BIG BUSINESSES DON’T DUCK POLITICS

It’s not clear whether the Aflac duck is a Democrat or a Republican, but he’s definitely a political animal.

Columbus-based Aflac, which uses a duck to promote its line of insurance products, is one of the most active Georgia players in this year’s political contests. Its super-charged political action committee —- the second largest business PAC in the state —- doled out $1.4 million to federal candidates by the end of last month. Only the corporate political action committee of Sandy Springs-based UPS spent more among Georgia companies, with $1.6 million in contributions to federal candidates at the time of its last report.

“Everyone here knows we get very involved in the political process,” said Joey Loudermilk, an Aflac vice president who is treasurer of the Aflac PAC.

Aflac executives and insurance agents bankroll the PAC, which dates back to the 1970s. The PAC reflects a heavy interest in politics by the company’s co-founder, the late John Amos, as well as the company’s need to have friends in Washington. The company’s success is influenced by insurance and trade legislation and even international relations, since 70 percent of its business is in the Japanese market.

The company has such a strong record of giving to candidates and parties over the past two decades that it ranks No. 53 on the Center for Responsive Politics’ list of the nation’s 100 “heavy hitters.”

Aflac’s PAC operates like most corporate political action committees: It heavily supports incumbents of all political persuasions. During this political cycle, Aflac split its contributions evenly among Democrats and Republicans. Its power is in its broad reach. It has contributed to 276 candidates for the U.S. House and 67 for the U.S. Senate, the vast majority of them incumbents.

The contributions help Aflac increase understanding of its products —- supplemental policies that pay cash on top of what a consumer’s medical insurance pays to doctors and hospitals. Some of the policies cover cancer. Others kick in in the event of hospitalization or a disability.

“The most important thing is educating the members of Congress as to who we are, what we do and why we are different from everybody else,” said David Pringle, Aflac’s senior vice president for federal relations and secretary of the Aflac PAC.

The UPS PAC has supported even more candidates than the Aflac PAC during this election cycle: 367 for the House and 73 for the Senate.

UPS’s business can be influenced by a wide range of issues that come before Congress, including trade, energy, infrastructure and aviation.

“We look to use the PAC to support the candidates who share our beliefs,” UPS spokesman Malcolm Berkley said.

The state’s other large corporate PACs include those run by Southern Co., the utility holding company; Coca Cola Co. and its largest bottler, Coca Cola Enterprises; the King & Spalding law firm; Flowers Industries, a food company based in Thomasville; Solvay Pharmaceuticals; Mirant Corp., an energy company; and the Powell Goldstein law firm.

Most corporate PACs give to candidates and committees of both parties. One exception is the Flowers Industries Inc. PAC, which has given only to Republicans and other food industry PACs during this election cycle.

The Coca-Cola Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government, which contributed $162,550 to federal candidates through August, gave heavily to both parties, focusing on senators and representatives already in office. Diana Garza Ciarlante, spokeswoman for Coca-Cola, said the PAC gives money to promote business and trade, but has a long-standing policy of never giving to presidential candidates.

Political action committees have been viewed as powerful tools of special interest groups, businesses, labor unions and trade organizations. They offer those with similar interests a convenient way to collect and pool money and then dole it out to a range of candidates and political committees.

“The purpose is to buy favor with Congress and the president,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington consumer organization. “It has no other rationale behind it. That isn’t as true for ideological groups or for that matter for labor unions. They tend to be more ideological in their giving.”

Companies can’t ask for any favors when their political action committees give a contribution. But most with large political action committees also employ a large stable of lobbyists. Between 2004 and 2007, Aflac averaged $3.9 million in annual lobbying expenses, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“It’s one part of a much larger enterprise of trying to shape public policy in a way that’s favorable for your enterprise,” said Gary C. Jacobson, political science professor at the University of California-San Diego and an expert on congressional elections.

Sen. Barack Obama has refused to accept contributions from PACs during his presidential campaign. But most candidates don’t hesitate to take the money. In fact, they push for it.

Atlanta-based King & Spalding, Georgia’s largest law firm, organized its PAC about 15 years ago to cope with a constant flood of requests from politicians looking for campaign donations, said Theodore Hester, a senior partner at the firm’s Washington office and chairman of the firm’s PAC.

“It was simply to coordinate,” he said. “Every senator seems to view Atlanta as one of the fund-raising stops on their circuit. We are under constant pressure.”

Hester said the PAC serves as a way to funnel requests for money away from individual lawyers. The King & Spalding Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government is the sixth-largest corporate PAC in Georgia. It doled out $232,000 during this election cycle, including $153,499 to federal candidates, according to its most recent reports.

The firm —- with more than 750 attorneys around the world —- has found, like many other large companies, that “part of their business requires participation in the political process,” Hester said. “I have found that one of the best ways for us to participate is with money.”

Aflac executives agreed that candidates are always on the hunt for contributions.

“Most people think corporations are chasing members of Congress trying to give them money and it just doesn’t work that way,” said Pringle, of Aflac. “It’s exactly the opposite.”

GEORGIA CORPORATE PACs

Like unions and trade organizations, corporations can form political action committees to collect money and make contributions to candidates and other political committees. Here’s a look at Georgia’s most active corporate PACs during the 2007-2008 election cycle:

1. United Parcel Service Inc. PAC

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $4,008,534

Contributions to federal candidates: $1,649,750

Party split: 40 percent to Democrats, 60 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Aug. 31

2. Aflac Incorporated Political Action Committee AflacPac

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $2,161,659

Contributions to federal candidates: $1,446,500

Party split: 50 percent to Democrats, 50 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Sept. 30

3. Southern Co. Employees PAC

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $517,786

Contributions to federal candidates: $214,000

Party split: 47 percent to Democrats, 53 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Sept. 30

4. Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Employees PAC

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $288,960

Contributions to federal candidates: $135,300

Party split: 55 percent to Democrats, 45 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Sept. 30

5. Flowers Industries Inc. Political Action Committee

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $262,500

Contributions to federal candidates: $119,000

Party split: zero percent to Democrats, 100 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Sept. 30

6. King & Spalding Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $232,000

Contributions to federal candidates: $153,499

Party split: 62 percent to Democrats, 38 percent to Republicans

Data current through: June 30

7. Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. Better Government Committee

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $219,735

Contributions to federal candidates: $171,500

Party split: 30 percent to Democrats, 70 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Aug. 31

8. Coca-Cola Co. Nonpartisan Committee for Good Governments (Coke PAC)

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $206,550

Contributions to federal candidates: $162,550

Party split: 49 percent to Democrats, 51 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Aug. 31

9. Mirant Corp. PAC Inc.

Total spending on candidates, other committees and expenses: $189,669

Contributions to federal candidates: $109,500

Party split: 61 percent to Democrats, 39 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Sept. 30

10. Powell Goldstein LLP Political Action Committee

Total spending on candidate, other committees and expenses: $177,253

Contributions to federal candidates: $80,000

Party split: 41 percent to Democrats, 59 percent to Republicans

Data current through: Aug. 31

Sources: Federal Election Commission (www.fec.gov), Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org)