Team,

With just a few weeks to go until Election Day, we thought we’d talk a little bit about an unsavory aspect of our political system: corporate PAC money.

Like the name suggests, these PACs are operated by corporations. Certain employees and shareholders are allowed to pay into them, and they typically support candidates that align with their business interests. 

When Elissa first ran for office, she pledged to never accept a dime from a corporate PAC. It’s a promise she’s stuck to, because she never wants her constituents to have a shadow of a doubt about where her priorities lie.

But it goes further than refusing to take corporate PAC money. Elissa’s also actively trying to get it out of our politics and make our system more transparent. 

Earlier this year, she cosponsored the Ban Corporate PACs Act, to eliminate the corrupt influence of corporate money in our system. Beyond that, she signed on to the TRUST in Congress Act and the Ban Conflicted Trading Act, aimed at preventing members of Congress and their spouses from buying and trading stocks while in office – because you shouldn’t be able to use the privileged information you receive as a representative to make money. She also introduced the Cryptocurrency Accountability Act, to require members to disclose any and all cryptocurrency holdings and transactions.

Elissa’s opponent doesn’t see things the same way. During his campaigns for state legislature, he relied primarily on donations from special interests; almost 90% of his funds for those races came from corporations, PACs, and similar groups. He’s had difficulty raising money for his campaign for the new 7th, which has drawn the attention of national Republican super PACs, many of whom are buying millions of dollars of ads to do the talking for him.

The contrast between Elissa and her opponent when it comes to transparency could not be more clear – and with money pouring into the new 7th district, will you chip in to help us prove that you don’t need corporate PAC money to win an election?