Summary

This post shares my observations of the approach of the EA-aligned political action committee Protect our Future (POF) in a US Congressional Primary in North Carolina. Writing anonymously, I share my experience talking informally with roughly 20 individuals and observing the race through the media and as a citizen. I express concerns with POF's limited explanation of the rationale for their spending in this race, their limited explanation of why they selected their endorsed candidate, and advertisements that did not address their stated rationale for supporting the candidate. I explain my concern that the association of EA with large scale political spending and limited transparency could have harmful reputational effects. (This post is meant to provide constructive comments, and it should not be taken as a critique of POF's intentions or broader impact.) Finally, I propose a few changes that POF or other groups could make moving forward to mitigate possible harm, such as publishing the criteria used to evaluate candidates, providing a specific rationale for each endorsed candidate, and providing additional transparency on funding sources.

Introduction

I am writing this post to share my firsthand experience observing the Democratic primary in the 4th Congressional District of North Carolina this past spring. The political action committee (PAC) Protect our Future (POF), funded predominantly by prominent EA Sam Bankman-Fried, spent heavily (roughly $1 million) in this race to support the successful nomination of current NC State Senator Valerie Foushee. The 4th District is overwhelmingly Democratic, and Foushee has >99% odds of winning the seat in the general election on November 8th, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast as of October 26th.

I decided to write this post, my first on the EA Forum, in order to share concerns that came out of my observation of this race. Given the highly anecdotal nature of my experiences, and the success of Foushee’s campaign so far, these critiques should be viewed with some skepticism. Nonetheless, as EAs become a larger force in politics, I hope that these concerns and the accompanying suggestions could be useful for EAs engaging in large scale political spending. 

I have no prior connection with or relationship to Sam Bankman-Fried or Protect our Future. I hope that these critiques and suggestions will be received as good faith concerns about specific practices, rather than any sort of personal attack or criticism of POF’s goals, intentions, or broader impact.

Personal background 

I work in state government/politics in North Carolina. I’m worried that writing this post with my name attached to it could negatively impact my work, so I’ve decided to stay anonymous. I did not work or volunteer for any of the candidates in this race, though I am part of a group that endorsed one of the candidates (Nida Allam). I had no role in that endorsement. I was uncertain about who I'd vote for until a few weeks before the election, but I did end up voting for Nida Allam. Those factors could certainly influence how I view this situation.

My experience of the election

The concerns expressed in this post stem from conversations I had with political professionals and politically engaged but nonprofessional individuals in the run up to and the aftermath of this primary election. I also read a variety of local and national news articles that examined the role of money in the election, including the financial support from POF. In total, I talked casually with roughly 10 political professionals and 10 nonprofessionals about these topics. I did not necessarily discuss all aspects of the election or POF's role with everyone. Each of these individuals live either in or near the 4th district. I would estimate that I also consumed roughly 10 news items about the spending in the race in particular, as well as many more about the race more generally (possibly around 50.) I think this represents only a surface-level examination of the election and the underlying issues. Nonetheless, I think it’s possible that even that could provide some useful avenues for further thought and consideration by the community and, in particular, EAs involved in large scale political spending. I was particularly motivated to write this post because I haven’t seen many write ups that reflect on-the-ground experience with the impacts of EA-aligned political spending. I certainly think a much more scientific and in-depth analysis on this topic could be useful.

Concerns with POF’s approach

Limited information on the rationale for the spending 

POF has stated that they support NC State Sen. Valerie Foushee because they believe she will be a leader on pandemic preparedness. As far as I can tell, however, POF gave no outward explanation of its endorsement of Foushee until the media questioned their purpose. As of the time of writing, the group has a limited website listing its endorsements, contact information, and key principles (1 paragraph and 5 additional bullet points). My sense is that this is not atypical for PACs involved in US politics. Nonetheless, I think that EAs involved in politics should help promote good governance and societal values of trust and openness by going beyond the typically meager information provided by PACs. SBF’s significant financial stake in cryptocurrency, which could be affected by Congressional activity, makes the need for transparency even greater. In nearly every conversation I had about the election where POF’s political spending came up, individuals expressed varying levels of confidence that POF’s spending was truly related to SBF’s economic interest in cryptocurrency, and a few expressed the feeling that thinking otherwise would be naive. I point this out to demonstrate that, at least among the very politically engaged people I spoke to, few if any took POF’s claim of interest in pandemic prevention seriously. (To be clear, I do not doubt POF's intentions here, but some individuals without prior knowledge of SBF and EA seemed to.)

I believe this perception may have been exacerbated by a number of choices that could be altered moving forward. Notably, POF provided little explanation of Foushee's interest or achievements in pandemic preparedness, as well as little information on what policies she would support if elected.

Ads unrelated to the rationale for POF's support 

Campaign ads produced by POF, as far as I saw, didn't mention pandemic preparedness. (Example: Protect Our Future ad backing Valerie Foushee) The ads I saw were focused on Foushee’s personal background and unrelated policy issues. I believe that this could have raised further suspicion about the motives of POF and SBF and the potential role of his financial interests in cryptocurrency. 

I do want to note my uncertainties about this critique in particular. An alternative ad campaign that focused on pandemic preparedness or was more explicit about the reason POF supported Foushee may have been less likely to sway voters. As such, it’s definitely possible that this was a worthwhile tradeoff.

No clear reason for POF's support of Foushee over other candidates

Additionally, I didn't notice an effort to distinguish why Foushee would be a better candidate on pandemic preparedness than other candidates. It's possible that POF chose not to explain this part of their thinking in order to avoid harming their second choice candidate. It is also possible that they simply wanted to run a positive campaign and didn't want to attack any candidates. That said, I do think it would have been possible to be more clear about what made Foushee a uniquely strong candidate while avoiding those pitfalls. 

Together, I believe that these three factors could make a neutral observer question POF’s stated motivations, particularly in the midst of a political environment in the US where secretive political spending in support of business interests is common.  (To reiterate, I don't question POF's interest in pandemic preparedness. I'm only stating that others without prior knowledge of POF or SBF reasonably might based only on what they saw in this race.)

Why this matters - the risk of reputational effects

NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, I want to acknowledge my personal biases in this area. In general, I think engaging in politics without greater transparency could be marginally harmful to the political system. I believe that it could further normalize and support a campaign finance system that privileges the interests of wealthy individuals and groups. I think it may also contribute to the public perception of an unfair or “rigged” system, a belief that can itself be corrosive to democracy. This perspective likely makes me more concerned with the actions of POF than I might otherwise be, so it may be worth keeping that in mind in regard to the following perspective.

My concern with these practices is predicated on the reputational effects that I believe they could have on the EA movement. Multiple critiques I have seen recently in the press (link, link, link, link, and link) have described EA/longtermism as predominantly funded by and/or linked to a select group of very wealthy elites. I worry that this public perception could limit opportunities to grow the movement in the future. By engaging in political activity that partially aligns with this perception without doing the utmost to be transparent and demonstrate the altruistic rationale for the activity, I worry that POF could negatively affect the reputation of the movement. 

Additionally, I worry that individuals may be introduced to EA for the first time in conjunction with activity that they perceive to be negative. The political news site Politico site recently ran a profile of SBF that mentioned his interest in EA. I have read Politico regularly (3-5x a week) for the past decade, and this is the first time I have seen EA mentioned. While articles on SBF’s activity in North Carolina’s most prominent newspaper, the News & Observer, don’t directly mention effective altruism, an article quotes POF as stating that it supports candidates with a “long term view on policy planning especially as it relates to pandemic preparedness and prevention.” Other parts of the article also hint at POF’s interest in longtermist causes. I regularly read this newspaper as well, and I have never seen previous coverage of longtermist or EA-related work. It concerns me that others may first come into contact with EA through articles that associate it with big-money political groups with limited transparency, a realm of politics that some see as problematic. 

In talking with other political professionals about the race and the support of POF, I occasionally brought up my previous knowledge of SBF and his interest in EA to address their concerns about the true rationale for the spending. These individuals had not previously heard about EA, and I don’t imagine that introducing them to it through this context made them particularly like to take an interest in it. (Certainly, none showed interest during our discussions, which differs from my previous experience describing EA in different contexts.) Should these people, or others who learned about EA from the articles mentioned previously, encounter the movement again, I’m concerned that they will be less likely to find it appealing or take action with EA principles in mind. I don’t have evidence to determine if this is the case, but I think it should give us pause. 

I do not write this post with the goal of stopping POF or other EA-aligned political groups or donors from engaging in this kinds of spending. I very much appreciate the value of working within an imperfect system to make positive change - otherwise, I wouldn't be working in US politics. Nonetheless, I think there may be simple changes that POF or other EA-aligned groups could make to reduce some of the reputational risks to EA posed by large scale political spending. I outline some possible changes below.

Proposed changes to minimize the possibility of harm

NOTE: This is intended only to exemplify some of the changes that could be made. There may be many better ideas that would achieve the same ends.

Publish criteria for evaluating candidates

This could include issue positions, personal qualities, past experience, vote history, or previous actions. Many advocacy groups in the US, such as the National Rifle Association and the League of Conservation Voters, have trackers that evaluate and provide specific grades to legislators based on their previous actions or statements. Had POF established clearer public-facing criteria, they could have highlighted those specifics when contacted by news organizations, or highlighted them in their advertisements or mailers. 

Provide a clear rationale for each candidate

This could be based on a system like the trackers mentioned above, or it could be written individually for each candidate. Either way, this would help provide a clearer explanation of why a group is supporting one candidate over another, particularly in a primary that includes a number of candidates with many similar policy positions. 

Provide additional transparency on funding sources

I suspect that the limited information about POF’s funding sources and motivations contributed to perceptions that it was intervening on behalf of crypto interests. I don’t doubt that some people would have believed this whether or not POF was more transparent about the source of its funds (and potentially even more so in that scenario). It’s also possible that this would have had minimal impact on those beliefs. Nonetheless, I think this practice could be an important part of demonstrating a group’s commitment to transparency and helping to promote trust in the group's stated intentions, which could be important in preventing reputational harm to EA.

Notably, these proposed changes may set EA-aligned groups apart from other groups in a way that is disadvantageous politically. They could also impact the effectiveness of the activity by watering down a more politically powerful message. Personally, I think that this might be a worthwhile price to pay to avoid possible reputational harms to the broader EA movement, but that trade-off is worth considering in more depth.

---

I hope that this post will provide a useful perspective for those involved in large scale EA-aligned political spending. I’d be happy to answer any questions I can or provide any clarification, and I would welcome any feedback that could improve this post or help me contribute more effectively in the future.