It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane … It’s a Super PAC

In Washington, apparently, among certain people, it’s no longer enough to have a political action committee.

Now, you’ve got to have a Super PAC.

A Super PAC is allowed to raise unlimited money from corporations or people. It’s allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of political candidates as long as it doesn’t coordinate that spending with the candidate.

While traditional PACs are allowed to donate directly to candidates, spending by Super PACs cannot be coordinated with candidates. Those PACs must make independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate.

Bankers have a Super PAC; credit unions do not appear to have one. If they do, a lot of people don’t know about it.

The bankers’ Super PAC is called “Friends of Traditional Banking.” It was formed in 2012.

Here’s how the Friends describe themselves: “Ultimately this is just an informal network of individuals who recognize the critical role of traditional banking in our local communities and are committed to defending it from misguided laws and overregulation.”

Yeah, right. It just so happens that the members or “friends” happen to work for community banks, large banks and banking groups. “Friends stand with friends,” the group says.

The group has an interesting way of doing business. Rather than soliciting money from “friends” and then spending money on a group of House and Senate candidates, the “friends” identify two key races each election cycle and then urge members to contribute directly to those candidates.

This year, the “friends” identified a group of candidates and then solicited opinions from “friends” on which candidates to support.

And the winners were … Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mt.) and Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.).

Tester is a member of the Senate Banking Committee and was one of the moderate Democrats who supported the bipartisan regulatory overhaul bill that was enacted during this Congress.

Tester’s opponent is Republican State Auditor Matt Rosendale, and those who use their crystal balls to predict election results have said this will be a close election.

Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) is a member of the House Financial Services Committee and the subcommittee dealing with financial institutions. Barr’s Democratic opponent is former Marine Corps pilot Amy McGrath.

This election has been rated a toss-up, according to the crystal ball gazers.

Interestingly, Barr has been identified as a friend to credit unions as well as bankers. This election cycle, CUNA’s political action committee has contributed $10,000 to Barr’s reelection effort.

NAFCU, which operates a much smaller political action committee, has kicked in $2,500 to Barr’s reelection effort.

Can’t Get the Job Done

What would happen to you if you did less than half of your job successfully?

My guess is that you wouldn’t hold onto your job very long.

That’s not true when it comes to the United States Congress. Congress is supposed to make decisions about how the federal government is to be funded. It’s right there in the Constitution.

But Congress is lousy at doing its job and has been for more than 20 years. Under current arrangements, Congress is supposed to pass 12 appropriations bills and send them to the president. FY18 ended on Sept. 30 and Congress had sent five spending bills to the president for his signature.

Those five bills were bundled into one piece of legislation, which also said the rest of the government is to be funded at current levels until Congress returns for a lame duck session in December. Granted, appropriators said the five bills amount to 75% of the federal government.

Still, they passed five of the 12 bills they were supposed to pass.

And did the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee apologize for doing a lousy job? Not in the least.

“In closing, I want to thank my colleagues once again for their help on this conference report; this is a big deal for our country,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby said in a floor statement. “Let’s keep working together to accomplish even more on behalf of the American people.”

Believe it or not, Shelby did have reason to celebrate. The five-bill package contained the highest number of appropriations bills Congress has passed and sent to the president in more than 20 years.

Would you keep your job with that success rate?

It’s doubtful.

Why?

The two gubernatorial candidates running for governor in Pennsylvania, incumbent Democrat Tom Wolf and his Republican opponent, Scott Wagner, held a high-stakes debate recently.

And who moderated the debate?

Alex Trebek. Yes, that Alex Trebek, a Canadian native who lives in California and whose only recognized talent is moderating one of the most popular game shows in American history.

According to The Washington Post, it didn’t go well. Trebek started by saying the only thing with a lower approval rating than the Pennsylvania legislature was the Catholic Church.

The crowd booed. Press accounts said that during the 45-minute debate, Trebek frequently interjected his own opinions. Viewers learned little about where the candidates stood on major positions.

Trebek, the critics said, spent far too much time talking about himself and too little time questioning the candidates. According to press reports, Trebek admitted the debate didn’t go so well. He had said he didn’t like debates, so he wanted to make the session a conversation. Trebek admitted that didn’t work.

Which leads to the question: Who thought this was a good idea in the first place?

David Baumann is correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at dbaumann@cutimes.com.