I like it! I don't think it will have a major impact on fundraising.

These restictions will not apply to the DCSS or the DCCC. Both of which get a quite a bit of their money from PACs.

Obama has already asked for people to contribute directly to his campaign rather than to 527's, this was the next logical step.

Sounds like a plus to me.

I'm kind of wondering how this is going to change the influence of large groups in the future.

Cash-flush families and corporations should have their powers weakened by an inability to give their strongest tool (TV ads and bought press).

Meanwhile, "special interests" like unions and women's rights groups should be able to continue to give their strongest asset - boots and the ground and word of mouth.

Unfortunately, McCain will probably react with "if you're so clean, why won't you take public financing?"

Nothing annoyed the hell out of me during his speech than the false equivalence between Big Oil and Big Pharma and interests that actually work for a large majority of Americans like labor unions and civil rights groups.

What does this mean for unions? NARAL? Planned Parenthood?

Haha, jinx. Beat you to the punch ;)

Hopefully, some of this PAC money will find its way down ballot.

Spot On, Odin.

Seems like we should be able to distinguish between corporate PACs and non-corporate PACs...

"Lobbyists" and "PACs" score very poorly on favorability ratings, so Obama will try not to be associated with them.

What these means is the people who are able to give and will have the candidate's (giant) ear may not be as well informed as a lobbyist would be.

So now, a CEO can give 25k to the party and its fine, but a consumer products safety group, which has no one well heeled member, cannot. That group now has a much more difficult time gaining access (even if their giving in the aggregate remains the same) and no longer speaks with a single voice, unlike the CEO.

Jefferson would be annoyed.

Apparently, of the top 10 donating lobbying organizations, 7 of them would be considered "people friendly" or "worker friendly", so I admit I am having a little bit of a hard time understanding what is going on here with this strategy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php

Are we opposed to organizing ourselves around common issues? Are our voices only valid if we speak one at a time?

Well, are our voices only valid if we collectively give $40,000,000 to politicians over 20 years, like the AFSCME?

I doubt Jefferson would be pleased with that.

Any system where money is influence is unfriendly to workers, if not consistently so.

Normally, I'd say that this is unwise, simply because it's unilateral disarmament. But maybe this will give Democratic members of Congress some incentive to simply ban contributions from PACs and lobbyists, if only to deprive Republicans of their funds, too.

Only getting elected matters. The terms Lobbyists and PACs have been demonized so they can't be used. That's the entire thinking. It has zero to do with independence, hopefully. If it really means that entire groups which have done a lot of good will be cut out. PACs help the small people by giving them collective strength. If you remove the voice of PACs, only those who don't need the power of numbers will be left at the table.

A worker trying to influence the government through a PAC is like a doctor trying to perform a tracheotomy with a pen - it might do the job in a pinch, but it's a terrible idea in general.

Honestly, if lobbying and lobbyists are as important to the function of government as the BfD regulars believe them to be, then they shouldn't be available only to those who can afford them, with more available to those with more money.

A few days ago, Krugman blogged that markets are a tool, not an "object of religious devotion" - same is true of lobbying.

Maybe I'm dense, but this just goes against some deep-seated beliefs that I have had. I have long felt that lobbying was the way people got together to make themselves heard. It's the way we organize in a political way. Corporations are already organized by nature, so why shouldn't we the people have an organizing mechanism too?

Oh well. it doesn't matter. Time to GET ON BOARD!

Right, political contributions are also a market.

Backing up to PACS for a minute, I dispute your analogy to the doctor. PACs work because people have common interests. Maybe you and I both care about the safety and wellbeing of the American Bison. You and I have to work, or go to school, or do whatever, and we can't go around checking for legislation and actions of the government and corporations that may have an effect on the American Bison. What we can do is get together with enough other people who also want to watch out for the Bison and together fund the job of protecting the Bison from legislation and policies that can hurt it. None of us, individually, can protect the Bison. We don't have the economic interest at stake or the capacity in either time or resources to do so. However, those that wish to have policies that hurt the Bison, say Archer Daniels Midland. don't need to use PACs to get their message across. They can 1) directly give to candidates (through corporate officers if need be, but still) 2) find ad campaigns, which they do, and overall effect policy. Deprived of a PAC, you and I, and our other friends cannot both directly give to candidates who can help, nor can get the access to make the counter argument.

A doctor with a pen is cute, but it doesn't even begin to describe the process of governing in the united states. Labor works because it is a collective. If you prevent people from joining together to affect change, we all, as individuals, lose our voice.

MOTS, bless you my friend.

Isn't the issue with the PACs is that you don't know where they money is coming from? There is no transparency. Aarethe PACs were required to identify where every dollar they are contributing to an entity came from?

Isn't the issue with the PACs is that you don't know where they money is coming from? There is no transparency. Are the PACs required to identify where every dollar they are contributing to an entity came from?

Why does it matter where the money comes from? Either our elected officials are influenced by money or not. If they are, that's bad. I've always said that if Ralph Reed wants to give money to Dennis Kucinich, he should take it.

As a very wise man sometimes says:

"It's not the quid so much as the pro-quo..."

PACs do have to make FEC filings just like candidates if they are impacting federal races, and they can be viewed off the FEC website, so they do have to disclose their donors in some way, just like everyone else.

MOTS nailed it, and I agree with Catherine's arguments as well - makes perfect sense to me, especially when we know what our groups (unions, consumer groups, etc.) have long fought for and we clearly know the interests they fight for our the interests of the Democratic Party. I think it's a very fine line to walk when blanket condeming all lobbying like MOTS said. Lobbying is very important (and I used to be a national lobbyist for US Public Interest Research Group) and I was the expert congressmen and Senators in DC talked with regarding environmental and consumer issues. I think we have to look at the motives and interests, and there is a big difference between the bad guys and the good guys, and we shouldn't give up on the good guys.

No one is saying that lobbyists can't lobby and fight for interests, just that they can't give money. Money doesn't always equal influence, despite what some might think.

I've no objection to a system where those with a common interest can join together to make their voices heard - I've an objection to a system where whether their voice is heard is determined by how much money they can scrape together.

Returning to the doctor analogy, the point wasn't that the doctor shouldn't perform the operation - obviously, the people should influence their government - it's that the operation shouldn't be performed with a pen, if it can possibly be helped. It should be performed with a scalpel.

Similarly, I'd rather see a system where all us poor bison-loving Americans don't have to save our hard-earned pennies to prevent a few rich bison-hating capitalists from buying the right to turn them into steak.

But every time I note that the system unfairly favors the rich anti-bison extremists, it's all, "IF YOU HATE THE SYSTEM YOU HATE THE BISON!" No, really, it's just the system.

The system should be changed so that the number of bison-loving Americans is the deciding factor in whether it's ethical bison petting zoos or bison steakhouses, not how much money those bison-loving Americans can direct to pro-bison Congresscritters.

Now, I don't know all the changes that must be made to ensure that comes to pass, but ending the influence of money - PAC money, lobbyist money, money from big donors to start, not to finish - is certainly among them.

I think there is a big distinction between campaign contributions and lobbyists perks to legislators. We can all contribute to campaigns and we all have the same limits. That is a fairly level playing field, advantage determined by how organized you can get. Lobbyists showering legislators with gifts and trips and whatever all else is a different thing. Are there limits for those kinds of gifts? If not maybe there should be, but in any case, I find it hard to believe that campaign contributions are the problem here, they're just being thrown out with the bathwater. It's the other kind of lobbying, the Jack Abramoff kind, that need some disinfecting. But even so, like Catherine said, it's not the giving that's the problem anyway.

Drew, you are arguing for rules/legal changes to the system, but the issue here is a voluntary restriction by one team that many would say put us at a disadvantage under what the rules are right now. I'm not even sure that we would want a situation where only individuals get to contribute with no identification with industry or issue. It would be the ultimate Texas Hold 'em "all in" bet: We wouldn't have a clue who was supporting a candidate or why. People would just accept one candidate or another. There would be no "Oh, I'm not getting much from the environmental groups, I better tighten up on my policy there". We would essentially be accepting a candidate completely, fully, and without comment whether we wanted to or not.

Um, this approach seems to be working. 3,680 people have contributed to the DNC TODAY!

I'm sure some of that is from the news that Howard Dean will stay on as DNC Chair but Obama has touched a nerve with the No PAC, No Lobbiest money pledge.

JerryT, As far as the voluntary restriction goes, I agree, like I wrote above, it puts us at a disadvantage, although going forward, it might also give some incentive to Democratic members of Congress to change the law so that Republicans can't collect the money, either.

I think the disagreement lies in whether PACs, lobbying, etc., are good for democracy, and as they currently exist, they aren't. As long as their influence is determined by money, it's generally going to end badly for those without it, no matter how many of them there are.

Should you have to contribute to a political campaign or the DNC to have your voice heard? No. But winnings campaigns cost way more than the jobs they win pay. And because of that, money is required for politicians. Because they must spend a lot of time raising money, and that's the hardest part of being a politician, that's the time and opportunity to bend their ear on issues. The key to PACs is that they give the lobbyists entrance. Is this the ideal way? No, it ain't a great system and we should work to change it. But we have to participate in this flawed system in order to change it and to protect what we hold dear. If we wait until the system is perfect, the bison will all be dead.

I still don't understand, but I'll just assume that this isn't a principled position, it's just a strategy that might be helpful (for some reason that exists in the realm of political fads). If people ask me about it I'll just repeat the mantra: There's too much money in politics! Lobbyists have too much influence! McCain sucks! Then I'll change the subject. McCain hates Bison!