Ethics Commission’s “Top 20″ PAC list missing 10 PACs?

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission publishes a list of “Top 20″ Kansas Political Action Committees (PACs) every year, but this list is computed only using PAC contributions to candidates.  Why are PACs that raise a lot of money, spend a lot of money, or have a lot money in the bank not in the “Top 20″?

A Meadowlark PAC Ranking, which includes factors for money raised rank, money spent rank, and money in the bank rank, shows 10 Kansas PACs having more political clout than those published by the Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission declines to change the way it computes its “Top 20″ PAC list even when their list doesn’t accurately reflect political strength.

The Ethics Commission publishes its list of “Top 20″ Kansas PACs based only on contributions given by PACs to political candidates, which ignores money given to other other PACs, and independent expenditures made by the PAC. The Ethics Commission also refuses to include out-of-state PACs that file “Verified Statements” in their computations. Why do out-of-state PACs get better treatment than in-state PACs?

Here is the Commission’s “Top 20″ list for 2007:

PAC contribution and expenditure reports show a summary of money raised, money spent, and money in the bank. Each of these factors is individually ranked, and an overall ranking is computed by ranking the rank products.

The Ethics Commission and the Meadowlark agree on 10 of the top 20 PACs.  The following table compares the two ranking systems: ($ Raised Rank, $ Spent Rank, $ In the Bank Rank, and Meadowlark Rank from Political Money Rankings of 228 Kansas PACs)

Several of the PACs above have Meadowlark ranks greater than 20. The Meadowlark PAC ranking system would replace those PACs with the following, which raise more money, spend more money, or have more money in the bank:

Perhaps someday the Ethics Commission will consider a report that better reflects the overall political power of a PAC based on their money.

• “Missing” PAC reports? Why are out-of-state PACs allowed to hide their reports?, Kansas Meadowlark, July 5, 2008.
• Kansas Ethics Commission can’t find political activist, who didn’t file PAC report, but newspapers can?, Kansas Meadowlark, July 3, 2008.
• Kansas Ethics Commission ignores missing $25,000 payment by PAC?, Kansas Meadowlark, July 2, 2008.
• Political Money Rankings of 228 Kansas PACs, Kansas Meadowlark, March 16, 2008.
• Summary of Contributions and Expenditures of Kansas Political Action Committees (PACs), Kansas Meadowlark, March 15, 2008. [Note: The Ethics Commission has STILL not acted on the Errors and Omissions outlined in that March report.]

Tags: Ethics, Political Action Committee (PAC)