I don’t disagree with anything you said. I think we are just saying different things, and approaching this from a different perspective.

Btw, I have been on both sides of the endorsement and independent expenditure equation, so I can vouch for the truth of what you are saying. (I’m not giving my name because there are feathers I don’t want to ruffle.)

I’m writing here as a Democratic partisan rather than a hard-headed lobbyist or interest group. The question is whether Democratic pro-choice donors wouldn’t be better off with a pro-choice PAC that does not favor Republicans so much — especially given the minority party of status the Republican party will enjoy (well, maybe not “enjoy”) in this state for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, should Democrats really be supporting in this year a PAC that complained about Lisa Madigan and Barack Obama making present votes instead of yes votes on certain bills.

Moreover, on issues like choice we are talking about core beliefs. This isn’t lobbying over business issues. There is no compromise, reall; just ask John Fritchey. So if there is a “pro-choice” leader who would waver on a vote, I would submit that they are not really a leader on this contentious issue.

But I will let you have the last word, because I believe we have thoroughly discussed this issue and there is little, really, disagreement on the facts.

That would be true. lol

===Cosgrove can point to a race where Personal PAC supported a 100% pro-choice Democrat over a 100% pro-choice Republican.===

It’s very rare to see such a Democratic incumbent challenged by such a GOP opponent. Just the nature of the game and the realities of the GOP.

=== Personal PAC does not lobby===

True. But they make sure that their positions are well known on every major bill and they try to punish those who stray even a tiny bit – and conversely, reward those who stick with them through thick and thin. You’re right about purity (and they do take this awful darned far – LMadigan is ostracized because, in part, MJM is ostensible pro-life), but they have to base a punish/reward system on something – which would be rollcall votes.

That may be your perception, but there is great legislative value in having supporters in all four legislative caucuses to cool out or shout down the other side.

All successful groups do this.

Politicians pay very close attention when their fellow pols find themselves in trouble and the groups that they bent over backwards to please in the GA take a pass because another pretty face wanders in the door. Sometimes, one can go either way on a vote. So abandoning a solid incumbent in a super-tough race can hurt a group when one of those either-or bills hits the floor.

It may be cynical, it may be wrong. But the general rule is you don’t build if you don’t protect what you already got. Word gets around, including to potential candidates.

And there are significant differences between how unions operate and how Personal PAC operates. First, unions are soliciting money from members based on representing members’ interests. Personal PAC is raising money based on a promise to work to increase the number of pro-choice votes in the GA.

So, isn’t it a bit (ahem) misleading to raise money with a line about switching anti-choice seats to pro-choice, and then spending that money on a race with two pro-choice candidates?

Union endorsements are meant to be about power more than ideology. So, unions often endorse a less ideologically pure candidate based if that candidate is likely to win. Personal PAC specifically requires ideological purity before it will endorse.

This makes sense, because unions also directly conduct lobbying. Personal PAC does not lobby (or, at least isn’t registered to lobby).

The bottom line is the perception that Personal PAC will go to great lengths for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-choice Democrat. Personal PAC was largely absent in the AG race between 100% pro-choice LMadigan and 100% anti-choice Birkett. The reason was explicit: Personal PAC (or at least Cosgrove) doesn’t like LMadigan, because he doesn’t like MMadigan.

I can easily be convinced that I am wrong: Cosgrove can point to a race where Personal PAC supported a 100% pro-choice Democrat over a 100% pro-choice Republican. I don’t think he can — and so he has to deal with the perception that Personal PAC prefers Republicans.

And that raises the question of why Democrats should be contributing to his organization, instead of other groups that are more evenhanded or show a preference for Democrats.

And to Personal PAC’s defense, SEIU, Sierra Club, and others have backed Coulson as well. It’s not just them.

When two candidates have the same position and one is a trusted incumbent with a solid record, the incumbent always gets the nod by the interest group. Happens all the time.

That’s true. It’s also not the issue here.

The issue here is the decision to put resources — not an endorsement, not a contribution, but substantial resources — into a race with two pro-choice candidates.

If the goal is to flip anti-choice seats into pro-choice seats, how does this move closer to the goal?

The further question — and it’s a genuine question on my part — is: has there been a race where Personal PAC put similar resources to help elect a pro-choice Democrat over a pro-choice Republican? I can’t think of any, but I don’t know.

There is a perception based on many campaigns’ experience that Personal PAC will do much more to help Republican candidates than Democratic candidates — despite a clear majority of its donors being Democrats.

Again, this isn’t about endorsements; I give credit to Personal PAC for sticking to a pretty clear set of rules on endorsements. It’s about expenditures, and that’s what has many of us scratching our heads.

PP did that two years ago. Coulson did it in ’04 with Obama and, believe it or not, Blagojevich. Happens all the time.

Also, on the PP Coulson endorsement, this is not unusual in the least. When two candidates have the same position and one is a trusted incumbent with a solid record, the incumbent always gets the nod by the interest group. Happens all the time.

I know from experience that people mishear and even misread things. In the primary, I had voters calling my office complaining of calls my campaign was allegedly making that were so not what we were doing that I started to think one of our opponents was doing it as a dirty trick. We also got calls about our mail – and our opponents’ mail – that indicated the voters had seen the mail, but were not quite accurate about parts of the content.

Sometimes campaigns deliberately craft their message in a way to lead people to misunderstand, like printing a photo with a popular elected official or invoking the name of an organization who hasn’t endorsed the candidate, hoping voters will just make a mental connection and think there was an endorsement.

And sometimes the message is straightforward and people misunderstand it anyway. It happens. In nearly 40 years of working elections, I have seen it happen a lot. I accept Personal PAC’s explanation.

Does “standing up for them” include sliming their equally pro-choice (and on other issues more progressive) opponents with illegal push polls? Do you really consider this a good use of your money?

???Jim

…Terry, Will Rep. Coulson sponsor legislation repealing that 1975 law?

She already has – she is a co-sponsor of HB5615, The Reproductive Justice & Access Act.

Beth Coulson is and always has been not only a supporter of reproductive rights, but a leader on the issue. That is why so many of us in the pro-choice community are such stalwart supporters of hers. We believe when legislators stand up for us, we should stand up for them.