Last year was not a regular election year, but you couldn't tell it by looking at the political contributions made by CULAC — CUNA's political action arm.

CULAC contributed more than $1.7 million to House and Senate incumbents and challengers, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Among all political action committees, CULAC ranked ninth in total contributions, making it the largest among the financial services PACs.

NAFCU operates a much smaller PAC and it contributed $177,000 to House and Senate candidates.

But credit union issues were hot last year, said Chad Adams, NAFCU's director of political affairs, citing regulatory overhaul proposals, as well as tax, data security and housing legislation.

And many of those issues are still pending before Congress.

“We tend to contribute in the neighborhood of $3 million,” Trey Hawkins, CUNA's vice president of political affairs, said. “It's pretty straightforward. We tend to identify a pro-credit union candidate in every race.”

For both PACs, that may mean supporting an incumbent or someone running in an open seat.

NAFCU and CULAC are bipartisan in their giving. CULAC contributed 54% of its money to Republicans and 46% to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps track of such giving. NAFCU contributed 53% of its money to Republicans and 47% to Democrats.

Ironically, both PACs contributed to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. Subsequently, Hatch announced his retirement and even more recently he attacked the credit union industry — questioning whether the tax exemption afforded credit unions is outdated.

CULAC contributed $5,000 to Hatch's reelection committee and NAFCU contributed $2,500 to the senator's political action committee.

Hawkins said that in deciding which candidates to support, CULAC attempts to ensure that a candidate is knowledgeable and supportive of credit union issues. In addition, CULAC tries to make a judgement about whether a particular candidate is “politically viable” in order to ensure that the committee is “investing the funds wisely and not throwing it away.”

NAFCU places a priority on giving to House and Senate leaders. “You've got to feed the people at the top because they drive policies,” Adams said.

Then, NAFCU identifies credit union advocates. “To keep a seat at the table, we want to support people who support credit unions,” he said. “We really want to support credit union champions.”

And, NAFCU targets members of key committees, such as the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees. With tax overhaul legislation having been considered last year, NAFCU also targeted members on the Senate Finance Committee.

While NAFCU targets its contributions on particular congressional committees, CULAC takes a broader view by contributing to more than 300 candidates each election cycle.

Still, CULAC is strategic in making its contributions. For instance, CULAC last year contributed $9,000 to the reelection effort of Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

And CULAC made contributions to members of Congress in positions to help credit unions, sending money to several members of the House Financial Services Committee, including its ranking Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

NAFCU also supported Waters, who Adams said supports credit unions and speaks regularly at NAFCU conferences.

Both committees also made hefty contributions to the campaign arms of each party in the two chambers of Congress. Those committees then distribute the funds to candidates in particularly competitive races.

Adams said attending fundraising events that require a campaign contribution is essential to ensuring “face time” with a member. And he said a campaign contribution can help groups such as NAFCU develop relationships with new members of Congress.

Hawkins said he is not concerned that the electorate appears to be particularly volatile this year. “There's more opportunity for us to play,” he said.

CULAC raises money through payroll deductions made by credit union employees, Hawkins said. He added he is proud that CULAC is supported by a wide range of people, with many people contributing between $70 and $80 to the political action committee.

Adams said NAFCU does not use payroll deductions as often, but added he would like the trade group to increase the practice. Instead, NAFCU relies more on direct outreach, including direct mail and phone calls. And the association has held both silent and live auctions to support its PAC.

With the support of state leagues, CULAC's state affiliates support candidates for state legislatures. That allows the state leagues to build relationships with candidates who may run for the House or Senate in the future.

And CULAC's bylaws state that it cannot contribute to any candidate that is not supported by a state league.

Hawkins said during this election year, CULAC will also continue its practice of making independent expenditures on behalf of particular candidates. In such cases, under federal law, there can be no coordination between CULAC and the candidate.

Most often, CULAC has produced ads supporting a candidate.

Despite the large contributions made by the two political action arms of the credit union industry, CULAC and NAFCU did not deplete their war chests.

At the end of the year, CULAC had some $1.4 million on hand and the committee will continue to raise money throughout the year. The same is true for NAFCU, which had almost $469,000 on hand at the end of 2017.

And both committees will continue their fundraising throughout the year to enable them to make campaign contributions leading up to the November election.

Instant Insights /

Trades Report Busy 2017 for Credit Union PACs

Related Stories

Recommended For You