凍結 天然氣 火車

Some charities run by con artists and crooks spend most of the money you give them to benefit the people that run the charity, not the causes the charity claims to support.

From this article it sounds like PACs are the same way.

I wonder how much of the money people gave Sheriff Joe's PAC will be pocketed by Sheriff Joe and the folks that run his PAC??

Source

Few rules govern local PAC spending

by Ronald J. Hansen - Apr. 29, 2012 10:54 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Last summer Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio formed his own federal political-action committee, saying it would help him "have a more active role in helping good people get elected."

So far, campaign-finance records show the PAC's biggest expenses were overhead, and it banked most of the rest of its cash. Out of $100,000 raised, $3,000 went to candidates for office.

The picture is similar for Jan PAC, a super PAC set up last year by Gov. Jan Brewer for independent political spending, meaning the spending isn't coordinated with any candidate. That PAC has not yet spent anything on any particular races, records show.

More than 5,000 federal PACs exist nationwide, but there are very few rules dictating how they handle the cash that flows to them. So far in this election cycle, all types of PACs have raised nearly $785 million and spent nearly $660 million.

The traditional purpose of a regular PAC is to raise money from donors and spread it among candidates favored by the PAC within cash limits set by the Federal Election Commission. Super PACs can't give money directly to candidates but can spend unlimited sums independently.

Some PACs aggressively spend nearly all of their contributions supporting their favored candidates or issues. Others ring up a variety of overhead expenses that leave room for little else. In some cases, critics say the funds have served as little more than slush funds for the powerful and well-connected, with spending on travel, salaries and other perks.

"There are no guidelines, and for that reason my motto is 'Donor beware,' " said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan organization that analyzes money in politics.

Arizona has more than 50 federal PACs, although none of them is among the nation's best-funded operations.

Arpaio's California-based PAC was formed last August. Records show that donors to the PAC so far have had little impact on the political landscape.

The PAC paid more to process its contributions made by donors, $3,151, than it gave to candidates for office, $3,000.

Joe PAC paid Campaign Solutions, a consulting firm in Alexandria, Va., at least $17,000 through March, most of it as a commission for its fundraising assistance. Its sister firm, Connell Donatelli Inc., collected an additional $15,000 for advertising expenses.

In addition to what Joe PAC paid out, it also owed nearly $17,000 in debt.

Arpaio said last week that other than picking candidates to support, he doesn't have an active role with the PAC and hasn't followed its fundraising or expenses.

"I'm sure they have to pay who runs it and advertise and everything else," he said. "I raise millions of dollars (running for sheriff) and have overhead, too."

Chad Willems, chairman of Joe PAC, said the spending profile should change over time.

"This is a new PAC, so there are expenses like mailing, e-mail lists, Web ads, the things that you do to build a list of supporters," he said. "There are startup costs in any venture. ... I don't think it's out of whack in any way."

Through March, Arpaio's PAC had given two campaigns a total of $3,000. Matt Salmon, a Mesa Republican, received $2,500. The PAC also gave $500 to Phil Liberatore, a Republican running in an open district near San Francisco.

Eighty percent of the money from disclosed donors -- those giving $200 or more -- came from outside Arizona.

Brewer's super PAC has taken in $53,000, mostly in small donations, since it formed in October but hasn't identified any campaign-related independent expenditures, records show.

It reported about $13,000 in expenses. Of that, nearly $6,000 has gone to Amazon.com for costs related to Brewer's book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," records show. The PAC also paid $1,100 for a plane ticket and a December stay at the Waldorf Astoria in Orlando.

Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the PAC, said Brewer intends to make campaign-related expenditures later this year but has not yet announced her plans. For now, the PAC is in fundraising mode. Early on, the PAC bought copies of Brewer's book, then offered a free copy to donors who gave at least $100.

"They have utilized the book to help raise money," he said. "These are private dollars. This does not involve taxpayer money."

Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center, said it matters little whether a PAC's expenses have any evident connection to politics. "It is perfectly legal for the money to be paid out to the people running the PAC in the form of salaries," he said. "Federal PACs can spend the money that people give them however they want."

Even so, the way some PACs spend money, especially ones involving members of Congress, has come into question over the years.

An example is BAMPAC, an organization founded by conservative politician Alan Keyes, which collected $2 million in donations over a three-year span but spent less than 2 percent on candidates, according to a 2010 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan, non-profit watchdog.

A decade ago, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton took heat for the way her leadership committee, Hillpac, spent little to help Democrats, although that was its ostensible function. More than $830,000 of the $1.3 million raised went to overhead, including legal fees and salaries, the New York Times found.

Among Arizona's seven current leadership PACs, Sen. Jon Kyl has easily raised the most, according to Federal Election Commission records.

About two-thirds of Kyl's PAC expenditures in this election cycle have gone to campaign contributions, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

By comparison, a PAC controlled by U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Mesa, hasn't spent anything on other candidates since 2011, the center found. Instead, the money has gone to fundraising-related expenses.

In the first three months of the year, 80 percent of its $6,600 in reported expenses went to travel and related costs, records show.

Larger, older and employer-based PACs like the Honeywell International PAC, one of the nation's largest, have reduced overhead significantly.

In the first three months this year, the Honeywell PAC spent $416,000 on candidates and other political committees. It spent $63,000, or 8 percent of its incoming funds, on overhead.

Nearly all of the expenditures for the National Beer Wholesalers PAC in the past year went to contributions to candidates, political parties or similar committees, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Closer to home, the GoDaddy.com PAC reported $108 in operating costs from January through March. It also reported nearly $20,000 in contributions from the $60,000 it has raised this year, The Arizona Republic found.

The Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. Citizenship Committee, another Arizona-based PAC, reported no operating expenses and $116,000 in contributions. The PAC has raised $146,000 so far this year.

Not every PAC is swimming in cash, or expenses for that matter.

One Casa Grande PAC, the Draft Sarah Palin Movement, raised just $10. It spent $9 on postage, records show.

About half of the federal PACs in Arizona reported no funds raised and collectively spent less than $3,000, according to FEC records.