More groups applying values filter, but many resume focus on backing for their industry

Since the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, most associations that announced a pause in their PAC contributions have restarted them, including to some of the 147 lawmakers who voted against certifying the Electoral College vote in certain states. Other associations that didn't publicly suspend donations also are giving to objectors, in some cases liberally.

A common refrain from industry groups giving to objectors—if they comment at all—is that they will support those lawmakers who are in a position to help them or whom their PAC contributors want to support.

This is the case mostly with agriculture groups—think cotton interests giving to Southern lawmakers—and associations that represent businesses or individual businesspeople in every district. One example is the National Federation of Independent Business, which has given to 25 of the objectors, according to Federal Election Commission records as of June 30. That includes $1,000 to freshman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a vocal proponent of the stolen-election lie who called Jan. 6 a "1776 moment." NFIB told CEO Update that members vote on whom to support.

"The NFIB is fully transparent in our support of candidates and elected officials who are committed to championing pro-small business policies, regardless of their political party," the group said in an email. "NFIB was founded on the principle of one-member, one-vote, and each NFIB member, regardless of business size or contribution, gets one vote about the position NFIB should take on key small-business issues or endorsements of candidates."

Other contributors to many objectors include the National Association of Realtors (at least 44) and the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (at least 31), the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (at least 19), the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (at least 27) and the Credit Union National Association (at least 15). CEO Update could find no evidence of any contributions from those groups going to lawmakers most vocal in denying the election results and rationalizing or supporting the Capitol attack: Boebert and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who is running for Senate in 2022.

On the flip side, one of the most frequent recipients of PAC donations is Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), an objector but one who condemned the Capitol assault for its "violence, lawlessness and attacks on law enforcement."

Luetkemeyer is supported by many agricultural and financial groups; he is ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions.

But Jan. 6 has caused a major reevaluation of association PAC-giving criteria for many organizations, particularly around values and character. Micaela Isler, executive director of the National Association of Business Political Action Committees, said her organization has surveyed members on the matter.

"We are seeing an increase in (PACs) making it clear, ‘Here's where we stand, here's our mission and here are our values. Do you align with that?' That was probably the biggest change we've seen in the contribution criteria since January 6," Isler said.

Divided as the country is, so are association members. PAC strategies have been the subject of tension and much discussion among members and PAC contributors, Isler said. And this promises to be a hard-fought and expensive election cycle with control of the Senate and House at stake.

All that played out in the case of the American Dental Association, which suspended contributions to Gosar, a former dentist, after a mid-July meeting of its board. (See story below.)

After Jan. 6, five associations said they were suspending contributions specifically to the objectors. At least two appear to be sticking to that: TechNet (with its small PAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. TechNet CEO Linda Moore is a Democrat with a long track record in campaigns, on the Hill and in the Clinton administration.

"Following the events of Jan. 6, we condemned the violence and paused political giving for those members who voted to reject the outcome of the election," a PhRMA spokesperson said in a statement to CEO Update. "Since then, we have added new criteria to ensure those who receive political support demonstrate conduct consistent with our organization's mission and the principles of our country, which include respect for the rule of law, rejecting violence of any kind, and accepting the outcomes of free and fair elections. This new criteria will govern our efforts moving forward."

A third group, the American Hospital Association, said it was still reviewing its policies and had no further comment. Among the other two, the Motion Picture Association of America said it had no comment and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association did not respond to requests for comment.

Certain groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, after pausing all contributions, now are making distinctions among the 147. The Chamber, which didn't respond to CEO Update's interview requests, said in March it is judging lawmakers not just on votes to object to the certification of certain states' results, but on subsequent and continuing statements and actions that it sees as undermining democracy.

Difficult conversations

The reluctance to speak or go beyond previously established or noncommittal statements may be evidence that association PAC leaders have had difficult conversations about the events of Jan. 6 and which candidates they are willing to support.

"I don't think there's any organization, at least from what I've observed, that has taken Jan. 6 lightly," said Isler, of NABPAC. "They really have taken the time to convene town halls, whether with their employees or their member companies or individual members of their association.

"Many have done focus groups," she said. "There's been a lot of one-on-one conversations. The PAC boards have really gone back and taken the time to really look through the governance and look at their contribution criteria, and whether they need to make changes."

The Public Affairs Council also has surveyed members. It received more than 50 responses, including from 17 associations.

"There's a large amount of organizations that have decided they're not contributing to any of the 147 for the remainder of the election cycle," said Kristin Brackemyre, director of PAC and government relations for the council.

"In conversations I've had with companies and associations, if they're making contributions to the 147, they're very aware of what they're doing, and they're being thoughtful and limited," she said. "PACs are evaluating their candidate contributions in a different light."

Amy Showalter, PAC and grassroots consultant at the Showalter Group, said associations with well-established rationales for whom they will support are on firmer ground in this changing PAC world. Any decision—but especially one that is poorly thought-out—can alienate members and PAC contributors, leading them to engage less in political activities.

"The ones that don't have written criteria for evaluating candidates and so forth are in treacherous waters right now, and they have been since January," Showalter said. "So, if you don't have a rational, evidence-based approach that you can defend, you've got a problem."

Expensive campaigns ahead

It is still relatively early in the election cycle, with primaries for Congress in the spring and summer of 2022 and the general election in November, so there is plenty of time for associations to give to candidates. PACs are limited to giving $5,000 per election directly to candidates' campaigns, or $10,000 total for a primary and general election.

But many associations also give generously to the national campaign committees of the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other party committees. Groups also often give to the leadership PACs run by individual lawmakers, who then in turn can give contributions to candidates.

And, of course, there are independent expenditures, which have no spending limits. The Chamber is a heavyweight in this arena, having spent many millions of dollars on advertising in tight congressional races. The National Association of Realtors Super PAC reported spending more than $13 million on independent expenditures in the last election, according to OpenSecrets, a research group that tracks political spending.

Turning up the heat

One thing contributing to this level of thought is public pressure from journalists, activists and political groups. Toyota said recently it would stop giving to the objectors after donating more than $85,000 to more than four dozen of them. The Japanese automaker was targeted by the anti-Trump Lincoln Project in an ad campaign.

The website DonationsandDemocracy.org is keeping score of both corporate and trade group PAC donations. The site was launched by human rights lawyer Christopher Avery, who was founding director of the London-based Business & Human Rights Resource Centre from 2002 to 2013. CEO Update derived data about which associations were giving to the most objectors from that site, and added additional research based on the most recent FEC data.

Among the most frequent contributors listed above, NSSGA said it had no comment, while NAR and CUNA said they would continue supporting lawmakers who help them.

"RPAC is proud to be one of the largest, most bipartisan political action committees in the country and will continue to engage in a bipartisan way on behalf of our 1.4 million members," NAR said in a statement. "Following a recent meeting of the RPAC board of trustees, our association lifted the temporary pause previously put in place on all federal political disbursements. This decision will ensure we continue to engage with political candidates to support America's homeowners and our nation's real estate industry."

NAR contributed $4 million directly to candidate campaigns in the 2019-2020 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org.

CUNA said in January it was suspending all donations to candidates from its huge PAC pending review. Its CEO, former Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), also stated that he was no longer a Republican because of the Jan. 6 events.

The association referred CEO Update to a statement from April.

"When the (board) decided to resume campaign contributions, it did so after listening intently to our donors and key stakeholders," CUNA said in the statement, originally given to Credit Union Times. "Our members were clear that our electoral work advancing credit union priorities must continue, and we've worked with our league partners to do so."

CUNA, like its competitor the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions, has given to Luetkemeyer.

NAFCU Director of Political Affairs Chad Adams gave CEO Update a statement in July that also echoed an earlier statement to Credit Union Times, citing the need to focus on advocating for the credit union industry.

Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley took a strong stand in January, saying that some lawmakers have "forfeited" Chamber support as a result of their statements and actions.

Chamber Senior Political Strategist Ashlee Rich Stephenson wrote in a March 5 memo to members that the group would not withhold support solely based on lawmakers' votes that day. She wrote that the Chamber would assess both Republican and Democratic candidates based on "demonstrated commitment to governing and rebuilding our democratic institutions.

"We do not believe it is appropriate to judge members of Congress solely based on their votes on the electoral certification," Stephenson wrote. "There is a meaningful difference between a member of Congress who voted no on the question of certifying the votes of certain states and those who engaged and continue to engage in repeated actions that undermine the legitimacy of our elections and institutions."

The Chamber made PAC donations to the campaigns of three objectors through June 30: Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Carlos Giminez (R-Fla.) and Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.).