In my view, there probably should not be an “EA-linked PAC,” at least absent some serious decoupling from any megadonor.
Even if the beneficiary politicians were picked cleanly, all of them know who wrote the checks and who ultimately decides if the PAC gets funded next time. They will feel indebted to the megadonor, and so the existence of the “EA-linked PAC” necessarily and substantially furthers the megadonor’s personal and business interests. This is true no matter how pure the megadonor’s actual motive for providing funding.
I don’t think that it is healthy or appropriate for projects that substantially further a donor’s personal and business interests—even unintentionally—to be carried out under the EA flag.
In my view, there probably should not be an “EA-linked PAC,” at least absent some serious decoupling from any megadonor.
Even if the beneficiary politicians were picked cleanly, all of them know who wrote the checks and who ultimately decides if the PAC gets funded next time. They will feel indebted to the megadonor, and so the existence of the “EA-linked PAC” necessarily and substantially furthers the megadonor’s personal and business interests. This is true no matter how pure the megadonor’s actual motive for providing funding.
I don’t think that it is healthy or appropriate for projects that substantially further a donor’s personal and business interests—even unintentionally—to be carried out under the EA flag.