Tom Delay

Texas Tom is not my kind of Republican. Nevertheless, the baseless attack upon his PAC activity in Texas is stirring sympathy for him as far as I am concerned. If a PAC is a money laundering scheme, I think charities must also be money laundering schemes, not to mention the political parties. It certainly is possible to argue that PAC's as pools of money dilute the influence of any one giver (except in cases where the PAC is a front for a single person or interest). A PAC like Delay's was not a special interest PAC, and it wasn't beholden to a single donor the way MoveOn was to a certain currency speculator. It was performing the same function as the Republican Party, its purpose was to get Republicans elected in Texas. Some might be concerned with corporations donating money directly to candidates, though such organizations can still be influential when top officers all contribute anyway. But contributors to Delay's PAC were seeking influence with Delay (sort of) and not trying to do what was feared with direct corporate contributions. Since PAC contributions were legal, it should be obvious that this money laundering charge is a legal fiction.

All of this puts aside the notion that speech is protected, political speech more than commerical speech. Why can Company X run commercials advertising their product, but they can't take political positions? But that is a foundational question and won't be addressed in a court.

Delay's PAC is an example of a national politicial becomming a magnet for money because he is percieved as being effective. People who agree with him and find his agenda pleasing will send money to see Delay advance his agenda. As such its hard to see who was being corrupted by any of this.