Thursday, Politico reported on the dealings of possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate Haley Barbour. What the Politico article doesn't reveal is that PACs in Georgia have no limits on the amount of money they can accept from a contributor or corporation. Even worse, these PACs don't have to include the traditional "paid for by" disclaimer on any communication sent out to the voters. Kasim Reed and U.S. Ambassador to Singapore David Adelman [SOURCE: Georgia House Vote #1051; Georgia Senate Vote #946].
In fact, the only Democrat in either legislative chamber to vote against the bill was none other than 12th district congressional candidate Regina Thomas.
To date, this law has not been changed and that is a shame.
Here's why these two laws combined are dangerous:
An individual or a corporation could come come into Georgia, set up a PAC (which is incredibly easy), accept a $1,000,000 contribution, then turn around and influence every election in the state with mail pieces, flyers and billboards without ever having to tell anyone that they were responsible.
PACs that have no individual or corporate contribution limits are not ethical. Loose laws that allow a governor from another to state to fund their political ambitions with little oversight are not ethical. PACs that do not even have to disclose who they are on campaign communication are certainly not ethical.
Every Georgia gubernatorial candidate claims to be for ethics reform and even stronger ethics laws.
If Georgia's gubernatorial candidates are serious about strengthening the ethics laws in this state, they will pledge today to put contribution limits on these PACs and restore the law that required full disclosure on all election-influencing literature.
Almost every Democrat in the Georgia General Assembly at the time this bill was passed voted for it -- including Atlanta Mayor