Bankers Form SuperPac for 'Surgical' Strike at Industry's Enemies

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (11)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+
Partner Insights

Frustrated by a lack of political power and fed up with blindly donating to politicians who consistently vote against the industry's interests, a handful of leaders are determined to shake things up.

They have formed the industry's first SuperPAC — dubbed Friends of Traditional Banking — that is designed to target the industry's enemies and support its friends in Congress.

Barbara A. Rehm

"It comes back to the old philosophy of walking softly and carrying a big stick," says Howard Headlee, the president and chief executive officer of the Utah Bankers Association. "But we've got no big stick. And we should. We have the capacity to have one, we just aren't organized."

Think of it as an Emily's List for bankers and their allies.

"Congress isn't afraid of bankers," adds Roger Beverage, the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Bankers Association. "They don't think we'll do anything to kick them out of office. We are trying to change that perception."

Unlike traditional banking PACs, which target hundreds of House and Senate races, the SuperPAC instead is focusing on making a big difference in just a handful of close elections.

SuperPACs are the latest campaign finance innovation, made possible by two 2010 court decisions. They are officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees" because they are not allowed to coordinate their activities with candidates. SuperPACs are attractive because there are no limits on contributions or expenditures.

With a regular political action committee, like the American Bankers Association's BankPAC, an individual may donate no more than $5,000 a year. Then the PAC may contribute up to $10,000 to any one candidate in an election cycle — $5,000 for the primary and another $5,000 for the general election.

But Friends of Traditional Banking can direct as much money as it can raise to certain races without such restrictions. Matt Packard, the SuperPAC's chairman and president and CEO of $670 million-asset Central Bank in Provo, Utah, views the SuperPAC as a complement to BankPAC.

"BankPAC is much broader and covers lots of different candidates. This is much more surgical," Packard says. "If someone says I am going to give your opponent $5,000 or $10,000, you might say, 'Yea, okay.' But if you say the bankers are going to put in $100,000 or $500,000 or $1 million into your opponent's campaign, that starts to draw some attention.

"That's why I think this is much more instrumental than BankPAC in a close race."

Friends of Traditional Banking will ask contributors to pledge from $150 to $500 to two congressional races each election cycle. An advisory council will research races and select the candidates to be targeted. A board of directors will sign off on the selections, and then information will be sent to those who pledged funding explaining how to donate to a particular candidate.

The SuperPAC itself will not touch the money. Unlike Emily's List, which raises money for female candidates, Friends of Traditional Banking will merely point its supporters toward the races and the candidates considered key to the future of traditional banking.

If 10,000 supporters sign up at the minimum pledge level — not a high bar considering 2.1 million people work in the banking industry — Friends of Traditional Banking would be channeling more than $1 million. That's enough to make a difference in a tight race.

"My short-term goal is to get to the $1 million mark," Headlee says. "I have a lot of confidence that once we get there we will get way beyond there. People will see how effective it is and they will jump on board."

SuperPACs are considered pretty cutting-edge, which is not a place a lot of bankers feel comfortable. Headlee says the first question most bankers ask him is, "Is this legal?" Friends of Traditional Banking got Federal Election Commission approval last September and federal banking regulators have been briefed on the effort.

But SuperPACs are still relatively rare. As of early April, 407 had been formed and just 18 had raised more than $1 million.

"It would be nice to sit on the sidelines or sit on our hands and say, 'Oh we don't get involved in that stuff,' but that just means you get run over," says Don Childears, the president and CEO of the Colorado Bankers Association. "We need to get more deeply involved as an industry in supporting friends and trying to replace enemies."

Childears says he's seen SuperPACs in action, citing a credit union that donated $50,000 to an independent expenditure committee and defeated a candidate in Colorado. "Regretfully that is our world these days," he says. "Everyone from the Realtors to the credit unions to the consumer groups are playing more hardball. It would be nice not to have to engage in that, but we do."

[The Credit Union National Association, the industry's largest trade group, does not operate a SuperPAC. But it does accomplish many of the same goals by marshalling both institutions and their customers to donate to specific races. PACs are allowed to make these "independent expenditures," or donations that are not coordinated with a campaign, and according to the Center for Responsive Politics, CUNA's PAC spent $837,000 to influence six tight races during the 2010 elections.]

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(11) Comments

SEE MORE IN

'Dodd-Frank Is Like the TSA': Comments of the Week
American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. Comments are excerpted from reader response sections of AmericanBanker.com articles and from our social media platforms.

(Image: iStock)

Comments (11)
"Clearly there are Members of Congress who have absolutely no reservations about kicking traditional banks in the teeth, and we are tired of it," says Headlee."

Tired of WHAT? What, prey tell, has been done to banks by Congress other than permitting them to rob us all blind with impunity?
Posted by american i | Wednesday, April 04 2012 at 10:52PM ET
Clearly you don't fully understand or appreciate the role of "traditional community banks". If you found yourself paying for the sins of others (community banks impacted by more regulations due to the egregious ways of Wall Street), I'm sure you would be much more sympathetic.
Posted by SEG NSFP | Thursday, April 05 2012 at 10:53AM ET
Kelley L's comments are spot on. It's about time we start a Super PAC to push back against regulators, congressmen, senators, and a President who have repeatedly and stupidly burdened the banking industry. Our traditional trade organizations like ABA and ICBA have been unable or unwilling to stand up to them -- example, their whimpered protests against CPFB before rolling over. . Our industry has been needlessly punished in ways that hurt our shareholders and our customers with costs that don't create offsetting benefits, Our enemies have demonized our industry because they are ignorant of our issues, or they are in the pocket of other interest groups, or they are anti-capitalist. Barney, Dirtbin, Elijah, and the rest of you -- take cover.
Posted by formrbanker | Thursday, April 05 2012 at 12:17PM ET
Having escaped being held accountable for their parts in precipitating the worst economic disaster in the US since the Great Depression, it should now be crystal clear that the Too-Big-To-Behave banks are not satisfied with simply controlling the agencies that are supposed to enforce federal financial regulations. They want to gain control of the federal law-making bodies that create the regulations. God help us all.
Posted by jim_wells | Thursday, April 05 2012 at 2:23PM ET
I think pretending the ABA or ICBA could have successfully opposed the creation of the CFPB is misguided. The abject failure of the existing federal regulators to correct the proliferation of dangerous consumer products led directly to the financial crisis. There was no way bankers or banking trade groups could have stopped the creation of CFPB. --Rob Blackwell, Washington bureau chief, American Banker
Posted by rblackwe | Thursday, April 05 2012 at 3:03PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.