Editorials

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug."

"Pathetic" comes to mind when searching for a word to describe what has been taking place in the Alabama Senate as senators struggle to take the heart and soul out of the PAC-to-PAC ban that recently passed the House, 103-0.

State PAC-to-PAC transfers give candidates and interest groups a way to move contributions about and hide the original source from the public. Think legalized money laundering. It's the same thing Enron was doing with its ill-gotten booty in the Cayman Islands, sheltering it away from prying eyes.

When asked if this should be outlawed, people polled overwhelmingly say it should.

For years, the measure has passed the House, only to die in the Senate. At least you could call Alabama legislators "consistent."

It should come as no surprise that again the Senate is poised to kill the bill by amending themselves and their House colleagues out of the reform.

What the Senate wants to do is rewrite the bill so that political parties and legislative caucuses are not defined as PACs, which would allow parties and caucuses to do what the bill would prohibit PACs to do — collect money from various sources, put it in a single pot, then distribute it to candidates and causes without leaving a paper trail.

Can anyone say "hypocritical"?

Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, meanwhile, wants to amend the bill to prohibit any governor from raising money for a PAC, party, caucus, issue or candidate.

Can you say "ridiculous"? Gov. Bob Riley could, and did.

As the legislation becomes heavy with amendments and exemptions, the debate will drag on until finally, if the bill is passed, it will not be reconcilable with the House version. And at the end of the session, PAC-to-PAC transfers will continue as they always have, hands will be wrung, fingers pointed, blame assigned, and the status quo preserved.

Yes, "pathetic" seems to be the right word.