Is Obama Running a Big Business, 527, Dirty Money Campaign?
Kevin Zeese
June 21, 2008
Not only is Obama going to swamp McCain in funding now that he has abandoned the campaign finance system (one estimate of the Obama Campaign is it will have $600 million to spend compared to McCain's FEC limited $85 million) but it looks like Sen. Obama will not have to deal with the Swift Boat version of an anti-Obama campaign. Further, the veil is being lifted on the myth that Obama is the candidate of small, non-corporate donors. His campaign is looking more and more like the traditional big business fueled campaign and the policies he is putting forward demonstrate why big business is supporting him. Where's the change?
The Politico reports (see below) that there are currently no anti-Obama 527s, none are planned and no funders are showing interest. While McCain is denouncing groups that try independent efforts at influencing the outcome of the election -- and that is one reason such groups are staying out of the race on the Republican side -- Obama is working closely with MoveOn.org. Paul Tewes -- a high level Obama campaign operative (see http://www.newsweek.com/id/141507) also manages MoveOn's Iraq war efforts and their Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. (See below the Politico article for more on this). MoveOn has been playing the role of a Democratic Party arm but the Tewes connection makes it more specific -- they seem to be an arm of the Obama campaign. This coordination with a political action committee is similar to the contrast between McCain and Obama on campaign finance -- who is the clean money candidate? [Update: MoveOn Closes its 527 in Response to Obama see http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php]
The Washington Post (see below) has looked behind the claims that Obama is creating a new politics with small donors and finds that there are less small donors in 2008 compared to 2004, that Obama is getting big business support and this is the politics of "the usual" not of "change." This is consistent with the tracking of Obama's support from OpenSecrets.org which finds Obama reaping in big support from big business interests. He is pulling in massively from representatives of the industries he is showing support to: health care -- where he moved from single payer to health insurance subsidies, coal and nuclear -- where he favors clean coal and nuclear as a solution to energy shortages, big finance -- where he oppsed putting a cap on usurious interest rates. No doubt his flip flop to support protection for the illegal spying on Americans by the telecom industry will garner support there as well and his speech to AIPAC should get the right wing pro-Israel money flowing into his coffers. Now that he is hiring the Clinton fundraising team and the corporate interests that support the Democrats have a candidate -- Obama should be rolling in the campaign donations of big business like no other candidate before him -- even George W. Bush will be jealous when this campaign is over.
By the way, when it comes to support from militarists -- Obama and McCain are virtually tied when it comes to donations from military contractors. (McCain, John $300,034, Oama, Barack $296,673, Nader, Ralph $700, see http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=507) This is not surprising since Obama has sent clear signals to the military industrial complex that he is no threat to them. His promise to expand the military, already bloated and wasteful, with 92,000 more troops will result in tens of billions annually to defense contractors. And, his promise to leave the private security mercenaries should make the Blackwaters of the world feel secure that the so-called change he is bringing will provide them with billions in contracts. In the next reporting cycle Obama should capture the support of the military industrial complex in a dominating way since the election is looking more and more like Obama's at this early stage. See www.electoral-vote.com.
It is interesting that some anti-war progressives like Progressives for Obama and the weapons industry are supporting the same candidate. I wonder if it were McCain who opted out of the campaign finance system, planned record fundraising from big business representatives, had staff who were also consultants to PACs and 527s and had put out the false myth that he was raising his record hundreds of millions from small donors -- whether progressive Democrats would by shouting? Calling him corrput? Describing him as a sell out? But, when it is Obama they sit silently, applaud at his calls for "hope" and "change" and urge others to vote for him rather than candidates like McKinney or Nader who actually stand for clean campaigns.
Broke: GOP third-party effort nonexistent
By Jonathan Martin
In a web video emailed to supporters Thursday, Barack Obama explained that he was opting out of the public financing system because John McCain is "not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
Republicans can only wish that were the case.
Obamaīs alarmist prophecy — a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards — is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.
The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.
Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.
But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.
More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they wonīt be involved.
T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman who gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and who numerous GOP sources said was being looked to as a funding source this year, is sitting the race out.
"He is not giving anything to 527s involved in the presidential race this cycle, and has communicated that to Republican strategists and operatives," said Pickens spokesman Jay Rosser.
Rosser said Pickens "has a much broader public policy initiative in mind that will focus on energy, and is approaching that in a bipartisan manner." He only "contributed last cycle because they were in play, and were so heavily funded on the other side."
Also staying out of the third-party effort this time is the powerful Republican public affairs firm, the DCI Group.
DCI ran the independent Progress for America (PFA) campaign that raised $45 million to tout George W. Bush and tar John Kerry in 2004.
But after helping to underwrite ad campaigns for Bushīs second term effort to privatize Social Security and confirm two Supreme Court justices, PFA has become defunct.
Now, DCI officials emphatically want it to be known—and specifically asked that it be included in this story—that they wonīt resurrect PFA or be involved at all in this campaign.
"DCI Group is not and will not be involved in any 527 activity this cycle," said a spokesman for the group, which has a bevy of image-sensitive corporate clients. "DCI is out of the business."
Further, Freedomīs Watch, the one third-party group that many conservatives expected to step into the void left by PFA, has decided to exclusively focus on congressional battles.
Asked if was still the intent of Freedomīs Watch to stay out of the presidential fray, Carl Forti, the groupīs director, flatly said: "Yes."
A spokesman for Sheldon Adelson, the chief financial patron of Freedomīs Watch, declined to comment when asked if the Las Vegas casino mogul would help finance other third-party groups targeting the presidential race.
Multiple Republican sources say that Karl Rove has been in contact with donors such as Adelson and Pickens about helping to create an independent effort but that to date nothing has come of it. Rove didnīt respond to an email.
"There has to be a group and there will be a group," said a GOP strategist who has been closely involved in past third-party efforts. "But when and where it is formed is yet to be determined. And weīre running out of time, the clockīs ticking."
Another veteran Republican who works closely with outside conservative groups is even more blunt: "[Democrats] think another Swift Boat is coming and itīs not."
The situation was far different this time four years ago.
The Swift Boat Veterans were unveiled at National Press Club event on May 4 that year. By late June, PFA was not only up and running but had launched ads in some key states. And a handful of well-funded Democratic third-party groups had already spent tens of millions of dollars at that point hammering Bush and the GOP.
The reasons for inactivity on the right are many: tougher FEC regulations that make it more difficult to launch attacks that arenīt tied to an issue, donor fatigue, lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for McCain, and a fear from both contributors and operatives of being painted as a racist in the first general election campaign in history that features an African American as a major party nominee.
But, in explaining the absence of any anti-Obama groups this time around, every individual interviewed for this story cited the same central reason: a fear that their partyīs nominee will publicly denounce them and hold a grudge.
"Both donors and operatives know how much [McCain] abhors these groups," said John Weaver, the Arizona senatorīs former chief strategist, referring to the independent groups that have thrived following passage of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. "If he is ultimately successful and any of these groups played a significant effort in electing him, many believe, probably rightfully, that they would be ostracized."
Another GOP strategist said that McCainīs denunciation of a 501(c)(4) which aired an ad in South Carolina last November touting McCain when his resources were severely limited sent a chilling message to potential independent expenditure groups.
McCain issued a public statement at the time calling on the group, spearheaded by GOP adman Rick Reed, to "cease and desist."
"Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice," McCain said then.
He used even stronger language after that, saying at a Texas town hall meeting in late February that 527s "are distorting the entire political process and they need to be outlawed."
Aping the voice of an imaginary donor, one Republican strategist posited: "Iīm supposed to put millions of dollars up to be called a lawbreaker? That doesnīt make one feel very good."
While Bush spoke out against third-party activity in 2004, it was widely understood in the Republican political community to have been done with a wink and a nod.
McCain, too, has eased somewhat off his harder line of late.
Since speaking out this spring against a North Carolina Republican Party ad that invoked Obama and his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and angering conservatives who see the use of such associations as imperative to winning in an otherwise tough year for the GOP, McCain has said that he wonīt play the role of "referee" about every ad that is aired.
Told that party allies were hesitant to form groups out of fear that theyīd never be able to do business with or even darken the door of a McCain White House, a top campaign adviser suggested that the candidate who rebuked the Swift Boat Veterans might not do the same this time when itīs his name on the ballot and there are similar third-party attacks being waged against him.
"He wishes that 527s did not exist on either side," said McCain strategist Steve Schmidt. "But he understands that they do. And he certainly isnīt going to say that one side should have them and one side should not in the context of a presidential campaign."
But thatīs not enough reassurance for some longtime Republicans.
"People think that if they take the wink and nod and give the money that he will piss all over them like he pissed all over the lobbyists," said a Republican who has been involved in past third-party efforts.
Aside from fears about antagonizing McCain, there is palpable disappointment over the failure of Hillary Clinton to claim the Democratic nomination. Many in the GOP were gearing up for, and were energized by, the prospect of a run against Clinton.
Several Republicans, including the Vice-Presidentīs daughter, Mary Cheney, talked about creating an independent group at the end of last year but the group fizzled out during the course of the long Democratic primary, sources say.
They werenīt alone.
Richard Collins, a wealthy Dallas-based entrepreneur, bankrolled "StopHerNow," an entity set up to defeat the former First Lady.
"For six months, itīs been do we stop her, stop him or stop somebody else?" he notes.
"We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,'" laments David Bossie, head of Citizens United and a longtime Clinton tormentor. "Weīre incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore."
Bossie is now rushing out an Obama movie for later this summer that he promises will include Wright and other controversial figures from the Democratīs past. But while promising that theyīll also do TV spots, Bossieīs outfit faces the same challenges as other third-party groups hoping to engage in the race a lack of money.
Citizens United had less than $1 million on hand at then of April.
Floyd Brown, another right-wing operative who has been thought to be planning an anti-Obama effort, has largely been relegated to broadcasting ads online and had less than $50,000 combined in two accounts at the end of March.
And Collinsīs group only had raised only about $8,000 more than it spent this cycle as of March 30, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis.
Asked if they would air TV ads, Collins said, "We might." Then he noted the cartoon-filled website they had mocking Obama. "We get a lot of hits on our internet site," he said.
The diminished role of third-party groups this campaign isnīt confined to the right, though. Democratic-leaning groups have done far less so far this year than in 2004, when outfits such as the George Soros-funded America Coming Together and The Media Fund spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Bush.
The reasoning is the same: fear of being rebuked by their own candidate.
One liberal group, David Brockīs Progressive Media USA, declared in April that it would spend $40 million against McCain, but two months later, after Obama signaled his unease with outside help, they had stopped airing ads and were expected to be absorbed into a pair of other left-leaning organizations.
Still, that hasnīt stopped sympathizers such as MoveOn.org and the government employee union AFSCME from attacking McCain. The two groups joined together this week to air a hard-edged spot this week featuring an actress playing a young mother with an infant son in her lap telling McCain that he "canīt have [the baby]" for the Iraq war.
"527s are here to stay and they mean at least two to three points in the general," said conservative public relations executive Greg Mueller, a veteran of past presidential campaigns. "Both sides need them whether they like it or not."
Source: The Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html
Is MoveOn an Arm of the Obama Campaign?
From SourceWatch.
Obama pays Paul Tewes and Hildenbrand of the firm Hildebrand & Tewes to manage his campaign and represent him at the DNC. This is the same firm that MoveOn and its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq pays to run and manage their pro-Democratic anti-war lobby.
Tom Matzzie is MoveOn's and AAEI's long time lobbyists and strategist and dishes out the tens of millions raised and spent to attack John McCain. AAEI has also spun off Campaign to Defend America, an organization founded by Matzzie and MoveOn's co-founder Wes Boyd. Campaign to Defend America has given $50,000 to Campaign Money Watch, a a project of Public Campaign, to run attack ads against McCain because McCain is beholden to lobbyists. And of course the whole game here is to mobilize as much money as possible for TV ads attacking McCain on the economy and war to win the election in November. All the individuals above are party of an even larger network of Democrat-aligned groups that are able to hide who is giving them money while raising and spending millions on attack ads.
SourceWatch article on Hildebrand & Tewes, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hildebrand_Tewes_Consulting
SourceWatch article on Obama's campaign team, including Hildebrand and Tewes, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/campaign_team
SourceWatch article on AAEI, run by Hildebrand and Tewes, funded by MoveOn, etc., http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_Against_Escalation_in_Iraq
SourceWatch article on Campaign to Defend America, the AAEI spin-off started by Boyd and Matzzie of MoveOn, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Campaign_to_Defend_America
SourceWatch article on Moveon, AAEI and Campaign to Defend America's Tom Matzzie, the linchpin strategist and bag man for these groups, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Matzzie
SourceWatch article on Campaign Money Watch started today, with link to AP article on Campaign to Defend America funding Campaign Money Watch, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Campaign_Money_Watch
The Small-Donor Fallacy
By Jay Mandle
Not long ago, Sen. Barack Obama criticized special-interest lobbies that "use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years." He has said that his army of small donors constitutes "a parallel public financing system," one in which ordinary voters "will have as much access and influence over the course of our campaign" as that "traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."
Obama has raised record-breaking sums from small donors, so his announcement yesterday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election did not surprise many. And the idea that the Internet and grass-roots donations will somehow reinvigorate our democracy is appealing. But this notion is not borne out by the evidence.
As of April 30, the Obama campaign had collected more than $120 million in contributions of $200 or less. In April alone, the latest month for which data are available, Obama raised more than $31 million, about 65 percent of which came from contributions of $200 or less. This seems good for democracy -- but it may not be as good as we think.
Despite the importance of small donors, both Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain are still taking lots of big donations from wealthy special interests. In fact, when the nominating system as a whole is studied over time, the evidence suggests that the role of big donors will turn out to be growing, not shrinking.
Through March, small donations amounted to 39 percent of the combined fundraising of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. But over a comparable period four years ago, such contributions made up an even greater share (42 percent) of the fundraising of the two leading Democratic contenders, Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. On the GOP side, small donors were much more important for McCain in 2007 than they were for George W. Bush in 2003. But for most of last year McCain was not the front-runner, and his campaign was famously broke. Now that he is the presumptive nominee, big donors are his bread and butter.
Contributions of less than $200 do not have to be itemized in reports to the Federal Election Commission, so we have no idea how many are made. We also cannot rely on the candidates' rhetoric to match the facts. During a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, for example, Obama said that "we have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50." His campaign's own data from January 2007 through January 2008 show that 36 percent of donated funds were from small donors. Obama probably meant that 90 percent of the individuals who contributed were small donors, but the number of donors has not been verified.
Small-dollar donations to Obama have surged this year, and those donors became crucial in the spring as the battle to secure the Democratic nomination intensified. But for most of his campaign, big donors have been Obama's mainstay. Employees of investment bank Goldman Sachs, for example, have contributed more than $570,000 to his campaign.
Another problem with asserting that small donors are an antidote to undue influence by wealthy contributors is that even small donors are almost certainly much richer than the average American.
In a study of $100 contributions to state campaigns in six states during 2005, the Campaign Finance Institute found that more than half of donors earned between $75,000 and $250,000 a year. The median U.S. income that year was $46,000. While it's tricky to extrapolate to the presidential race, it is unlikely that campaign giving has suddenly become a common pursuit of working-class families.
Meanwhile, big-ticket fundraising among the very wealthiest is surging into record territory. Even as he touts his base of small donors, Obama has continued to woo large contributors at events costing thousands of dollars per plate, as has McCain. This suggests that, by themselves, small donations do not offer a real corrective to the pay-to-play system.
Neither does the public financing available to the candidates. This funding is frozen at 1976 levels, which is why Obama has rejected it -- he can raise from private sources more than the amount of the government grant. McCain no doubt would have taken the same path if his fundraising had taken off.
The idea that small donors will somehow reinvigorate electoral democracy, without the trouble of fundamentally reforming our campaign finance laws, is attractive but not yet reality. For candidates to be equally responsive to all their constituents and to open to ordinary voters the same kind of influence and access now afforded a wealthy minority, the only realistic option is to increase the amount of money we allocate to the public campaign finance system. In fact, the small-donor illusion may even be functioning as a fig leaf, averting our gaze from the continued and intensifying stranglehold that big donors have on our democracy.
Jay Mandle, an economics professor at Colgate University, is the author of "Democracy, America, and the Age of Globalization."
Source: The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903027_pf.html
The Politico reports (see below) that there are currently no anti-Obama 527s, none are planned and no funders are showing interest. While McCain is denouncing groups that try independent efforts at influencing the outcome of the election -- and that is one reason such groups are staying out of the race on the Republican side -- Obama is working closely with MoveOn.org. Paul Tewes -- a high level Obama campaign operative (see http://www.newsweek.com/id/141507) also manages MoveOn's Iraq war efforts and their Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. (See below the Politico article for more on this). MoveOn has been playing the role of a Democratic Party arm but the Tewes connection makes it more specific -- they seem to be an arm of the Obama campaign. This coordination with a political action committee is similar to the contrast between McCain and Obama on campaign finance -- who is the clean money candidate? [Update: MoveOn Closes its 527 in Response to Obama see http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php]
The Washington Post (see below) has looked behind the claims that Obama is creating a new politics with small donors and finds that there are less small donors in 2008 compared to 2004, that Obama is getting big business support and this is the politics of "the usual" not of "change." This is consistent with the tracking of Obama's support from OpenSecrets.org which finds Obama reaping in big support from big business interests. He is pulling in massively from representatives of the industries he is showing support to: health care -- where he moved from single payer to health insurance subsidies, coal and nuclear -- where he favors clean coal and nuclear as a solution to energy shortages, big finance -- where he oppsed putting a cap on usurious interest rates. No doubt his flip flop to support protection for the illegal spying on Americans by the telecom industry will garner support there as well and his speech to AIPAC should get the right wing pro-Israel money flowing into his coffers. Now that he is hiring the Clinton fundraising team and the corporate interests that support the Democrats have a candidate -- Obama should be rolling in the campaign donations of big business like no other candidate before him -- even George W. Bush will be jealous when this campaign is over.
By the way, when it comes to support from militarists -- Obama and McCain are virtually tied when it comes to donations from military contractors. (McCain, John $300,034, Oama, Barack $296,673, Nader, Ralph $700, see http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=507) This is not surprising since Obama has sent clear signals to the military industrial complex that he is no threat to them. His promise to expand the military, already bloated and wasteful, with 92,000 more troops will result in tens of billions annually to defense contractors. And, his promise to leave the private security mercenaries should make the Blackwaters of the world feel secure that the so-called change he is bringing will provide them with billions in contracts. In the next reporting cycle Obama should capture the support of the military industrial complex in a dominating way since the election is looking more and more like Obama's at this early stage. See www.electoral-vote.com.
It is interesting that some anti-war progressives like Progressives for Obama and the weapons industry are supporting the same candidate. I wonder if it were McCain who opted out of the campaign finance system, planned record fundraising from big business representatives, had staff who were also consultants to PACs and 527s and had put out the false myth that he was raising his record hundreds of millions from small donors -- whether progressive Democrats would by shouting? Calling him corrput? Describing him as a sell out? But, when it is Obama they sit silently, applaud at his calls for "hope" and "change" and urge others to vote for him rather than candidates like McKinney or Nader who actually stand for clean campaigns.
Broke: GOP third-party effort nonexistent
By Jonathan Martin
In a web video emailed to supporters Thursday, Barack Obama explained that he was opting out of the public financing system because John McCain is "not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
Republicans can only wish that were the case.
Obamaīs alarmist prophecy — a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards — is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.
The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.
Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.
But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.
More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they wonīt be involved.
T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman who gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and who numerous GOP sources said was being looked to as a funding source this year, is sitting the race out.
"He is not giving anything to 527s involved in the presidential race this cycle, and has communicated that to Republican strategists and operatives," said Pickens spokesman Jay Rosser.
Rosser said Pickens "has a much broader public policy initiative in mind that will focus on energy, and is approaching that in a bipartisan manner." He only "contributed last cycle because they were in play, and were so heavily funded on the other side."
Also staying out of the third-party effort this time is the powerful Republican public affairs firm, the DCI Group.
DCI ran the independent Progress for America (PFA) campaign that raised $45 million to tout George W. Bush and tar John Kerry in 2004.
But after helping to underwrite ad campaigns for Bushīs second term effort to privatize Social Security and confirm two Supreme Court justices, PFA has become defunct.
Now, DCI officials emphatically want it to be known—and specifically asked that it be included in this story—that they wonīt resurrect PFA or be involved at all in this campaign.
"DCI Group is not and will not be involved in any 527 activity this cycle," said a spokesman for the group, which has a bevy of image-sensitive corporate clients. "DCI is out of the business."
Further, Freedomīs Watch, the one third-party group that many conservatives expected to step into the void left by PFA, has decided to exclusively focus on congressional battles.
Asked if was still the intent of Freedomīs Watch to stay out of the presidential fray, Carl Forti, the groupīs director, flatly said: "Yes."
A spokesman for Sheldon Adelson, the chief financial patron of Freedomīs Watch, declined to comment when asked if the Las Vegas casino mogul would help finance other third-party groups targeting the presidential race.
Multiple Republican sources say that Karl Rove has been in contact with donors such as Adelson and Pickens about helping to create an independent effort but that to date nothing has come of it. Rove didnīt respond to an email.
"There has to be a group and there will be a group," said a GOP strategist who has been closely involved in past third-party efforts. "But when and where it is formed is yet to be determined. And weīre running out of time, the clockīs ticking."
Another veteran Republican who works closely with outside conservative groups is even more blunt: "[Democrats] think another Swift Boat is coming and itīs not."
The situation was far different this time four years ago.
The Swift Boat Veterans were unveiled at National Press Club event on May 4 that year. By late June, PFA was not only up and running but had launched ads in some key states. And a handful of well-funded Democratic third-party groups had already spent tens of millions of dollars at that point hammering Bush and the GOP.
The reasons for inactivity on the right are many: tougher FEC regulations that make it more difficult to launch attacks that arenīt tied to an issue, donor fatigue, lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for McCain, and a fear from both contributors and operatives of being painted as a racist in the first general election campaign in history that features an African American as a major party nominee.
But, in explaining the absence of any anti-Obama groups this time around, every individual interviewed for this story cited the same central reason: a fear that their partyīs nominee will publicly denounce them and hold a grudge.
"Both donors and operatives know how much [McCain] abhors these groups," said John Weaver, the Arizona senatorīs former chief strategist, referring to the independent groups that have thrived following passage of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. "If he is ultimately successful and any of these groups played a significant effort in electing him, many believe, probably rightfully, that they would be ostracized."
Another GOP strategist said that McCainīs denunciation of a 501(c)(4) which aired an ad in South Carolina last November touting McCain when his resources were severely limited sent a chilling message to potential independent expenditure groups.
McCain issued a public statement at the time calling on the group, spearheaded by GOP adman Rick Reed, to "cease and desist."
"Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice," McCain said then.
He used even stronger language after that, saying at a Texas town hall meeting in late February that 527s "are distorting the entire political process and they need to be outlawed."
Aping the voice of an imaginary donor, one Republican strategist posited: "Iīm supposed to put millions of dollars up to be called a lawbreaker? That doesnīt make one feel very good."
While Bush spoke out against third-party activity in 2004, it was widely understood in the Republican political community to have been done with a wink and a nod.
McCain, too, has eased somewhat off his harder line of late.
Since speaking out this spring against a North Carolina Republican Party ad that invoked Obama and his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and angering conservatives who see the use of such associations as imperative to winning in an otherwise tough year for the GOP, McCain has said that he wonīt play the role of "referee" about every ad that is aired.
Told that party allies were hesitant to form groups out of fear that theyīd never be able to do business with or even darken the door of a McCain White House, a top campaign adviser suggested that the candidate who rebuked the Swift Boat Veterans might not do the same this time when itīs his name on the ballot and there are similar third-party attacks being waged against him.
"He wishes that 527s did not exist on either side," said McCain strategist Steve Schmidt. "But he understands that they do. And he certainly isnīt going to say that one side should have them and one side should not in the context of a presidential campaign."
But thatīs not enough reassurance for some longtime Republicans.
"People think that if they take the wink and nod and give the money that he will piss all over them like he pissed all over the lobbyists," said a Republican who has been involved in past third-party efforts.
Aside from fears about antagonizing McCain, there is palpable disappointment over the failure of Hillary Clinton to claim the Democratic nomination. Many in the GOP were gearing up for, and were energized by, the prospect of a run against Clinton.
Several Republicans, including the Vice-Presidentīs daughter, Mary Cheney, talked about creating an independent group at the end of last year but the group fizzled out during the course of the long Democratic primary, sources say.
They werenīt alone.
Richard Collins, a wealthy Dallas-based entrepreneur, bankrolled "StopHerNow," an entity set up to defeat the former First Lady.
"For six months, itīs been do we stop her, stop him or stop somebody else?" he notes.
"We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,'" laments David Bossie, head of Citizens United and a longtime Clinton tormentor. "Weīre incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore."
Bossie is now rushing out an Obama movie for later this summer that he promises will include Wright and other controversial figures from the Democratīs past. But while promising that theyīll also do TV spots, Bossieīs outfit faces the same challenges as other third-party groups hoping to engage in the race a lack of money.
Citizens United had less than $1 million on hand at then of April.
Floyd Brown, another right-wing operative who has been thought to be planning an anti-Obama effort, has largely been relegated to broadcasting ads online and had less than $50,000 combined in two accounts at the end of March.
And Collinsīs group only had raised only about $8,000 more than it spent this cycle as of March 30, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis.
Asked if they would air TV ads, Collins said, "We might." Then he noted the cartoon-filled website they had mocking Obama. "We get a lot of hits on our internet site," he said.
The diminished role of third-party groups this campaign isnīt confined to the right, though. Democratic-leaning groups have done far less so far this year than in 2004, when outfits such as the George Soros-funded America Coming Together and The Media Fund spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Bush.
The reasoning is the same: fear of being rebuked by their own candidate.
One liberal group, David Brockīs Progressive Media USA, declared in April that it would spend $40 million against McCain, but two months later, after Obama signaled his unease with outside help, they had stopped airing ads and were expected to be absorbed into a pair of other left-leaning organizations.
Still, that hasnīt stopped sympathizers such as MoveOn.org and the government employee union AFSCME from attacking McCain. The two groups joined together this week to air a hard-edged spot this week featuring an actress playing a young mother with an infant son in her lap telling McCain that he "canīt have [the baby]" for the Iraq war.
"527s are here to stay and they mean at least two to three points in the general," said conservative public relations executive Greg Mueller, a veteran of past presidential campaigns. "Both sides need them whether they like it or not."
Source: The Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html
Is MoveOn an Arm of the Obama Campaign?
From SourceWatch.
Obama pays Paul Tewes and Hildenbrand of the firm Hildebrand & Tewes to manage his campaign and represent him at the DNC. This is the same firm that MoveOn and its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq pays to run and manage their pro-Democratic anti-war lobby.
Tom Matzzie is MoveOn's and AAEI's long time lobbyists and strategist and dishes out the tens of millions raised and spent to attack John McCain. AAEI has also spun off Campaign to Defend America, an organization founded by Matzzie and MoveOn's co-founder Wes Boyd. Campaign to Defend America has given $50,000 to Campaign Money Watch, a a project of Public Campaign, to run attack ads against McCain because McCain is beholden to lobbyists. And of course the whole game here is to mobilize as much money as possible for TV ads attacking McCain on the economy and war to win the election in November. All the individuals above are party of an even larger network of Democrat-aligned groups that are able to hide who is giving them money while raising and spending millions on attack ads.
SourceWatch article on Hildebrand & Tewes, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hildebrand_Tewes_Consulting
SourceWatch article on Obama's campaign team, including Hildebrand and Tewes, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/campaign_team
SourceWatch article on AAEI, run by Hildebrand and Tewes, funded by MoveOn, etc., http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_Against_Escalation_in_Iraq
SourceWatch article on Campaign to Defend America, the AAEI spin-off started by Boyd and Matzzie of MoveOn, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Campaign_to_Defend_America
SourceWatch article on Moveon, AAEI and Campaign to Defend America's Tom Matzzie, the linchpin strategist and bag man for these groups, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Matzzie
SourceWatch article on Campaign Money Watch started today, with link to AP article on Campaign to Defend America funding Campaign Money Watch, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Campaign_Money_Watch
The Small-Donor Fallacy
By Jay Mandle
Not long ago, Sen. Barack Obama criticized special-interest lobbies that "use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years." He has said that his army of small donors constitutes "a parallel public financing system," one in which ordinary voters "will have as much access and influence over the course of our campaign" as that "traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."
Obama has raised record-breaking sums from small donors, so his announcement yesterday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election did not surprise many. And the idea that the Internet and grass-roots donations will somehow reinvigorate our democracy is appealing. But this notion is not borne out by the evidence.
As of April 30, the Obama campaign had collected more than $120 million in contributions of $200 or less. In April alone, the latest month for which data are available, Obama raised more than $31 million, about 65 percent of which came from contributions of $200 or less. This seems good for democracy -- but it may not be as good as we think.
Despite the importance of small donors, both Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain are still taking lots of big donations from wealthy special interests. In fact, when the nominating system as a whole is studied over time, the evidence suggests that the role of big donors will turn out to be growing, not shrinking.
Through March, small donations amounted to 39 percent of the combined fundraising of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. But over a comparable period four years ago, such contributions made up an even greater share (42 percent) of the fundraising of the two leading Democratic contenders, Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. On the GOP side, small donors were much more important for McCain in 2007 than they were for George W. Bush in 2003. But for most of last year McCain was not the front-runner, and his campaign was famously broke. Now that he is the presumptive nominee, big donors are his bread and butter.
Contributions of less than $200 do not have to be itemized in reports to the Federal Election Commission, so we have no idea how many are made. We also cannot rely on the candidates' rhetoric to match the facts. During a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, for example, Obama said that "we have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50." His campaign's own data from January 2007 through January 2008 show that 36 percent of donated funds were from small donors. Obama probably meant that 90 percent of the individuals who contributed were small donors, but the number of donors has not been verified.
Small-dollar donations to Obama have surged this year, and those donors became crucial in the spring as the battle to secure the Democratic nomination intensified. But for most of his campaign, big donors have been Obama's mainstay. Employees of investment bank Goldman Sachs, for example, have contributed more than $570,000 to his campaign.
Another problem with asserting that small donors are an antidote to undue influence by wealthy contributors is that even small donors are almost certainly much richer than the average American.
In a study of $100 contributions to state campaigns in six states during 2005, the Campaign Finance Institute found that more than half of donors earned between $75,000 and $250,000 a year. The median U.S. income that year was $46,000. While it's tricky to extrapolate to the presidential race, it is unlikely that campaign giving has suddenly become a common pursuit of working-class families.
Meanwhile, big-ticket fundraising among the very wealthiest is surging into record territory. Even as he touts his base of small donors, Obama has continued to woo large contributors at events costing thousands of dollars per plate, as has McCain. This suggests that, by themselves, small donations do not offer a real corrective to the pay-to-play system.
Neither does the public financing available to the candidates. This funding is frozen at 1976 levels, which is why Obama has rejected it -- he can raise from private sources more than the amount of the government grant. McCain no doubt would have taken the same path if his fundraising had taken off.
The idea that small donors will somehow reinvigorate electoral democracy, without the trouble of fundamentally reforming our campaign finance laws, is attractive but not yet reality. For candidates to be equally responsive to all their constituents and to open to ordinary voters the same kind of influence and access now afforded a wealthy minority, the only realistic option is to increase the amount of money we allocate to the public campaign finance system. In fact, the small-donor illusion may even be functioning as a fig leaf, averting our gaze from the continued and intensifying stranglehold that big donors have on our democracy.
Jay Mandle, an economics professor at Colgate University, is the author of "Democracy, America, and the Age of Globalization."
Source: The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903027_pf.html