Newly Elected Democrats Are Having Fun With PAC Puns

After Tuesday’s congressional rout, Democrats are feeling themselves.

Want proof? Just take a look at the names of their newly created leadership PACs, the committees overseen by politicians that can raise money and spend big on their colleagues or preferred candidates.

Amish Shah, who will represent Arizona’s 1st Congressional District come January, is sponsoring a new leadership PAC named “PACStreet Boy.” Sen.-elect Josh Turek of Iowa, a two-time Paralympic gold medalist in wheelchair basketball, is behind “WheelPAC.”

And then there’s Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed.

After what he called “one of the ugliest campaigns we’ve seen in our lifetime” — which included President Donald Trump calling El-Sayed a “jihadist” — Michigan’s soon-to-be newest senator addressed Vice President JD Vance by calling him “habibi.”

A term of endearment used for friends and family alike, “habibi” in Arabic translates to “my love” or “my dear.” On Friday, El-Sayed, who will be the country’s first Muslim senator, sponsored a new leadership PAC called “Habibi PAC.”

Roy Cooper, the Democratic senator-elect from North Carolina, stuck to his more low-key image with his new leadership PAC’s name: “One NC PAC.”

None of the campaigns immediately responded to requests for comment.

Michael Beckel, the director of money in politics reform at Issue One, said dollars raised by these PACs typically go to allies and “politicians who have a lower profile and a harder time raising money or are in some of the most competitive elections.”

A leadership PAC’s sponsor is also prohibited from using that money to support their own reelection. Still, the fundraising vehicle has become ubiquitous in national politics.

Data that Beckel shared with The Washington Sun shows that 509 of the 533 members in the 119th Congress have a leadership PAC, including the vast majority of the current freshman class. Only two senators, by Issue One’s count, don’t have a leadership PAC.

And while the majority of spending was for political purposes — a “typical” member’s leadership PAC spends 70% of their leadership PAC dollars on politics, according to a 2021 Issue One report — there are pitfalls that have frustrated campaign finance reform advocates.

“Leadership PACs are routinely criticized by voices on the left and right as slush funds or vehicles that have the risk of turning into a slush fund,” Beckel said. “If they aren’t spending their money on what is ostensibly the purpose, it really raises the question of ‘Where is that money going?’”

If a leadership PAC is paying “for a lavish fundraiser simply to raise money for the next lavish fundraiser, that certainly looks like you’re using money from lobbyists and special interests to enjoy perks … far beyond the reach of most Americans,” Beckel continued.

The rules around leadership PACs are also less firm.

The Federal Election Commission has argued that the prohibition on campaigns utilizing funds for a candidate’s personal use does not apply to leadership PACs.

Instead, the FEC “has taken the position that there is a more expansive use and permissible use of leadership PAC funds,” Beckel said.

Both Issue One and the Campaign Legal Center have argued that may be incorrect, but the FEC has punted the issue to Congress, Beckel explained, saying that such a reform should come from the legislative branch.

A new Congress, however, could bring change. Beckel expects the Democrat-controlled Congress to “to take a serious look” at campaign finance reform and anti-corruption legislation even if they may inevitably be stuck down by Trump’s pen.

“The American people are really outraged and disgusted by the amount of money that we see flowing into our elections from billionaires and special interests, and reform needs to be part of the agenda,” he said. “Voters are demanding it, and politicians on both sides of the aisle would be smart to listen.”