It appears there has been some misinformation concerning Personal PAC’s involvement in political campaigns and the 17th House district race — in particular between Dan Biss and Beth Coulson. I hope to answer any questions people may have about our mission and work.
Personal PAC is a state bi-partisan pro-choice political action committee. Like all other political committees that are not aligned with partisan politics (nearly all public interest groups fall into this category including civil rights and environmental groups, labor unions, gun control advocates, anti-abortion groups, anti-LGBT groups, the NRA and business groups for example). Personal PAC supports candidates of both political parties. Like these other organizations, when there is a 100% leader running for re-election, we support that leader regardles of his or her opponent. And we do this for several very good reasons. When a pro-choice legislator like Beth Coulson, Jeff Schoenberg, Rosemary Mulligan or Lauren Beth Gash is lobbying a colleague to vote pro-choice who is hesitant to do so, Coulson, Mulligan, Schoenberg and Gash can look them straight in the eye and say, “I’m here to tell you that the pro-choice movement never abandons its friends and will be there for you 100%, regardless of who runs against you. I know, they were there for me and were absolutely invaluable in my getting elected and re-elected. You couldn’t ask for better supporters at election time.”
We must hold both Republicans and Democrats responsible for being pro-choice. Our opponents are bi-partisan in their support of ALL candidates who are anti-legal abortion. Illinois Right-to-Life endorses anti-abortion Democrats and Republicans across the state. There are not enough Democratic votes and there are not enough Republican votes to keep abortion legal in Illinois, but there are enough Democratic AND Republican votes taken together to make some progress. No woman who has been raped and cannot get a legal abortion will much care if it was a Democrat or Republican who cast a vote in the Illinois General Assembly to send her into a back alley for an illegal abortion.
Personal PAC and Planned Parenthood of Illinois are not the only organizations supporting Beth Coulson. Many labor unions including AFSCME, SEIU and IEA are supporting Beth, as is the Brady Campaign, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and the National Association of Social Workers-Illinois.
Personal PAC’s work, including our voter identification calls, on behalf of candidates is open and documented through filings with the State Board of Elections. Identification of who is placing the calls and paying for them is required by a new state law that became effective on July 1, 2006 in order to ensure that anonymous so-called “push polling” does not take place. If Personal PAC did not identify itself in our calls, we would have broken the law and that is something Personal PAC does not do. If anyone believes that someone is violating the law, they should file a complaint with the State Board of Elections and initiate an investigation. Personal PAC would be more than happy to assist with this investigation
Personal PAC’s calls on behalf of Beth Coulson have said the following: “In the race for State Representative, Elizabeth Coulson, has been a pro-choice leader in the General Assembly for many years.” This is the same script we have used for Beth in the past three elections and this is the first time anyone has misunderstood the intent.
I hope this makes clear Personal PAC’s mission and goals. Personal PAC’s most important focus for the next 6+ weeks is to turn at least 11 House and Senate seats currently held by anti-abortion State Senators and State Representatives into those held by 11 pro-choice leaders. We need everyone’s help to accomplish this task so we can pass a bill in Illinois that says abortion will remain legal in the state, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says in the future. There is a 1975 law on the books that states abortion becomes illegal in Illinois on the day Roe is modified or overturned. To keep abortion safe and legal in Illinois, we need your help. Please join us. For more information about Personal PAC, visit our website at www.personalpac.org.
Terry Cosgrove, President & CEO
Personal PAC
It’s all misinformation? A big misunderstanding? That’s plain ol’ hard to swallow for at least two reasons: One, people aren’t THAT hard of hearing. Two, let’s not forget what Personal PAC did in 2006 primary. If you don’t know, now would be a good time to catch up on some reading:
http://qconline.com/archives/qco/print_display.php?id=279029
http://qconline.com/archives/qco/print_display.php?id=279184
Mr. Cosgrove writes, “There is a 1975 law on the books that states abortion becomes illegal in Illinois on the day Roe is modified or overturned.”
…Terry, Will Rep. Coulson sponsor legislation repealing that 1975 law?
Personal PAC’s most important focus for the next 6+ weeks is to turn at least 11 House and Senate seats currently held by anti-abortion State Senators and State Representatives into those held by 11 pro-choice leaders.
That’s a great goal.
Now explain how spending your money in a race with two pro-choice candidates gets you closer to this goal?
P.S. Is there a single example of a race which pitted a pro-choice Democrat against a pro-choice Republican where Personal PAC made substantial contributions or phone calls on behalf of the Democrat?
The only example I can think of is Link vs. Kazarian, but in that case Kazarian was not 100% pro-choice like Biss. Any other example?
This is Exhibit A on how single issue groups are detrimental to the overall progressive cause.
Yeah — 40 people musta misheard that phone call, Terry. Nice CYA letter. I will never give a dime to Personal PAC.
# 2 Rob_N Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at
…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.
Aviva,
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
No, Jim, of course not. But I accept Terry’s statement as factual.
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.
===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.===
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.
Rich Miller says:
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.
I can’t speak for PP, but usually in situations where groups have allies who are also important issue leaders in a particular caucus, they go all out. Labor has gone bigtime for staunch Republican allies who were in trouble – and who may have a slightly worse voting record than their Dem opponents. You dance with the one that brung ya.
Rich is correct here–and I don’t dispute it, I just want it to change. Terry’s argument isn’t without merit even. It’s just that I see a far more partisan world ahead of us in Illinois just as it has already happened in the nation and it’s time to change tactics.
And to Personal PAC’s defense, SEIU, Sierra Club, and others have backed Coulson as well. It’s not just them.
Rich is correct in describing the situation, but that also is not the issue here.
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.
Nonsense.
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.
===The bottom line is the perception that Personal PAC will go to great lengths for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-choice Democrat.===
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.
===Personal PAC (or at least Cosgrove) doesn’t like LMadigan, because he doesn’t like MMadigan.===
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.
Rich,
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.
I don’t like, nor do I have time, for all this annonymous school yard stone throwing (rich, larry, aviva are the execptions and sorry if I missed anyone else) with 12 right-wing anti-choice Republicans to defeat with pro-choice Democrats in the next 40 days. We must be doing something right as the Republicans claim we are nothing but a Democratic “front” organization and now some Democrats are upset because we are not Democratic enough. I don’t have time to add it all up, but apparently there are many of you with a lot of time on your hands so go to the state board of elections website and let us all know how much money Personal PAC has spent on Dems v. Rs. Please be truthful. If you want to know one famous example where we stuck with the pro-choice Dem over a 100% pro-choice R, ask Lauren Beth Gash when Edna Schade ran against her. Edna had been and still is a donor of Personal PAC and many people were upset with us that we did not stay out of it or do nothing for Lauren. We stuck to our principles and I did not hear one Democrat complain then or anytime since about our incumbent policy. We spent a ton of money on Lauren. People only complain, in my experience, when it doesn’t suit them. Please ask Lauren Beth Gash to weigh in on this Larry. I will not respond to anymore of this nor even look at this site until after 11/4 as there is too much at stake for abortion rights. I propose we all get together, face-to-face, in the same room and have a real conversation about all of the issues raised here. I have absolutely nothing to hide and would very much appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you and be heard in a respectful, honest manner. I propose that Rich and Larry host and moderate the meeting. I’ll be there—anyone else?
You bet, Terry. I’ll take that meeting. Let me know when. 773-718-2822