| Chapter 2: | The Second Wave and Emily's List |
|
|
influence the outcome of elections, to establish favorable relations with elected officials, or to do both,” there are three criteria that differentiate them (Thomas 1978, 82). First, PACs are different than candidate or party committees; they have different contribution limits and filing requirements. Second, PACs are classified into one of six categories: corporate, labor, trade/membership/health, non-connected, cooperative, or corporation without stock.7 Lastly, and most importantly, PACs are categorized according to whether or not they have a parent organization.
The vast majority of PACs are connected organizations that have a “parent” organization that absorbs the administrative costs of the PAC. All corporate, labor, and trade/membership organizations are considered connected and their PACs are considered separate segregated funds (SSF) by the Federal Election Commission (hereafter, the FEC), the agency created to monitor campaign finance disclosure.8 There are costs and benefits to being a connected PAC. For example, a SSF can only solicit funds from individuals associated with the parent organization, not the general public.9 But the limit on solicitations does not keep connected PACs from acquiring donations; as a group, connected PACs have always brought in significantly more receipts than non-connected PACs.
In addition to higher gross receipts, connected PACs enjoy several other important advantages. Since connected PACs do not have the burden of massive overhead costs (which are picked up by the parent organization), they are usually able to give more money to more candidates than their non-connected counterparts. This monetary advantage also allows SSFs to engage in more electoral activities (independent expenditures, GOTV, etc.) to spend more money on lobbyists.
The ability of SSFs to maximize these advantages, however, is dependent on the financial situation of the parent organization.