PACking it on

The Intelligencer

Even the best relationships sometimes falter over money. And so Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy, an early and enthusiastic supporter of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, isn’t expressing much support or enthusiasm for Obama’s fundraising guidelines.

The Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee doesn’t accept donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Out of respect, perhaps, the Democratic National Committee adopted the fundraising ban as its own just a day after Obama emerged as the party’s almost certain standard-bearer.

It’s a good policy that could restore confidence in elected officials’ role as representatives of the people and not the special interests who feed their bloated campaign funds. Of course, our elected representatives have to adopt the policy if perceptions and reality are to change.

Murphy, for one, isn’t going along with the program.

Since 2005, Murphy has raked in more than $1.2 million in PAC money and doesn’t intend to stop now. The contributions came from PACs representing major corporations, including AT&T, Toll Brothers, Pfizer, Comcast, Boeing and labor groups.

If those or any other contributions affected Murphy’s votes, we’re not aware of it. We certainly hope the congressman voted in the best interests of the nation and his constituents, and we have no reason to believe otherwise.

Still, it would look better if Murphy followed Obama’s lead. If so, he wouldn’t be the first Bucks County congressman to spurn PAC money.

Former Congressman James Greenwood refused to accept PAC money, placing him in a very small but honorable club on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, neither Greenwood’s successor, former Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, nor Murphy joined that club.

We know it’s incredibly expensive to run for Congress, whether as a challenger or an incumbent. Still, candidates who refuse to accept special-interest money stand to gain stature even if their campaign treasuries shrink. What’s more, we all stand to benefit if candidates have less money to buy attack ads that, in addition to distorting and damaging an opponent’s record, damage the electoral process as well. We urge the congressman to reconsider.