Go to:

July 2018
< Jun Aug >
Leaguer Email Subscription

You are not currently subscribed. Click Subscribe below to receive the Leaguer email.

CUs Are More Bipartisan Than Banks at Political Giving
Monday, November 7, 2016 6:35 AM

Credit unions remain far more bipartisan, and generous, in their political giving than banks are, according to federal election records.

“Credit unions do a better job than banks in appealing across the political spectrum,” said John McKechnie, senior partner at Total Spectrum and former CUNA director of political affairs, in discussing the rationale behind the bipartisanship. 

CULAC, the Political Action Committee operated by CUNA, spent $4,782,302 in political contributions and independent expenditures for House and Senate candidates this year, according to a pre-election report filed with the Federal Election Commission. The report reflects contributions made by Oct. 19.

CUNA officials have said they expect to spend $6 million during the political campaign. NAFCU had contributed $356,500 to candidates through the end of September—its most recent report on file with the FEC. The PACs do not endorse or contribute to presidential candidates.

As a comparison, the American Bankers Association had contributed $2,942,361 to candidates through Oct. 19. And the PAC operated by the Independent Community Bankers of America had contributed $1,844,450 to House and Senate candidates through Oct. 19.

Credit unions were much more bipartisan in their giving to candidates, according to records compiled from the FEC records by the Center for Responsive Politics as of Oct. 12. The Center reported that CULAC had made 55 percent of its contributions to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats. NAFCU was a bit less bipartisan, giving 61 percent to Republicans and 39 percent to Democrats.

But ABA’s committee had made 77 percent to Republicans and 23 percent to Democrats and the ICBA had given 74 percent to Republicans and 26 percent to Democrats.

Read more at Credit Union Times.