{"id":201646,"date":"2021-12-20T12:00:51","date_gmt":"2021-12-20T12:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=201646"},"modified":"2021-12-18T04:56:26","modified_gmt":"2021-12-18T04:56:26","slug":"the-american-psychological-associations-psychology-pac-must-do-better","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2021\/12\/the-american-psychological-associations-psychology-pac-must-do-better\/","title":{"rendered":"The American Psychological Association\u2019s \u201cPsychology PAC\u201d Must Do Better"},"content":{"rendered":"

17 Dec 2021 – <\/em>Contributions to the campaign war chests of Republican Party politicians who hold contemptuous views of democracy are unsurprising from mega-corporations and right-wing billionaires. The top priority for these donors is to have their self-aggrandizing agenda front-and-center in the halls of Congress. So even when democracy itself is under attack, they\u2019re going to place profits over people and bestow gifts on any candidate willing to do their bidding.<\/p>\n

The American Psychological Association\u2019s (APA) affiliated\u00a0\u201cPsychology PAC\u201d<\/a>\u00a0certainly isn\u2019t in the same boat when it comes to political giving. That\u2019s some measure of good news. But a little research reveals that this PAC does have a history of making some highly questionable choices when it comes to deciding where to direct its financial resources.<\/p>\n

As background, Psychology PAC is the political action committee of\u00a0APA Services, Inc.<\/a>\u00a0(APASI). The APA and APASI are companion organizations; the former is a 501(c)(3) and the latter is a 501(c)(6). They have the same CEO and the same individuals serve as members of both boards of directors. All APA members are automatically members of APASI as well, and APASI\u2019s\u00a0bylaws<\/a>\u00a0specify that \u201cThe Corporation shall not undertake activities that may adversely affect the American Psychological Association.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Psychology PAC, it solicits voluntary contributions from APA members and staff as a way for these donors to \u201cparticipate in the democratic process.\u201d More importantly, the PAC states that the donations it makes are \u201cconsistent with APA\u2019s values and mission to benefit society\u201d and that it fights for the APA\u2019s priorities,\u00a0including\u00a0\u201cfor ending violence; for criminal justice; for promotion of social justice issues, and for the fight against bigotry and racism.\u201d<\/p>\n

These virtuous aspirations would seemingly eliminate donations to a broad swath of today\u2019s politicians in Washington, D.C. Yet, as I\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0earlier this year, among the recipients of Psychology PAC dollars during Donald Trump\u2019s presidency were eight GOP members of Congress who voted against certifying Joe Biden\u2019s victory: Michael Burgess (Texas), Tom Cole (Oklahoma), Chuck Fleischmann (Tennessee), Morgan Griffith (Virginia), Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma), Devin Nunes (California), Adrian Smith (Nebraska), and Jason Smith (Missouri). Along with colleagues, these lawmakers promoted baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud despite repeated court rulings that concluded otherwise. Such false accusations were the impetus behind the violent January 6th insurrection in which a mob of pro-Trump supporters stormed the Capitol Building, endangering lives, destroying property, and threatening the democratic process that Psychology PAC extols.<\/p>\n

Following revelations about the financial contributions to these politicians, Psychology PAC wisely announced a pause in its political giving. In a January\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0sent to PAC donors, Jennifer Kelly and Arthur Evans, Jr.\u2014the president and CEO respectively of the APA\u2014wrote that\u00a0\u201cPsychology PAC will pause decisions on donations to ensure your contributions do not support legislators who act against our democracy.\u201d But less than three months later, Psychology PAC completed its \u201cfull review of political giving policies\u201d and resumed making donations.<\/p>\n

In an April\u00a0follow-up letter<\/a>\u00a0to donors, Kelly and Evans explained that, for the remainder of 2021 only, the PAC would refrain from contributing to politicians who had voted against certifying the presidential election. They also wrote that future donations to all candidates would include consideration of their \u201cshared commitment to the democratic process and APA\u2019s Guiding Principles.\u201d The letter doesn\u2019t specify those guiding principles, but presumably they don\u2019t differ significantly from the APA\u2019s mission of \u201cadvancing psychology to benefit society and improve lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

But then how should we make sense of the PAC\u2019s post-insurrection campaign donations to these four GOP House members: John Curtis (Utah), Darin LaHood (Illinois), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Washington), and Bryan Steil (Wisconsin)? Why would Psychology PAC support their political aspirations, given their shared voting record?:<\/p>\n

In February 2019, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would\u00a0require\u00a0background checks on all gun sales and strengthen background check procedures.<\/p>\n

In June 2020, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would\u00a0change policing policies, including\u00a0the banning of chokeholds and no-knock warrants, and make it easier to hold police accountable for racial profiling and other misconduct.<\/p>\n

In February 2021, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the Equality Act, which would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals against discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.<\/p>\n

In March 2021, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the For the People Act, which would curb efforts aimed at voter suppression, outlaw partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, and make registering to vote and voting easier.<\/p>\n

Also in March 2021, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the American Dream and Promise Act, which would grant permanent legal status and a path to citizenship to \u201cdreamers\u201d brought to the U.S. as children and facing potential deportation.<\/p>\n

In August 2021, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would\u00a0restore Justice Department review\u00a0of changes in election law in states with a history of discrimination\u00a0and make it more difficult for states to restrict future voting access.<\/p>\n

Most recently, in September 2021, all four\u00a0voted against<\/a>\u00a0the Women\u2019s Health Protection Act, which would protect the right to access abortion care for providers and patients throughout the country by creating a safeguard against bans and medically unnecessary restrictions.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no word-twisting that can align this abysmal, disqualifying voting record with either the APA\u2019s mission to \u201cbenefit society and improve lives\u201d or with Psychology PAC\u2019s\u00a0avowed commitment<\/a>\u00a0to the fight\u00a0\u201cfor ending violence; for criminal justice; for promotion of social justice issues, and for the fight against bigotry and racism.\u201d<\/p>\n

To be clear, Psychology PAC is nonpartisan. Indeed, it tends to make\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0contributions to Democratic Party candidates than to Republican Party candidates. That makes good sense,\u00a0given the issues that Psychology PAC publicly claims to care about.<\/em>\u00a0But nonpartisanship doesn\u2019t require the PAC to achieve some sort of balance in its donations to members of both major political parties. And it doesn\u2019t mean that the PAC should lower the standards it claims to uphold in order to find GOP candidates deemed worthy of support.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth noting that the contributions the PAC makes don\u2019t appear to be listed on the Psychology PAC website; I found them through the\u00a0website<\/a>\u00a0of the Federal Election Commission. I don\u2019t know whether, or how often, PAC donors are informed about the specific recipients of their funding (and I haven\u2019t yet received a response to my email inquiry to the PAC\u2019s management team chair about this).<\/p>\n

Since the APA promotes itself as the leading voice representing psychology in the United States, it seems important for Psychology PAC to explain to all members of the profession the precise rationale for its contributions to the candidates identified above. Do they somehow meet the PAC\u2019s stated requirements?\u00a0Given that today\u2019s GOP has clearly become a virulent\u00a0anti-democratic<\/em>\u00a0force, it\u2019s hard to see how these donations can be justified. It isn\u2019t complicated: Psychology PAC should do much better than support the political careers of individuals whose actions consistently\u00a0increase the peril and disenfranchisement faced by the most vulnerable among us.
\n_______________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Roy Eidelson is a member of the TRANSCEND Network<\/a> and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting<\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/a>, former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>. Roy is the author of <\/em>Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What\u2019s Happening, What\u2019s Right, and What\u2019s Possible<\/a> and can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

17 Dec 2021 – Since the APA promotes itself as the leading voice representing psychology in the US, it seems important for Psychology PAC to explain the rationale for its contributions to the candidates identified above. Given that today\u2019s GOP has become a virulent anti-democratic force, it\u2019s hard to see how these donations can be justified.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":110813,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[2755,109,70],"class_list":["post-201646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-american-psychological-association-apa","tag-politics","tag-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201646\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}