By John Cooke

Credit unions are engaged with members of both political parties as they should be. NAFCU, CUNA and others are engaged on a near daily basis at the federal level. They do a very good job of looking out for credit unions.

In politics, cash is king though.

If you don’t believe that to be totally true, listen to this story: Way back when I did some photojournalism, I was with a group of credit union leaders making Hill visits. We were in a congressman’s office, and I was shooting the meeting. They were talking to the congressman about his support for a bill. The congressman mentioned needing support from a senator on the Banking Committee, who also happened to be from the same state as the congressman. The congressman said anytime he went to the senator for support he always had his hand out.

Cash is king in politics!

Looking at opensecrets.org, both NAFCU and CUNA’s support in dollars is equally split between members and PACS of each political party. Forgive me some rounding errors.

I have a different view on how it should be – big surprise.

Credit unions should establish a separate PAC for each party. Here’s why.

I was shooting a NAFCU conference, and NAFCU had a silent auction set up to support their PAC. I was shooting the breeze with one of the group’s lobbyists. I said I would love to bid on one item, but there was no way in Hell I would have my money go to certain members they support, so I did not bid.

I’m sure the winning bid was more than I could have managed, so my commentary was not a big deal to them. Or might it be?

The PACS rightfully support both parties for credit unions’ collective priorities, but the people who work in credit unions probably care more about gun rights, healthcare, social security, education or any other issue more than the credit union’s priorities.

Yes, employees can donate to PACs or candidates that better align with their political views, but cash is king in politics. Might the credit union PACs get more funding to support credit unions’ lobbying efforts if they could contribute to one party or the other, or some mix of the two that aligns with their personal political beliefs?

Would more employees donate?

How many employees donate to PACs outside of credit unions because they don’t want their money going to someone they don’t support?

If a bank opened up next to your credit union branch and offered all your tellers twice the pay, how many job openings would you have at the credit union? Credit union employees are not going to put credit union priorities ahead of their own, including in politics.

Those at the top split their donations between parties or max out donations to each party, giving even more to the credit union PACs in total, helping credit unions even more, because cash is king in politics.

Now what happens if one PAC far out raises the other? Tough shit. People on the other side will just have to up their game and raise more money, again helping credit unions even more, because cash is king in politics.

Some will note that running a PAC for each party will also increase operating costs. But, if you look at those numbers, they are minuscule compared to total dollars raised. Even if you had to double it, which you would not, it is still a very small expense.

Another argument against it is, ‘we have always done it this way.’ I hate change, too, but sometimes it’s necessary.

The sole purpose of both PACs is to support members of Congress who support credit unions. My objective with this recommendation is to increase total PAC contributions to further support credit union. The Credit Union Connection is running a LinkedIn poll on this topic, and it will be interesting to see the results. Credit union good deeds matter, but money opens doors to be able to share our stories.

Why? Because cash is king.