VFW renounces VFW-PAC

You’ve seen the story around the last couple days. The VFW has a political action committee (like most national level organizations). The VFW-PAC endorsed a slate of congressional candidates that was quite at odds with the sentiments of most of the VFW rank and file. When the National Commander of the VFW remonstrated with the board of the PAC, they basically told him to go pound sand.

Turns out, that might not have been their best possible course of action.

I am a lifetime member of the VFW. I normally don’t join organizations. It just isn’t my style. But my membership was a gift from a family member. Truth be told, I’ve never stepped foot in my local post. I don’t even know where it is, exactly.

While I don’t generally get involved in the doings of the VFW, I do generally support the organization’s stated aims. And when I saw just how at odds with those aims the PAC’s endorsements were, I fired off an email to the national headquarters expressing my disgust. ┬áIt would seem I’m not the only one.

I don’t believe in automatically endorsing a veteran over a non-veteran in a political race. I’ve seen too many people who I just wouldn’t trust in office who happen to be veterans. But some weight to veteran status should be given. More importantly, a candidates history of positions and votes across the full spectrum of political questions should be the determining factor behind an organization’s endorsements. And in this case, that clearly wasn’t what was going on. I strongly suspect the PAC took it upon itself to endorse candidates for its own reasons, either from the point of view of the individual board members, or with a view to a quid pro quo for the PAC, as opposed to the organization the PAC was supposed to represent.