Friday, April 16, 2010

What's Wrong With Sarah PAC?

It is inefficient.

A PAC's efficiency is an objective way of measuring how well a PAC performs. It measures a PAC's support for candidates by comparing a PAC's contributions to candidates with the PAC's receipts. A PAC's efficiency is simply contributions divided by receipts.

In its latest quarterly filing of April 13, amended April 14, Sarah PAC reported receipts of $400481.95 (line 19, here). On line 23 of the same report, Sarah PAC reported $9500.00 in contributions to Federal Candidates/Committees and Other Political Committees. $9500.00 divided by $400481.95 yields an efficiency of 2.4% (rounded generously).

What an efficiency of 2.4% means is that for every $100.00 donated to Sarah PAC, only $2.40 finds its way to Federal Candidates/Committees and Other Political Committees.

A report from The Center For Public Integrity mentioned that "Federal Election Commission data show the average federal PAC in the recent 2007-2008 cycle dedicated about 35 percent of spending to contributions aiding federal candidates."

With such extremely poor, far below average efficiency, it is clear that Sarah PAC is primarily benefiting people and organizations closely associated with the PAC.


snowbilly said...

Here's SarahPac, 'bots. Please, spend your money there.

Curiouser said...

Great post! Thanks for digging and finding the comparison to other PAC's average 35% efficiency. Sarah must be so proud.

By all means, Republican donors should keep their dollars flowing to Palin.

Anonymous said...

How much did Bristol Palin's company get?

Money had to be directed to her in some round about way.

Anonymous said...

very ironic that the standard bearer of common sense solutions to this nation's complex problems needs an army of consultants to manage a simple fund, and they do a piss poor job at it.

what is more common sense than getting money and giving it back? She needs a 97% overhead to do this simple taksk. i'm sure the irony of her position wscapes her entirely.

Anonymous said...

I agree. The irony of her PAC's ethics and performance compared to her rhetoric does escape her, but I suspect she doesn't care.

I think it is operating just the way Sarah and Todd want it to operate - to their short-term benefit.

Of course, that may change if anyone who has contributed lodges a formal complaint and the feds start poking around.

Long-term, it is huge mistake to handle her PAC the way it is being handled. Karma catches up - if only through disgruntled, disillusioned followers or employees.

Let's not tell her, though. She might decide to clean up her act. Better to see her millions get taken away through fines and confiscations.

Carli said...

Even at 35% in campaign contributions, a PAC would be considered inefficient by any other standards. 2% is insane.

Weren't last years contributions pretty close to being equally poor in performance? How the hell can ANYONE want this woman in any position of power with such an incompetent use of funds?

How's that common sensey, fiscally conservative thing workin' out for ya' Sarah!

Even literal whores give a better return on investment.


nancydrew said...

You know, as a get-rich-quick scheme this tale is quite impressive. All I can think of is the movie line made famous by Michael Keaton in "Night Shift", as the vice-ring being run out of the county morgue during the night shift painlessly rakes in the dough. "Is this a great country or what?"

Anonymous said...

Other people with Pacs gives more money than SarahPac to other politicians and causes. If you look at what Sarah spends her money on, you will see she pays a lot of money to consultants which tells you something. Sarah is not donating to the party. Sarah is paying people to educate her dumb a$$. The moron is paying people to write her facebook and tweets.

Anonymous said...

Where is 60 Minutes when you need them? Somebdy needs to investigate that crook up north.

Heyyyy Andyyyyy

snowbilly said...

Yes, even 35% efficiency is poor. Respectable charity fundraisers can be as high as 85% to 95% efficient, which means that their overhead, administrative costs aren't high.

There isn't an efficiency standard for PACs -- it will take an act of Congress to create one.