Out-of-State Money Funds “Local” Pro-Voucher
Political Action Groups
As the 2006 midterm elections approach, pro-school
voucher political action committees have become a prominent
force in some states. These well-funded PACs are national
organizations or local organizations funded by out-of-state
donors, targeting anti-voucher state elected officials
for defeat and supporting pro-voucher candidates.
Wealthy Out-of-State Backers
As described in the September 27 issue of Education
Week, All Children Matter (ACM) is a multi-million
dollar organization with offices in at least ten states
that works with local political action organizations
to defeat candidates who oppose school choice programs.
ACM describes itself as an organization that derives
local support for local causes, but the vast majority
of its financial support, EdWeek stated, comes
from a few wealthy out-of-state donors. Of $9.5 million
raised in 2004, over two-thirds was donated by members
of the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame. Another major
source of funding is its current chairwoman, Betsy DeVos,
and her husband Dick DeVos, a candidate for Governor
of Michigan and the son of Amway billionaire Richard
DeVos, Sr.
According to Ed Week, in 2004, All
Children Matter was instrumental in the defeat of
the anti-voucher Utah Governor Olene Walker and also
campaigned to influence elections of state officials
in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina,
and Wisconsin. One of the most prominent 2006 races
ACM hopes to influence is the Ohio gubernatorial race,
where it are backing candidate Kenneth Blackwell. In
these races, ACM and its local affiliates attack voucher
opponents by running advertising campaigns that attack
anti-voucher candidates, often accusing them of being
on the unpopular side of contentious issues such as
immigration and same-sex marriage. Executive director
Greg Brock believes ACM will spend $7.6 million for
the 2006 elections, EdWeek reports.
“Scholarships” in South Carolina
South Carolinians for Reponsible Government (SCRG),
featured in a Wall Street Journal editorial on September
27, has as one of its top priorities the passage of
the Educational Opportunity Scholarship Act (EOSA),
also known as the “Put Parents in Charge Act.”
The EOSA would provide “education scholarships”
for low-income children to attend schools of choice
and would provide tax credits for parents who send their
child to a school other than their local public school.
The bill failed 59-52 this spring, and SCRG
is working to help pro-voucher candidates pick up seats
in the South Carolina legislature. Three incumbents
who opposed the bill have already been defeated in the
state’s primary elections.
This spring, the state Ethics Commission threatened
legal action against SCRG if it did not file as a political
action committee (as opposed to a non-partisan, non-profit
organization) and submit associated disclosures of funding
sources. In response, SCRG filed a lawsuit against the
Ethics Commission claiming it was violating SCRG’s
First Amendment right to free speech. State Attorney
General Henry McMaster is not handling the defense in
the case, and it is uncertain how the case will proceed.
Defending Vouchers
Both ACM and SCRG vigorously defend voucher programs
against critics who say that vouchers drain money from
public schools and fail to improve student achievement.
The organizations’ informational materials claim
that voucher programs actually benefit public schools.
Both organizations cite studies opining that public
schools in cities and states with voucher programs in
place have improved significantly. They claim this relationship
has a causal link because, they say, public schools
improve when forced into “market competition”
with choice schools.
Limited Response
While many advocacy groups work to improve public schools,
a coordinated national PAC supporting pro-public education
candidates or anti-voucher candidates has yet to arise.
SCRG, for example, has had a great deal of press coverage
in South Carolina and has captured the attention of
many voters, enjoying little competition from opposing
groups.
Prepared by Matthew Samberg, October 13, 2006
|
