The reality is that personhood has been legally recognized for corporations. Until that is overturned, why shouldn’t the workers whose labor is exploited by corporations stand a chance at some political representation?~Theresa

Unions do have a chance at political representation. PACs are allowed to spend independently and say whatever they'd like in support of or opposition to candidates. We should continue to work to try and win their endorsements and show why - if they choose to spend independently on elections - Green candidates would be their best choice. We can do that without violating our fundamental belief that only human persons should have rights to fund elections.

Right on!

Sent from Mail ( https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 ) for Windows 10

I support this proposal. In 2018 my campaign received a donation from SEIU 500, Joshua Harris also received a donation from SEIU and Steve Wollett received a donation from IBEW. This represented a first in Maryland for these traditionally Democratic Party loyal unions and I believe this proposal helps the Green Party to build on this success and establish our candidates as a potential ally of unionism and workers.

I support this proposal for three reasons

Clarity- Our current position in which the party does not take Union PAC donations but candidates are free to is confusing to labor unions, prospective candidates, candidates, locals, and members. I think we should make it clear that the state party does not prohibit candidates from taking union PAC money. This has several benefits
Prospective candidates who are Union members can know with certainty that they will be able to take donations from a Union PAC they have been donating to,and will know that they can organize within the organization they have already been involved with.
Labor Union PACs that have a policy of sending donations as one part of a tiered endorsement process will know that Green candidates can be considered during the endorsement process. I have spoken with several people that have roles in their Union’s endorsement process who are not aware that they can endorse Green candidates because their internal process requires making donations as the entry point of offering an endorsement.
Local chapters would have good guidance and would be able to make more restrictive policies if they wanted to, but could go with the welcoming state policy if they wanted to, that is how decentralization should go. While the current approach also allows that, clarification would I believe be useful.

Ethics- Unionism in the United States has long been under attack from every direction the Maryland Green Party absolutely should signal its willingness to be an ally and partner with labor unions. Unionism is essential to a just transition to the world envisioned by every one of the four pillars and if we as a party choose to stay passive or worse align against the collective political expression of unionized workers then we as an organization are eschewing our duty to the 99%. Corporations, billionaires, bosses and union busters alike want people to question the corrupting power of union donations, so that they can impose their neo-liberal, racist, fascist agenda on all of us and we as a party have a larger ethical responsibility to refuse that tactic than we do to embrace in the name of “clean money”. This is not to say Union PACs are universal goods, but on balance the collective political power of unionized workers should not be disregarded in favor of their constituent individual parts, this is the logic of Janus and right to work laws.

Politics- If the only place Unions have to give their money is the Democratic Party, then Unions are going to continue to be dependent on the Democratic Party. The most exciting part of the endorsements and donations we received this year is that Unions are starting to see that having another choice is valuable for them. We should applaud this and embrace it, politics in which our party has an outcome determinative role will require creating new swing votes among people, donors and organizations. We should embrace this as a difficult part of growing our power. These donations are not going to occur right now beyond state delegates and senators, county councilors, and city commissions, but doing the important work of being an ally to unions at that level will allow union PACs to demand what is in the best interest of their members (workers) and not feel like they have to bend the knee to whatever democrats want to do in the name of their corporate donors. Being part of the political dynamic by announcing that we are seeking union votes and endorsements and donations forces the democrats to compete and gives union members a choice.

I understand that IN THEORY we could seek Union endorsements without taking union donations, but i have spoken to political directors of at least a half dozen labor unions interested in potentially supporting greens, who simply will not do so if they are forced to give boots on the ground or IEs as their means of endorsement.

At the end of the day, I would like it if we could make distinctions that made it so we could endorse this proposal, as a default I am ok with the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail against any proposal which would have the state ban union pac contributions.

Thanks to Theresa for starting this conversation.

Andy's final paragraph: "At the end of the day, I would like it if we could make distinctions that made it so we could endorse this proposal, as a default I am ok with the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail against any proposal which would have the state ban union pac contributions." This is where I am right now. I do not want a prohibition without a lot more thought.

There are differences between union PACs funded by individuals and business PACs funded by the corporation.

And, Greens in Maryland have accepted PAC money from unions. This is a breakthrough in that unions have been firmly aligned with the Democratic Party. If we can create a fissure between unions and Dems with some unions funding Green candidates, that would be a major political breakthrough.

Keeping the status quo seems to be a "yes" vote. I do not want to change what has been allowed -- individual candidates deciding to take union PAC money -- without a lot of thought and discussion.

As a result, I am going to vote "yes" unless people tell me I am misunderstanding something in this discussion.

KZ

@KBZeese

Build power and resistance
Popular Resistance
www.PopularResistance.org ( http://www.PopularResistance.org/ )

Shift Wealth: Economic DemocracyIts Our Economy
www.ItsOurEconomy.US ( http://www.ItsOurEconomy.US )
Democratize the Media
Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed)
Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org

A “yes” vote on this indicates a willingness for the MGP CC to establish clear guidelines/distinction for candidates to be permitted to accept union PAC donations.Thanks for your input, all!
Voting will close on Wednesday, May 1st.
~Theresa

There is a lot of revision of history going on here. It is true that in the status quo, there is no prohibition in our rules on Green candidates taking money from PACs. The reason is NOT because Green candidates in Maryland regularly accept money from PACs without issue. The reason is because Green candidates always abided by the same donation donation policy that the party operates under, with a clear prohibition on taking PAC money. I remember maybe one abbreviated debate about this in the previous decade before 2018, which is when Green candidates started taking PAC money. Kevin, did you take PAC money when you ran in 2006? (Answer: no.)

What changed? I think we are taking cues from Democrats who, in the last few years, have started a messaging campaign to justify funding their campaigning by PACs. The 2020 candidates have all declared that they don't take money from "corporate" PACs. That's not a legal definition, that's just a term they have created to justify the concept of "non-corporate" PACs, which they have come to depend on to promote their campaigns: Senate Majority PAC (top contributor: Michael Bloomberg), League of Conservation Voters (top contributor: Michael Bloomberg), Planned Parenthood Votes (top contributor: Michael Bloomberg), Change Now PAC (top contributor: Michael Bloomberg), Independence USA PAC (top contributor: Michael Bloomberg) and NextGen Climate Action (top supporter: Michael Bloomb...er, Tom Steyer.)

I've not heard an answer to my primary opposition to this change in our practice (and what happened in 2018 was a change in our practice, whether the words were written down or not). Our national Green Party and our state Green Party refuses PAC contributions because we don't believe that "corporate" (that is, incorporated entities as opposed to human persons) groups should have electoral speech rights. We believe this because incorporated entities can't think independently, they don't die and can live forever, if they break laws they can't go to jail, etc, etc, etc. Why is is different for union PACs?

What's changed has been three Greens got the support of unions. That is a breakthrough. If we can pull unions from the Dem Party, it would be transformational. That will not be easy. But, this is the beginning of a fissure. Can we turn into into a fracture?

@KBZeese

Build power and resistance
Popular Resistance
www.PopularResistance.org ( http://www.PopularResistance.org/ )

Shift Wealth: Economic DemocracyIts Our Economy
www.ItsOurEconomy.US ( http://www.ItsOurEconomy.US )
Democratize the Media
Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed)
Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org

There's no reason we have to take union PAC money to win their support. As I said, we can accept their endorsement and we can watch happily as they spend independently in support of Green candidates they have endorsed.

If unions have rules, as Andy says, that they MUST give us money as a condition of making an endorsement, I would say a) that is ridiculous, and perhaps we should engage them and ask them to reconsider their policies, b) we can be creative within the letter of their rules (candidates could, for example, accept their contribution and immediately give it away to charity like politicians sometimes do when a donor is later disgraced, and c) if we are willing to write our own party rules to appease unions, what does that say about the strength of our principles?

Let’s write our party rules to best situate our candidates to compete while maintaining the ethical and political objectives in line with our values. I’d rather align our practices to compete for union support than use the language of the right to demonize them for being corrupt.

What is "the language of the right?"

The language of the right is the conflation of workers collective pooling of their money with bosses and shareholders pooling of their money, the language of the right is the talk of appeasing labor unions. Both of these are things we should avoid.

I'm sorry, but we are discussing (re)writing our rules solely to allow contributions from unions, and on their (somewhat odd) terms. This is what I mean by appeasement. When I say that we can just accept their endorsement I am told that we have to take their money to get their endorsement, and that's the reason our rules have to be written so. That is a clear case of appeasing the unions.

I believe this proposal asks to make explicit that we support the political rights of unions to solicit funds from their members for the purposes of collectively expressing their political will. Calling that appeasement and suggesting we not allow that is the anti-union rhetoric of the right.

We have no control over that. Even if this proposal is defeated unions still maintain the right to solicit their members for the purposes of expressing their political will. That's called "having a PAC". The only thing that will change is whether Green candidates take the money or not. Unions can spend independently or on Democrats or Republicans or on independent candidates no matter what we do.

We can control how we stand in relation to it, this proposal stands for the collective political power of workers to endorse candidates and your position stands against that, because you do not believe they should have "electoral speech rights".

That is a gross mischaracterization of my position, and signals my exit from the discussion for a while.

I would point out that "proposals" are not paragraphs long, and in good practice they lay out the langauge of new rules exclusively. This one does not (I don't know what words will appear in what order in our rules after the vote, and after eight people have cast votes is too late to clarify). I didn't make a big deal because we all know what we're talking about, and what could go wrong? Well, my arguments against the "text" of the proposal are being used as evidence that I want to stifle the collective power of unions refereced in the lengthy "non-proposal" text. I'm calling that out.

I never wanted to be "that guy", but here we are. Next time I guess I'll have to play lawyerball. This "proposal" really should be recalled and resubmitted, but whatever. I am voting against...something.

1) I don’t think I am mischsracterizing your argument, i read, reread, and reflected on it i think you are seeking to have our party limit the way workers can collectively pool and express their political power by denying them the ability to spend the legally regulated money solicited from the members of their union as donations to our candidates , doing this while allowing them to spend it on other parties candiatates or individual expenditures is just a non-sensical attempt to argue that you are not trying to limit their rights. I think your position is fundamentally against the collective power of workers and your defensiveness about it shows an unwillingness to accept the consequences of what you value.

2) I find your procedural argument unpersuasive, I think it is pretty clear that this Proposal is affirming that we make explicit what our current policy makes implicit, that Green Party candidates can take donations from union pacs.

3)the fact that there is a legal distinction between union pacs and non union pacs is material and meaningful, and your attempt to conflate them signals that when in conflict you place your metaphysical disdain for campaign finance laws over your belief in the material power and necessity of unions and the rights of workers. There is zero reason to believe that they can endorse, make invidual expenditures or whatever else you encourage them to do, but not make donations.

1. If I were fundamentally against the collective power of unions, why would I continually say that Greens should find ways to encourage unions to make independent expenditures in support of Green candidates? I have, and as long as we live under a system where "corporate" PACs can do that, I support the right of union PACs to do that as well. I have never wavered on this. It seems like an odd thing for anti-union person to say.

2. All I would like is an acknowledgement that, moving forward, proposals to change our rules should include the actual text that would be added to or subtracted from the rules. What happened here was, Theresa wrote a fine justification for workplace democracy in the place of an actual proposal. When I opposed it - for different reasons - my opposition to the "text" of the proposal was conflated with opposition to the justification of workplace democracy. I don't appreciate this, but what I want most is make sure that it doesn't happen moving forward.

3. The legal distinction between union PACs and non-union PACs is on how they can raise money, not on how they can spend it. Changing our policy on accepting money from PACs does not help them raise money, so there is no reason to change our policy to help them raise more money. There is one reason to believe that unions can endorse and make independent expenditures but not make direct donations, and that one reason is the Green value (reflected in our national, state and local donation policies) against accepting PAC money. Which is bigger than unions. If you want to attribute some sort of hatred of unions to me, well, you do you. But please acknowledge that I've outlined many other reasons to support what I believe is a key Green value that have nothing to do with what the people writing these checks do for a living.

I think it would be great if we had a set of guidelines about proposal writing, I think most people would agree with that.

You seem to put forward the idea that Green Candidates can not take union PACs as an uncontested truth,yet I have spoken to greens in multiple states who are elected and took union PAC donations, this is an ongoing and contested debate within the party and we have the right as a state party to clarify our ambiguity.

Your position that seeks to limit the behavior of Union PACs, based on the behavior of non-union PAC's is I think a stance in opposition to the collective power of workers to express themselves politically within the limits of the law.

No! I am not trying to limit the behavior of union PACs. I am trying to limit the behavior of Green candidates! That's all I can control in this situation. I have responded when people have said "you're saying that unions can't participate politically" by pointing out that, yes, they have options other making direct contribution to candidates.

If your argument is that since unions have expressed an interest in doing something, we MUST let them do it to us (despite clear evidence that we historically as an organization are uncomfortable with it) or else we are not democratic...I don't know how to respond to that. Except all the ways I already have.

you are splitting hairs, i think most people see both sides of the argument and are making informed decisions. Lets see how the results play out.

At this point I am not discussing the proposal as much as I am defending myself from accusations of being anti-worker. As an activist, I have a responsibility to myself to respond when I feel I am being mischaracterized. I can quit a debate when it's obvious that I don't have the votes, but I can't quit once my motivations are characterized in a way that makes it seem like I am on the anti-worker side.

It is not a sweeping generalization or a discussion of your character any more than your argument is that I personally am pro corruption.

My point is that your position seeks to limit the collective political speech of workers to donate to green candidates by limiting green candidates from taking their donation and your argument is that I am arguing for green complicity in a corrupting system designed primarily to benefit the rich.

Neither of these are ad-hom attacks on the others person, but also neither of them are pulling punches in a question in which values are in contest.

It’s clear that the intention of a ban on union donations is to be ideologically consistent with the worthwhile value to deny personhood to corporations.

The impact of that policy could negatively impact workers and Green candidates.

I’m grateful that so many are willing to engage in discussion regarding which direction we should take.

~Theresa

Alright, probably time to let this go. For the record, I take issue with having been accused of "demonizing" unions, I take issue with being accused of using the anti-union langauge of the right, and I take issue with being motivated by my "metaphysical disdain for campaign finance laws over [my] belief in the material power and necessity of unions". These all strike me as arguments against my attitude or identity as opposed to my arguments against this proposal. I have repeatedly affirmed my belief in the material power of unions and have consistently identified ways that unions can continue to express their material power regardless of our stance on candidates taking direct campaign contribtuions. Please let the record show.

Indeed, we can leave it here, and I will leave noting for the record that we have had this conversation 4 times since 2016 as a state party and a several of our most active chapters have also had the conversation and concluded that the unspoken heard of our current policy goes in the direction of allowing and not disallowing these donations. In each of those instances as in this instance (9 is enough) a majority of the decision making apparatus of the party has supported candidates being allowed to take union pac money, and instead of making it explicit we have left it implicit with the understanding that the implicit is not a prohibition. Its also worth noting that as a member of the accreditation committee of the GPUS we have had this conversation several times and have decided that it is up to states to decide. You are correct that 2018 represented a change. but it was a change that came with much deliberation within this body and within some local chapters.

I take issue with you suggesting that something that goes counter to YOUR green values is in fact counter to green values writ large when the question is not a matter of settled doctrine and in each of the previous conversations in the last three years around the issue within this Green Party decision making structure we have concluded differently than your interpretation.

I also take issue with your suggestion that we are taking cues from democrats instead of taking cues from workers and union members. It is worth noting that in the times we have had this conversation previously in the last several years much of the party leadership and many chapter leaders have been union members, leaders, or scholars and that they have led the push on this issue.

That we both take issue with the way each other is addressing the issue is a reason to make a clarification of our official position, instead of allowing competing interpretations of the meaning of the implicit to continue to be a point of contention for a fourth or fifth year in a row.

Thanks for the debate and discussion on this and i appreciate your vigorous advocacy for your side, but for me I am willing to be done here and let the process carry out toward a decision.

I strongly support allowing us to take union money on the basis of them representing democratic workers' power. To deny the opportunity for unions to support us not only hurts us, but harms the union movement by forcing them to repeat the failed strategy of channeling their efforts through a corporate-dominated political party. I feel that a clear definition of terms separating union PACs from other vaguely liberal/progressive PACs is feasible and necessary. Ultimately, unions themselves are a clearly defined legal entity with a considerable body of law distinguishing them from other political entities (largely as a result of capitalist power imposing restrictions on labor organizing, but still). There is also the material difference of the cash flow, where more stringent rules on union funding actually mean they can't be used for the same dark money / bundling / laundering purposes that many pro-corporate PACs are. In my view, this means that taking union money does not put us downstream from corporate influence.

Unions may be unique entities subject to unique laws in their own finances, but PACs are all regulated by the SBE or FEC under the same set of rules. Can you explain the "material difference" between union PACs and other PACs?

There is a distinction in the law between corporate pacs and union pacs and they have different classes of people they can solicit. Chapter 3 of the FEC guide explains some of this. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/colagui.pdf

The notion that there is no way to distinguish is just not true.

Should Green candidates accept support from Green Uprising? A PAC created by Jill Stein.

KZ

@KBZeese

Build power and resistance
Popular Resistance
www.PopularResistance.org ( http://www.PopularResistance.org/ )

Shift Wealth: Economic DemocracyIts Our Economy
www.ItsOurEconomy.US ( http://www.ItsOurEconomy.US )
Democratize the Media
Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed)
Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org

@andyellis3 This guide uses the terms "corporations (including incorporated trade associations and membership organizations)" and "labor organizations". I'm not sure this answers our questions. My question is, is there something so materially different about union PAC fundraising as to justify making them an exception to our unwritten status quo policy? Why do we want to take money from union PACs but not "membership organization" PACs?

@kevinzeese No. Green Uprising will promote candidates it likes through independent expenditures, but candidates should not take money from PACs, even if we know them.

This is the restricted class regulations on a union pac

1. Labor organizations: solicitable class Restricted class A labor organization or its SSF may solicit its restricted class at any time. The restricted class includes the union’s members, its executive and administrative personnel and the families of both groups. 114.5(g) (2); 114.1(j). Note that a member of a local union is also considered a member of: • Any national or international union that the local union belongs to; and • Any labor federation to which the local, national or international union belongs. 114.1(e)(4). For more information on affiliation between labor organizations, see chapter 4, section 1. Expanded class Twice in each calendar year, a labor organization or its SSF may solicit nonmember employees of a corporation where members of the union are employed (including executive and administrative personnel, stockholders and the families of both groups). The union or the SSF may also solicit the union’s own nonexecutive and nonadministrative personnel who are not members and their families on a twice-yearly basis. 114.6(b); AO 1979-50 (Public Affairs Council).

This istherestricted class for a corporate PAC

Restricted class
A corporation or its SSF may solicit its restricted class at any time. The restricted class of a corporation consists of:
• The corporation’s executive and administrative personnel;
Fundraising for the SSF
• The stockholders; and
• The families (i.e., immediate household residents)1 of the above two groups.
An SSF may also solicit, at any time, the members of the restricted class of any parent, subsidiary, branch, division or affiliate of the connected organization. 114.1(j); 114.5(g)(1).

there is a hard an virtually mutually exclusive distinction between a labor union pac and a corporate pac, we can use these distinctions to guide and explain our policy.

The labor union solicits from rank and file union members and their families and the corporation solicits from non unionized executives and shareholders.

Conflating those two things is untenable.

Okay. I will not engage in untenable arguments. I am starting to get frustrated because my first and primary argument has gone unanswered, and I think it's really important. PACs (whether we like who are giving them money or not) are not people. They cannot speak. They cannot make decisions on their own. They "live" forever. They cannot die. They are shielded from the implications of their actions either through liability protection or just the fact that they have no bodies and cannot be held accountable for breaking laws. THIS is the reason the Green Party fundamentally does not believe they should be allowed political speech. Whether or not we like the people behind them or support their mission is irrelevant, and this discussion has fallen into that trap. I concede that I'd much rather have a beer with your average rank-and-file union member than a corporate stockholder. That doesn't answer the question, though.

I'd like to see that addressed. I think I'll take a break from discussion other than my original and primary point.

Members of the Anne Arundel Green Party assert that unions, and union PACs, are not people. And because they are not people, we should not accept money from them. I don't see how we get around that. It doesn't matter how much we may approve of their pro-worker and pro-democracy positions. They are still not individual people.
However, we should still seek and accept endorsements from unions, because this may lead to individual union members choosing to support our candidates financially.

I am extremely wary of allowing some PACs and not others based on how closely aligned we perceive our policies and values to be

Why not allow each candidate to decide how closely their policies and values are aligned with the groups of workers who wish to voluntarily donate to their campaigns? That’s aligned with the Green value of self-determination.If they aren’t individual people and shouldn’t have political speech, then why accept their endorsement?
But we require candidates to get the endorsement of Green locals, who are also entities that never die.
By forbidding candidates from accepting donations from unions, we’re further undermining what little power unions have. We should be empowering unions so that momentum shifts and worker-owned cooperatives become the norm. This could be achieved by electing enough Greens to enact policy that incentivizes the creation of more Co-ops. These eco-socialist solutions are necessary to halt climate change and exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.
~Theresa

Theresa, no one in this whole discussion is arguing that workplace democracy isn't important and that union representation is a bad thing. When folks keep making this argument, it really sounds like you are trying to paint opponents of this proposal as anti-union, which we are not. I can say for myself that I am for workplace democracy and for unions. What I don't understand is why allowing Green candidates to take direct financial contributions from union PACs is critical to their empowerment. Why is working for their endorsement and letting them continue to make independent expenditures on behalf of Green candidates not empowering? I understand that taking their money would be yet another step, but if taking that step conflicts with Green values, why can't we just recognize that welcoming union endorsements and independent spending on Green candidates is an action Green candidates can take to support union's political speech and the growth of workplace democracy?

Brian states: "What I don’t understand is why allowing Green candidates to take direct financial contributions from union PACs is critical to their empowerment"

Union members have voluntarily banded together to increase their political impact in the corporate-dominated government where the wealthy dominate the electoral process. By saying "no, we will not take your money" is disempowering. Where should this group of people -- and yes, they are people -- put their funding? If the Green Party says we will not take their money because they are not individual people but a group of people, it will go to the two Wall Street parties of the millionaires and billionaires. We would be empowering our political opponents and disempowering workers if we ban them.

@KBZeese

Build power and resistance
Popular Resistance
www.PopularResistance.org ( http://www.PopularResistance.org/ )

Shift Wealth: Economic DemocracyIts Our Economy
www.ItsOurEconomy.US ( http://www.ItsOurEconomy.US )
Democratize the Media
Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed)
Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org

Unions are allowed to make independent expenditures in support of any candidate. Insisting that they are exclusively limited to spending through direct candidate contributions is evading my question.

Does the argument about non individuals preclude public financing of elections? Does it preclude local, state, national party donations to candidates ?

My comment to Kevin answers your question in my mind. Maybe there are some Greens who want to abolish parties altogether, I don't know. I don't. But the PAC model as it has been deployed since the formation of the Green Party is abusive, and that is what has formed the Green value against accepting PAC money.

No it doesn't your most recent answer is a hypothetical that continues to conflate non-union pacs and union pacs. Answer the question about public finance and party donations, both of which have also been abused by the principal parties.

I don't have to answer that question because we are not discussing a proposal to prohibit or allow Green candidates from accepting public funding or contributions from parties. I have explained why the PAC system as it has been deployed is abusive. The PAC system is not analagous to the party system or a public financing system (and the fact that all systems are vulnerable to abuse doesn't make them analogous either). If I'm not happy with the amount of money candidates are getting from parties or through public financing, I can't just go and create a new Green Party or my own public financing system to make sure my preferred candidate gets more of my money. I can create new PACs, and that is not a hypothetical. In a previous comment I listed several of the top Democratic-aligned PACs, all funded with millions by Michael Bloomberg. He is just trying to take on the Koch brothers. This is happening at all levels. It is only hypothetical when I say it because I'm not rich.

you also can't create a new union PAC. only a union can do that, and that requires a series of process and regulations that are way more complex than the campaign finance laws, you continue to conflate union pacs with things like Brian PAC, and they just are not the same thing. This proposal is explicit about Union pacs. your answers all assume there is no difference and that is just untrue.

I can, in fact, create my own PAC associated with "Labor/Union" activities, and I can do it in five minutes with the signatures of myself and one other person. You are talking about FEC rules on federal election spending, and I am talking about SBE rules on state election spending. They are very different.

Also, Kevin says "yes, they are people". Yes. PACs are made up of people. People have limits placed upon them by our campaign finance laws. Greens generally oppose personhood for PACs (which are all made up of people) because it essentially doubles (or multiples exponentially) a person's "personhood" as it is defined by political speech rights. I as a person am entitled to contribute $6,000 to a candidate (let's say Sally Smith) during any election cycle. If I contribute $6,000 to a union PAC, that PAC is then allowed to give $6,000 more of my dollars to Sally Smith. I can contribute $6,000 to five more union PACs, which all give their money to Sally Smith. I have now skirted the contribution by a factor of six. If i run out of union PACs to give to, I start BrianPAC which contibutes another $6,000. Etc, etc. This is not hypothetical, we know this abuse is happening rampantly. Which is why Greens generally oppose candidates accepting money from PACs. Even if we would never create one of these schemes, we are opposed to candidates from other parties doing it, and we model the behavior we want normalized. So yes, PACs are all made of people. But the PAC model has been abused, and the Green stance has always been one of resistance to that abusive model.

I was at work all day and could not comment. (Thanks a lot, Hatch Act!). However, I will say that the Anne Arundel Green Party loves unions - in fact, we make a point of using union shops, even when (though) they cost more - but we also love democracy even more. As Brian pointed out, the raison d'etre of PACS is to elude the one-person-one-vote priniciple. It doesn't matter how honorable or worthy the philosophy of the PAC is, it is still a PAC, which means that it is a way for people to contribute money above their individual limit. Any attempt to justify accepting PAC money must resort to the "two wrongs make a right" argument, which is rhetorically weak and morally wrong.

As believers in democracy, we will accept the result of this vote, but stand firm on our opposition to PACs, regardless of how noble and worthy their intentions.