic members of the House be elected by the House Caucus as uncommitted voting delegates to the 1984 Convention." (emphasis added)

However, in the current contest, independent and first-time voters are overshadowing Democratic party regulars, at least at the state level. For example, in the Wisconsin primary, first-timers and independents accounted for an astounding 40 percent of those voting in the Democratic contest.

This phenomenon is being touted as "democratic" -- and to the extent that it means more voters participate in the nomination process, that may be true. But it is disenfranchising to those who were party members and leaders before 2008, and it was an unintended consequence of the first reforms in 1968. The use of the "democratic" label reflects general election values (open to all). How many non-political organizations would let just anyone walk in the door and vote on important organization issues? This is why some state parties (Florida's Republicans, for example) require party affiliation long-before the primary.

A Little Democratic Party History : 1968
For those not alive in 1968 -- or those of us who, by virtue of age or interest, don't remember,here we go: back 40 years, to the 1968 convention. Remember, 1968 was marked by the assassination of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. The Vietnam War was dividing the country, and war protesters fought Chicago police in the streets outside the national convention. Images of the fighting were broadcast into the nation's living rooms.

The two main contenders were Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-WI). McCarthy,the anti-war candidate, had the better grassroots organization and had challenged then-President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. (McCarthy took 40+ percent of the vote; Johnson later pulled out of the race. This is the first race where primaries were pivotal.) Humphrey had the support of established party leaders and his Vietnam policy mirrored that of Johnson. He won the nomination on the first ballot but lost to Nixon in the general election.

If you don't see the parallels between McCarthy and Obama -- an the primary vote in Wisconsin -- I don't know how I can draw you a better picture.

McGovern Leads Reform Effort
One legacy of the convention: an overhaul of how delegates are selected. The McGovern-Fraser Commission (Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection) was charged with recommending how to improve delegate representation for minorities.

Among the recommendations: "registered (emphasis added) Democratic voters should have 'the maximum feasible opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process'." In addition, the Commission recommended that women and minorities be better represented in the delegate mix and that state delegate allocation would be based on a combination of population (the congressional districts) and the Democratic vote in the prior Presidential election (rewarding states that voted Democratic).

The Commission effected change: in 1968, only 13 percent of the delegates were women but in 1972 they added up to 40 percent. Some of those women had defected from the Republican Party.

Perhaps it's not surprising (I feel jaded tonight) that McGovern (SD) would win the 1972 nomination after he led the rules change. Washington's Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson was a distant second. The 1968 election (McGovern v. Richard Nixon) was one of the biggest landslides for Republicans in the 20th century. Nixon carried 49 of the 50 states (but only 60% of the vote).

One unanticipated outcome of the rules change was that states began to shift from the caucus system to the primary system. Open primaries further diluted the influence of party regulars. Another change was a shift from pragmatism (party leaders pick a candidate who might win) to popularity. In 2003, Mark Stricherz wrote this for the Boston Globe:

A final effect of the McGovern commission was to change the rationale of the party's presidential nomination process. The old boss system focused on selecting candidates who would win. As John Bailey, DNC chairman from 1961 to 1968, often said, "I go with the bird that can fly, not with the pigeon that can't get off the ground." But the new primary-based system ends up producing candidates who appeal not only to primary voters but also to various ideological interest groups, not to mention the TV camera.

Flash Forward to 1984
In 1980, Kennedy (MA) challenged incumbent Democratic president Jimmy Carter (GA). The convention battle was nasty, as the Kennedy camp tried to convince Carter's delegates to ignore "Rule 11 (H) that bound delegates to support the candidate in whose name they were elected." The rule was subsequently changed, and this is still the 2008 language: "Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." (emphasis added)

Elected Democrats -- especially those in the House of Representatives -- were concerned about the selection process. Congressman Gillis Long, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus told the Hunt Commission:

We in the House, as the last vestige of Democratic control at the national level, believe we have a special responsibility to develop new innovative approaches that respond to our Party’s constituencies.

Gov. Hunt (NC) was one of those who felt party leaders should be allowed to exercise independent judgment:

An equally important step would be to permit a substantial number of party leader and elected official delegates to be selected without requiring a prior declaration of preference. We would then return a measure of decision-making power and discretion to the organized party and increase the incentive it has to offer elected officials for serious involvement. (emphasis added)

Who opposed the super-delegate system? Feminists, because they believed super-delegates would be inordinately white and male,and supporters of Kennedy, because the super-delegate system would favor Vice President Mondale.

Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (NY) brokered the compromise: she cut the number of super delegates in half and "left selection of the Congressional delegates in the hands of the House and Senate Democratic caucuses." Today, the congressional caucuses do not select all the superdelegates, but all are or were elected Democratic officials. In the 2008 contest, there are 3,253 delegates and about 796 super-delegates; 2,026 delegates are needed to win.

Whew! There you have it -- 40 years in a nutshell. I feel like a minority voice, but not only do I understand the rationale for the super delegate system, I don't think it's a bad thing. I agree with Gov. Hunt, and I don't think the super delegates have an undue amount of power. I do, however, dislike the candidate and media pressure on super delegates to declare early.