Jim: I agree. The ARRL should create a PAC using the 501c4 pathway. That would mean creating two organizations as I understand Dave's messages, but one organization would be a "paper" organization. Andy, the new Vice Director from California, was concerned about being too political. I E-Mailed him about how DENPAC handles such things. "Good dental health is not political." If a politician supports the fact that amateur radio is great asset to national security and is concerned about the possibility of spectrum pollution by BPL since that technology has not been properly studied, then it is not important to which party the politician belongs. It is important that he supports the interests of amateur radio as it applies to the national as a whole.. DENPAC is strictly non partisan. A HAMPAC would have to be same. I think that a HAMPAC could easily raise $25,000 a year and that would be enough to be a "player" at the congressional level. Contributing as little as $300 gets you a seat at the table and opens the door for conversation. You never "buy" a politician, but you can encourage him to listen to your position. You are just "buying" a few minutes of time. When you review Dave's recent message, the idea of "buying" a politician becomes a real interesting subject after you see that some politicos receive as much as $1,000,000! Yipes! I have two DENPAC checks in my hands now that are intended for delivery to state reps in my area. The checks are $1,000 each. State senators normally receive $5,000 each. A HAMPAC has no reason to spread money around like that, but "Communicating" with the Congressmen and Senators who serve on the Telecommunications Committees is important. Those are my comments for today, Jim. I am enjoying our conversations. David Jim Weaver wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for the discussion. I believe we need this information and more if we are to continue considering establishing a PAC. I agree with much of what you said; however, (you know, there is always a however or a but or something!) some of it is predicated upon attempting to be a PAC-like operation while remaining 501(c)(3). It seems apparent to me that we would need to establish the PAC under a suitable tax category and leave ARRL as it is. I think if we looked more deeply in the list of PAC sponsors we would find any number of 501(c)(3) organizations have established PACs under other categories.
The point about the huge donations made to politicos by some PACs is well taken, of course. We could not dream of approaching these amounts. On the other hand, is it worth being shown on the records in politicians offices that the Amateur Radio PAC had made a modest donation? How much would this get us? It may not guarantee us anything, but would it make certain the door was open to us at least?
One of us raised a concern over getting involved in partisan politics. I'm sorry for forgetting who this was. Many donors to political campaigns handle this very neatly. They contribute to each of the viable candidates. Can't loose this way and it handles the partisanship issue even though it seems weird to people such as me.
73,
Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je@arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142
ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is!
GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org