Obama, McCain Both Relying On Those They Criticize To Help Fund Campaigns
(The Politico) By The Politico's Jeanne Cummings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donning the white hats of campaign finance reformers, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are positioning themselves as the presidential candidates least likely to be bossed around by special interests if they win the Oval Office.
But the reality of presidential-level fundraising is driving both camps into the arms of the very lobbyists who are the agents of those interests. McCain, whose disappointing first-quarter fundraising total has rocked his standing in the GOP primary lineup, abandoned all pretense of being the untainted one after assigning an overhaul of his campaign finance operation to two well-connected Washington lobbyists, including one who has been singled out for helping clients secure the very budget earmarks that the senator rails against on the campaign trail.
Obama's moves have been more subtle. He has vowed not to take money from federally registered lobbyists. But that leaves wide latitude for his lobbyist friends in Illinois to pony up cash, and his campaign is informing Washington lobbyists that they'd be happy to take checks from their spouses or clients.
"It's very depressing to see the extensive use of lobbyists as the only way to be competitive," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonpartisan group that tracks political giving, who has worked with McCain, Obama and other contenders to push through reforms. The federal fundraising program designed in 1974 to eliminate the need for big outside contributions "has failed," she added. "I'm sure there are alternatives, but they may not allow the candidates to be competitive."
Indeed, to candidates under pressure to raise unprecedented amounts of cash for the 2008 primaries, Washington's lobby community and its network of donors is too tantalizing to ignore. According to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, the nation's capital ranked third among prime donation destinations in the 2004 presidential cycle, doling out nearly $165 million to candidates. California topped the list by generating $241 million in campaign checks. New York came in second with nearly $179 million in donations. In 2006, a nonpresidential year, Washington took over the top spot by forking over more than $180 million to congressional lawmakers — even though the District of Columbia does not have equal representation in Congress to the 50 states.
To get a notion of just how outsized the lobbyist community's role is in all that giving, consider these numbers: In July 2004, California ranked No. 1 in population with nearly 36 million residents, New York came in third with slightly more than 19 million, while Washington was home to 553,523 people, just passing the least-populated state, Wyoming, with 506,529 residents, according to census figures. (Residents of the Equality State donated $4 million to candidates in 2004.)
Lobbyists don't just give generously to candidates; they also serve as conduits for others. That is why the campaigns of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Mitt Romney and others actively recruited supporters from the community. Republican Rudy Giuliani's campaign benefited from an event hosted in part by James F. Miller, who once lobbied alongside former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the center of a scandal last year.
What separates Obama and McCain from the rest is that they have used the issue to define their campaigns and their candidacies. Like Obama, Democrat John Edwards has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and political action committees, or PACs.
Obama invited special scrutiny of his fundraising the day he announced. "As people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics and the lobbyists and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play," he said.
His decision to refuse PAC and lobbyist money is a departure from his Senate race two years ago. Then, he accepted nearly $130,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Soon after arriving in Washington, however, he sought a lead role in advocating ethics reform and reducing the influence of special interests.
To adhere to that, Obama announced the no-federal-lobbyist-money rule. But it seems his fundraisers, under pressure to keep pace with the Clinton camp, have decided to follow the letter of that rule rather than embrace its full spirit. Thus, a current lobbyist can't give, but a former lobbyist — even a recent one — can. Of course, there is the spouse exemption, even if the money comes from a joint account.
The policy has rubbed some lobbyists the wrong way. One reports getting a call from an Obama representative that seemed to be a solicitation for a donation. When the lobbyist cut him off and pointed out that he was registered, the fundraiser said he was aware of that but "your spouse can contribute, and we want to reach out to your network," the lobbyist recalled, adding that he was "pretty taken aback."
The fuzzy lines also were evident last week when Obama headlined a fundraiser at Union Station. Invitations were forwarded around town to many lobbying shops, even though most of the folks who work in them are banned from giving. Among the event's chairs and hosts were four former lobbyists, including recent advocates for big oil and power companies.
Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, acknowledged that the system is imperfect. "It's a symbolic step, but nobody is claiming it solves the problem," he said.
McCain's return to presidential fundraising has been equally awkward. He is one of the namesakes on the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that banned corporations and unions from giving unlimited donations to the political parties and imposed limits on television advertising and other political activities by interest groups in the last weeks of a campaign. That law infuriated some conservative advocacy groups, which haven't forgiven McCain or rallied around his campaign waving their checkbooks. His bottom line also is hurt by the fact that the candidate himself does not like making calls and appearances for cash.
The ironic consequence is that a McCain campaign that aims to revive the maverick, reformist image of the senator's maiden presidential bid in 2000 now is more dependent on the aid of his lobbyist fundraisers than are some other presidential contenders.
Tom Loeffler, a former congressman from Texas, and Wayne Berman, a former official in the administration of George H.W. Bush, are the two lobbyists charged with creating a new McCain fundraising apparatus modeled after the bundling operations that fueled George W. Bush's campaigns. Loeffler and Berman earned Ranger status on the Bush team, which meant they generated at least $200,000 in donations to the Bush-Cheney operation.
"John McCain has known Tom Loeffler for over 25 years, and their relationship is based on mutual friendship, respect and credibility," said Danny Diaz, a McCain spokesman.
Friendship aside, Loeffler represents an awkward pick for McCain, given that his lobbying history has been the target of conservative anti-pork organizations long aligned with the senator. In a speech to Citizens Against Government Waste last month, McCain criticized the practice of quietly slipping pet projects into huge spending bills and took a shot at his own party for allowing it to happen. "I think the Republican Party lost the last election because of our failure to control spending and the earmarking which led to corruption, which led to a member of Congress going to jail," he said.
McCain's speech coincided with the release of the organization's new book, "The Congressional Pig Book," which highlighted earmarks. Among the entries: the Loeffler firm's roster of Texas municipal clients, including Houston and San Antonio, which received $40 million in earmarks between 2003 and 2006 for roads, rivers and technology projects.
By Jeanne Cummings
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Gun-control returns as campaign issue
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 18, 5:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record) declared Wednesday he believes in "no gun control," making the strongest affirmation of support for gun rights in the GOP field since the Virginia Tech massacre.
The Arizona senator said in Summerville, S.C., that the country needs better ways to identify dangerous people like the gunman who killed 32 people and himself in the Blacksburg, Va., rampage. But he opposed weakening gun rights and, when asked whether ammunition clips sold to the public should be limited in size, said, "I don't think that's necessary at all."
GOP rival Rudy Giuliani, too, voiced his support for the Second Amendment on Wednesday, but not in such absolute terms. Once an advocate of strong federal gun controls, the former New York mayor said "this tragedy does not alter the Second Amendment" while indicating he favors the right of states to pass their own restrictions.
Other candidates in both parties have stayed largely silent on the issue in the immediate aftermath of the killings, except to express their sorrow.
McCain has opposed many gun controls in the Senate over the years but broke from most of his party — and his past — in supporting legislation to require background checks for buyers at gun shows. In one such vote, he relished taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association.
In a speech Wednesday to a crowd of 400, McCain was unequivocal in support of the right to bear arms.
"I do not believe we should tamper with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," he said. A woman shouted that George Washington's troops used muskets, not automatic weapons.
"I hope that we can find better ways of identifying people such as this sick young man so that we can prevent them from not only taking action with guns but with knives or with anything else that will harm their fellow citizens," McCain said.
McCain reiterated that later with reporters.
"I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control," McCain said.
The candidates' silence and discomfort may become insupportable once the nation finds its voice in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech murders.
Democrats have been deliberately muted for months on an issue that, by their own reckoning, contributed to and perhaps sealed their defeat in the 2000 presidential election. That's when Al Gore's call for gun registration cost him votes in rural America and dulled the party's appetite for taking on the gun lobby.
Top Republicans in the race are trying to close ranks with their party's conservative base on a variety of issues, making gun control an unusually sensitive one for them, too, thanks to their liberal views in the past.
With facts still unfolding, the killer was described as a creepy loner who had been accused of stalking two women, wrote violent schoolwork, been sent to mental health counseling for suspected suicidal tendencies, and scared some fellow students out of coming to class — yet did not have a criminal record that might have stopped him from buying his guns.
Giuliani's emphasis on state-by-state solutions to gun control in the GOP primaries contrasts with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners — an even stiffer requirement than registering guns.
Giuliani, as New York mayor and former Senate prospect, and Republican Mitt Romney, as Massachusetts governor and as a Senate candidate in the 1990s, supported the federal ban on assault-type weapons, background checks on gun purchases and other restrictions reviled by many gun-rights advocates.
The other New Yorker in this race, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also supported proposals for state-issued photo gun licenses, as well as a national registry for handgun sales, in positions laid out for crime-weary New Yorkers in 2000.
In this campaign, candidates in both parties who've ever taken a shot at a prey are playing up their hunting credentials. Others are highlighting their allegiance to the constitutional right to bear arms or avoiding the question altogether.
Democratic candidate John Edwards, despite recently highlighting his boyhood outings hunting birds, rabbits and deer as well as his respect for gun ownership rights, backed his party's main gun control measures when he was in the Senate.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), as a state lawmaker in the 1990s, supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tougher state restrictions on firearms.
Mass shootings have often been the catalyst for legislative action on gun control, with mixed results.
And with Democrats controlling Congress partly on the strength of new members from rural parts of the country, few lawmakers were expecting the Virginia Tech assault to revive the most far-reaching gun-control proposals of the past, such as national licensing or registration.
In 1999, after the Columbine High School killings in Colorado left 15 dead, lawmakers unsuccessfully introduced dozens of bills to require mandatory child safety locks on new handguns, ban "Saturday night specials," increase the minimum age for gun purchases and require background checks on weapons bought at gun shows.
A month after the Columbine shootings, then-Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to advance a juvenile crime bill that included gun show restrictions. But the bill died in negotiations with the House.
The Virginia Tech senior and South Korean native identified as the Blacksburg gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, was a legal permanent resident of the U.S., meaning he could legally buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. The campus killings were carried out with 9 mm and .22-caliber handguns.
Wed Apr 18, 5:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record) declared Wednesday he believes in "no gun control," making the strongest affirmation of support for gun rights in the GOP field since the Virginia Tech massacre.
The Arizona senator said in Summerville, S.C., that the country needs better ways to identify dangerous people like the gunman who killed 32 people and himself in the Blacksburg, Va., rampage. But he opposed weakening gun rights and, when asked whether ammunition clips sold to the public should be limited in size, said, "I don't think that's necessary at all."
GOP rival Rudy Giuliani, too, voiced his support for the Second Amendment on Wednesday, but not in such absolute terms. Once an advocate of strong federal gun controls, the former New York mayor said "this tragedy does not alter the Second Amendment" while indicating he favors the right of states to pass their own restrictions.
Other candidates in both parties have stayed largely silent on the issue in the immediate aftermath of the killings, except to express their sorrow.
McCain has opposed many gun controls in the Senate over the years but broke from most of his party — and his past — in supporting legislation to require background checks for buyers at gun shows. In one such vote, he relished taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association.
In a speech Wednesday to a crowd of 400, McCain was unequivocal in support of the right to bear arms.
"I do not believe we should tamper with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," he said. A woman shouted that George Washington's troops used muskets, not automatic weapons.
"I hope that we can find better ways of identifying people such as this sick young man so that we can prevent them from not only taking action with guns but with knives or with anything else that will harm their fellow citizens," McCain said.
McCain reiterated that later with reporters.
"I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control," McCain said.
The candidates' silence and discomfort may become insupportable once the nation finds its voice in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech murders.
Democrats have been deliberately muted for months on an issue that, by their own reckoning, contributed to and perhaps sealed their defeat in the 2000 presidential election. That's when Al Gore's call for gun registration cost him votes in rural America and dulled the party's appetite for taking on the gun lobby.
Top Republicans in the race are trying to close ranks with their party's conservative base on a variety of issues, making gun control an unusually sensitive one for them, too, thanks to their liberal views in the past.
With facts still unfolding, the killer was described as a creepy loner who had been accused of stalking two women, wrote violent schoolwork, been sent to mental health counseling for suspected suicidal tendencies, and scared some fellow students out of coming to class — yet did not have a criminal record that might have stopped him from buying his guns.
Giuliani's emphasis on state-by-state solutions to gun control in the GOP primaries contrasts with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners — an even stiffer requirement than registering guns.
Giuliani, as New York mayor and former Senate prospect, and Republican Mitt Romney, as Massachusetts governor and as a Senate candidate in the 1990s, supported the federal ban on assault-type weapons, background checks on gun purchases and other restrictions reviled by many gun-rights advocates.
The other New Yorker in this race, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also supported proposals for state-issued photo gun licenses, as well as a national registry for handgun sales, in positions laid out for crime-weary New Yorkers in 2000.
In this campaign, candidates in both parties who've ever taken a shot at a prey are playing up their hunting credentials. Others are highlighting their allegiance to the constitutional right to bear arms or avoiding the question altogether.
Democratic candidate John Edwards, despite recently highlighting his boyhood outings hunting birds, rabbits and deer as well as his respect for gun ownership rights, backed his party's main gun control measures when he was in the Senate.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), as a state lawmaker in the 1990s, supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tougher state restrictions on firearms.
Mass shootings have often been the catalyst for legislative action on gun control, with mixed results.
And with Democrats controlling Congress partly on the strength of new members from rural parts of the country, few lawmakers were expecting the Virginia Tech assault to revive the most far-reaching gun-control proposals of the past, such as national licensing or registration.
In 1999, after the Columbine High School killings in Colorado left 15 dead, lawmakers unsuccessfully introduced dozens of bills to require mandatory child safety locks on new handguns, ban "Saturday night specials," increase the minimum age for gun purchases and require background checks on weapons bought at gun shows.
A month after the Columbine shootings, then-Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to advance a juvenile crime bill that included gun show restrictions. But the bill died in negotiations with the House.
The Virginia Tech senior and South Korean native identified as the Blacksburg gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, was a legal permanent resident of the U.S., meaning he could legally buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. The campus killings were carried out with 9 mm and .22-caliber handguns.
Romney rules in raising money in state
Washington might be a blue state, but it was one of the reddest candidates who led the pack in fundraising here during the first three months of the year.
Republican Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, raised more than $273,000 in Washington, according to campaign finance reports turned in Sunday.
"Voters in Washington agree we need to bring real change to our nation's capital. ... These supporters will be vital to our success on the way to winning the nomination, " said Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei.
Romney had a liberal to moderate image and record in Massachusetts but is trying to repackage himself as a Christian conservative in his bid for the presidency.
Close behind Romney in the state are two Democrats: former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina with $250,175 and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois with $223,544, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Nationwide, Romney was the top Republican fundraiser, with $20.7 million so far. The top Democrat is Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, with $26 million raised and $10 million more transferred from her successful re-election campaign. Obama raised close to $26 million nationally. Edwards raised almost $15 million, an amount that would have made him the top Democratic fundraiser at this point in most past elections.
Despite a wealth of fundraising unprecedented this early in an election campaign, Washington's donors, who have been generous in the past, have not yet shown their colors.
People here have given only about three-quarters of 1 percent of the national total, according to public filings detailing donors of more than $200.
Wealthy donors are the key constituency in the "money primary"-- the fundraising race that shapes the outcome of presidential nominations before a single caucus is held or a single vote is cast.
While a Republican was the top recipient, the state's Democrats outdid the GOP, accounting for about $600,000 of the $1 million raised here.
Big money came from the technology companies -- at least $65,000 -- and area law firms -- about $135,000.
Trial lawyers, some of the Democrats' richest partisans, strongly backed Edwards in 2004 but are more divided this time around. Even so, in Washington Edwards raised at least $75,000 from law firms.
Obama, meanwhile, drew half the contributions made by tech workers, including donations from RealNetworks Inc. CEO Rob Glaser and Zillow.com President Lloyd Frink.
While many in the Republican establishment -- led by former Sen. Slade Gorton -- are backing Arizona Sen. John McCain, his total fundraising was about $72,000. Those supporters include some heavyweights, such as Gorton and former U.S. Attorney Mike McKay.
Still, many of the area's most prominent political names are missing.
Some, such as Democratic megadonor and environmental leader Maryanne Tagney-Jones, have made up their minds but are waiting for a strategic moment to write that big $2,000 or $4,000 check.
Tagney-Jones is involved in planning for a major fundraising event to benefit Clinton, who has so far collected less than $100,000 in the state. In the past, Clinton has been a tireless fundraiser in Washington, so many of her supporters could be biding their time.
"I was waiting to (donate) when we did this fundraiser," said Tagney-Jones, whose husband, Bruce Jones, is a major donor to Democrats. "We will obviously be maxing out to the campaign."
One of those who did give to Clinton was Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who contributed $4,600, the legal maximum for the 2008 elections.
Ken Alhadeff, real estate mogul and major donor to Democrats, says he hasn't made up his mind whom he will support but is optimistic about all the candidates. "I think what the last couple years have shown us is that given the right circumstances, anyone can win."
Patricia Herbold, U.S. ambassador to Singapore and the former chairwoman of the King County Republican Party, hasn't yet contributed. Neither has her husband, Bob Herbold, Microsoft Corp.'s former chief operating officer.
Each person can give up to $2,300 to a candidate's bid for the nomination and another $2,300 that could be used if the candidate wins the nomination.
The leading candidates from both parties have announced that they will not be seeking federal matching funds during the primary and have begun raising money to replace public financing for the general election.
That allows the candidates to raise and spend much more and ignore other constraints that come with participating in the public financing system, a cornerstone of post-Watergate reforms to the nation's campaign finance laws.
HOW THEY RANK
Presidential candidates raising $10,000 or more in the state January-March 2007. The total includes money that can be spent for the primaries and the general election.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.: $273,300 of $20.7 million total
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.: $250,175 of $14 million total
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: $223,544 of $25.7 million total
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.: $91,255 of $26 million total
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: $72,266 of $13 million total
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.: $37,710 of $6.2 million total
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.: $34,900 of $4 million total
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y.: $30,000 of $14.7 million total
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.: $11,500 of $2.1 million total
Republican Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, raised more than $273,000 in Washington, according to campaign finance reports turned in Sunday.
"Voters in Washington agree we need to bring real change to our nation's capital. ... These supporters will be vital to our success on the way to winning the nomination, " said Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei.
Romney had a liberal to moderate image and record in Massachusetts but is trying to repackage himself as a Christian conservative in his bid for the presidency.
Close behind Romney in the state are two Democrats: former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina with $250,175 and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois with $223,544, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Nationwide, Romney was the top Republican fundraiser, with $20.7 million so far. The top Democrat is Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, with $26 million raised and $10 million more transferred from her successful re-election campaign. Obama raised close to $26 million nationally. Edwards raised almost $15 million, an amount that would have made him the top Democratic fundraiser at this point in most past elections.
Despite a wealth of fundraising unprecedented this early in an election campaign, Washington's donors, who have been generous in the past, have not yet shown their colors.
People here have given only about three-quarters of 1 percent of the national total, according to public filings detailing donors of more than $200.
Wealthy donors are the key constituency in the "money primary"-- the fundraising race that shapes the outcome of presidential nominations before a single caucus is held or a single vote is cast.
While a Republican was the top recipient, the state's Democrats outdid the GOP, accounting for about $600,000 of the $1 million raised here.
Big money came from the technology companies -- at least $65,000 -- and area law firms -- about $135,000.
Trial lawyers, some of the Democrats' richest partisans, strongly backed Edwards in 2004 but are more divided this time around. Even so, in Washington Edwards raised at least $75,000 from law firms.
Obama, meanwhile, drew half the contributions made by tech workers, including donations from RealNetworks Inc. CEO Rob Glaser and Zillow.com President Lloyd Frink.
While many in the Republican establishment -- led by former Sen. Slade Gorton -- are backing Arizona Sen. John McCain, his total fundraising was about $72,000. Those supporters include some heavyweights, such as Gorton and former U.S. Attorney Mike McKay.
Still, many of the area's most prominent political names are missing.
Some, such as Democratic megadonor and environmental leader Maryanne Tagney-Jones, have made up their minds but are waiting for a strategic moment to write that big $2,000 or $4,000 check.
Tagney-Jones is involved in planning for a major fundraising event to benefit Clinton, who has so far collected less than $100,000 in the state. In the past, Clinton has been a tireless fundraiser in Washington, so many of her supporters could be biding their time.
"I was waiting to (donate) when we did this fundraiser," said Tagney-Jones, whose husband, Bruce Jones, is a major donor to Democrats. "We will obviously be maxing out to the campaign."
One of those who did give to Clinton was Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who contributed $4,600, the legal maximum for the 2008 elections.
Ken Alhadeff, real estate mogul and major donor to Democrats, says he hasn't made up his mind whom he will support but is optimistic about all the candidates. "I think what the last couple years have shown us is that given the right circumstances, anyone can win."
Patricia Herbold, U.S. ambassador to Singapore and the former chairwoman of the King County Republican Party, hasn't yet contributed. Neither has her husband, Bob Herbold, Microsoft Corp.'s former chief operating officer.
Each person can give up to $2,300 to a candidate's bid for the nomination and another $2,300 that could be used if the candidate wins the nomination.
The leading candidates from both parties have announced that they will not be seeking federal matching funds during the primary and have begun raising money to replace public financing for the general election.
That allows the candidates to raise and spend much more and ignore other constraints that come with participating in the public financing system, a cornerstone of post-Watergate reforms to the nation's campaign finance laws.
HOW THEY RANK
Presidential candidates raising $10,000 or more in the state January-March 2007. The total includes money that can be spent for the primaries and the general election.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.: $273,300 of $20.7 million total
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.: $250,175 of $14 million total
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: $223,544 of $25.7 million total
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.: $91,255 of $26 million total
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: $72,266 of $13 million total
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.: $37,710 of $6.2 million total
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.: $34,900 of $4 million total
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y.: $30,000 of $14.7 million total
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.: $11,500 of $2.1 million total
Sen. Clinton credited the struggles in Selma and the 1965 Voting Rights Act that resulted with providing new opportunities for women and Hispanics as
By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer
NEW YORK Mar 4, 2007 (AP)— Two months before the 1992 presidential election, an NBC reporter cornered a man to ask whether he preferred Bill Clinton or President Bush.
The man said he didn't care. He just wanted them off his TV screen.
Imagine how he'd feel today?
The 2008 campaign is already playing out so intensely that it dominates airtime at a point where only political junkies usually pay attention. Remember: it's 20 months before voters will make the ultimate decision.
This is uncharted territory for people in both politics and television, who wonder when campaign fatigue will set in. Many Americans may be sick of seeing their next president before he or she even takes the oath of office.
In one measure of news interest, campaign stories have consumed 95 minutes of attention this year through Feb. 27 on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts. That's more time than in the comparable periods for the previous four presidential election cycles combined, according to the Tyndall Report.
Presidential politics was so far off the radar in January and February 1991 that the three newscasts together spent less than a minute on the upcoming campaign.
The study doesn't even take into account time chewed up by the cable TV networks, with their gaping 24-hour news holes. CNN was around in 1991, but Fox News Channel and MSNBC didn't exist. Neither did "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.
"It used to be that campaigning was the interval between governing," said Bob Schieffer, host of CBS' "Face the Nation." "Now governing is the interval between campaigning."
Behind Iraq, the 2008 campaign is the top news story of 2007. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which compiles a weekly news index taking broadcast and cable TV, newspapers and the Internet into account, said the campaign was the top story the week of Feb. 18-23. The biggest development then was Hollywood mogul David Geffen taking shots at Hillary Clinton, and the campaigns of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama sniping at each other in response. The story is likely to be forgotten in two months, let alone 20.
Continue at source
NEW YORK Mar 4, 2007 (AP)— Two months before the 1992 presidential election, an NBC reporter cornered a man to ask whether he preferred Bill Clinton or President Bush.
The man said he didn't care. He just wanted them off his TV screen.
Imagine how he'd feel today?
The 2008 campaign is already playing out so intensely that it dominates airtime at a point where only political junkies usually pay attention. Remember: it's 20 months before voters will make the ultimate decision.
This is uncharted territory for people in both politics and television, who wonder when campaign fatigue will set in. Many Americans may be sick of seeing their next president before he or she even takes the oath of office.
In one measure of news interest, campaign stories have consumed 95 minutes of attention this year through Feb. 27 on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts. That's more time than in the comparable periods for the previous four presidential election cycles combined, according to the Tyndall Report.
Presidential politics was so far off the radar in January and February 1991 that the three newscasts together spent less than a minute on the upcoming campaign.
The study doesn't even take into account time chewed up by the cable TV networks, with their gaping 24-hour news holes. CNN was around in 1991, but Fox News Channel and MSNBC didn't exist. Neither did "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.
"It used to be that campaigning was the interval between governing," said Bob Schieffer, host of CBS' "Face the Nation." "Now governing is the interval between campaigning."
Behind Iraq, the 2008 campaign is the top news story of 2007. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which compiles a weekly news index taking broadcast and cable TV, newspapers and the Internet into account, said the campaign was the top story the week of Feb. 18-23. The biggest development then was Hollywood mogul David Geffen taking shots at Hillary Clinton, and the campaigns of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama sniping at each other in response. The story is likely to be forgotten in two months, let alone 20.
Continue at source
Obama and Clinton vie for black vote
SELMA, Ala. – At a church that served as starting point for a historic civil rights march, Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday positioned his presidential campaign as a part of the long struggle for African-American political representation.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat, declared himself part of a new cohort of black political leaders that he called "the Joshua Generation." It was Joshua, the Biblical successor to Moses, who led the Jewish people to the Promised Land after Moses delivered them from slavery in Egypt. Surrounded on the altar by several veterans of the 1960s freedom marches, some of whom were beaten and bloodied for the cause, Obama said: "We are in the presence today of a lot of Moseses...of giants whose shoulders we stand on."
But Obama was not alone in staking a claim to hearts of African-American voters in the presidential campaign of 2008. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York addressed an audience at a church nearby, and she was joined here by her husband, former President Bill Clinton – the couple making their first joint campaign appearance since the senator declared her candidacy for the presidency.
Sen. Clinton credited the struggles in Selma and the 1965 Voting Rights Act that resulted with providing new opportunities for women and Hispanics as well as for African Americans – calling the Voting Rights Act "the gift that keeps on giving… It is giving Senator Obama a chance to run for president, (New Mexico Democratic Gov.) Bill Richardson, a Hispanic, a chance to run, and it is giving me a chance," Clinton said. "I know where my chance came from, and I am grateful."
Overflow crowds filled both churches. But even larger crowds followed the former president helping lead a re-enactment of the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma that led to the landmark federal legislation guaranteeing minorities the right to vote.
While Obama did not explicitly claim for himself the role of Joshua, that was clearly the implication, coming at the beginning of a campaign to be elected the nation's highest leader. Obama said here: "We've got to remember now that Joshua still has a job to do.''
Obama and Clinton both spoke at a jubilee celebration marking the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the march for voting rights that baton-wielding state troopers stopped at Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. At the time, Alabama and most other Southern states effectively denied blacks the right to vote through discriminatory application of literacy tests, poll taxes and other measures.
Public horror at the images of ferocious police beatings of non-violent marchers led President Lyndon Johnson to propose the Voting Rights Act, which ushered in black political power in the South.
Obama spoke at a service at Brown Chapel AME Church, where the marchers prayed before crossing the bridge. He was joined by Rep. John Lewis (R-Ga.), one of the marchers who was beaten on the bridge, and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a lieutenant to the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Some commentators have argued that Obama's life story – he is the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya who was raised by white grandparents in Hawaii -- gives him a different experience than most American blacks. But he asserted that his ancestors in colonial Africa suffered many of the same humiliations as blacks in the Jim Crow-era South, noting his African grandfather was a houseboy whom even in old age his British employers addressed by his first name, rather than his last.
"Sound familiar?" Obama said, rousing a chorus of affirmations.
He offered his life story as a legacy of the civil rights movement, asserting formative events in his life as touchstones of the movement's achievements: Election to high office, the opportunity to study at prestigious Ivy League universities, and even his birth of a mixed-race marriage.
"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born," Obama said. "So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala..
Obama was born in 1961, four years before the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. But spokesman Bill Burton said Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."
As both Obama and Clinton court the African-American vote, one of the most important constituencies of the Democratic Party, loyalties are divided.
"We love the Clintons, but it's a brand new day," said Freddie Gholston, 55, of Trinity, Ala., who attends the "Bridge Crossing Jubilee" every year. "It's really possible for Obama to become president."
Althea Roy, 67, a lifelong resident of Selma, said of Clinton: "I think she would be good for our people. Her husband was."
Clinton spoke at the First Baptist Church, just two blocks from the Brown Chapel. During voting rights demonstrations in the early 1960s, the Baptist church often served as a meeting place for King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference organizers. After King's assassination, Lowery led the group.
Clinton, drawing upon biblical scriptures and the sermons of King, added that after all the "hard work getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes, we've got to stay awake because we've got a march to continue." To shouts of approval and applause, she added: "How can we rest while poverty and inequality continue to rise? We all know we have to finish the march. That is the call to our generation."
Following the church services, Clinton and Obama appeared together outside the Brown Chapel for a rally that kicked off the march from the church over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They praised each other.
"It is excellent that we have a candidate like Barack Obama who embodies what all of you fought for here 42 years ago," Sen. Clinton said. Clinton is "doing an excellent job for this country, and we're going to be marching arm-in-arm," Obama said of his Senate colleague.
When the commemorative march began, Obama linked arms with Lowery, who had led the Selma-to-Montgomery march at the request of King. Clinton joined arms with her husband.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat, declared himself part of a new cohort of black political leaders that he called "the Joshua Generation." It was Joshua, the Biblical successor to Moses, who led the Jewish people to the Promised Land after Moses delivered them from slavery in Egypt. Surrounded on the altar by several veterans of the 1960s freedom marches, some of whom were beaten and bloodied for the cause, Obama said: "We are in the presence today of a lot of Moseses...of giants whose shoulders we stand on."
But Obama was not alone in staking a claim to hearts of African-American voters in the presidential campaign of 2008. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York addressed an audience at a church nearby, and she was joined here by her husband, former President Bill Clinton – the couple making their first joint campaign appearance since the senator declared her candidacy for the presidency.
Sen. Clinton credited the struggles in Selma and the 1965 Voting Rights Act that resulted with providing new opportunities for women and Hispanics as well as for African Americans – calling the Voting Rights Act "the gift that keeps on giving… It is giving Senator Obama a chance to run for president, (New Mexico Democratic Gov.) Bill Richardson, a Hispanic, a chance to run, and it is giving me a chance," Clinton said. "I know where my chance came from, and I am grateful."
Overflow crowds filled both churches. But even larger crowds followed the former president helping lead a re-enactment of the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma that led to the landmark federal legislation guaranteeing minorities the right to vote.
While Obama did not explicitly claim for himself the role of Joshua, that was clearly the implication, coming at the beginning of a campaign to be elected the nation's highest leader. Obama said here: "We've got to remember now that Joshua still has a job to do.''
Obama and Clinton both spoke at a jubilee celebration marking the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the march for voting rights that baton-wielding state troopers stopped at Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. At the time, Alabama and most other Southern states effectively denied blacks the right to vote through discriminatory application of literacy tests, poll taxes and other measures.
Public horror at the images of ferocious police beatings of non-violent marchers led President Lyndon Johnson to propose the Voting Rights Act, which ushered in black political power in the South.
Obama spoke at a service at Brown Chapel AME Church, where the marchers prayed before crossing the bridge. He was joined by Rep. John Lewis (R-Ga.), one of the marchers who was beaten on the bridge, and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a lieutenant to the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Some commentators have argued that Obama's life story – he is the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya who was raised by white grandparents in Hawaii -- gives him a different experience than most American blacks. But he asserted that his ancestors in colonial Africa suffered many of the same humiliations as blacks in the Jim Crow-era South, noting his African grandfather was a houseboy whom even in old age his British employers addressed by his first name, rather than his last.
"Sound familiar?" Obama said, rousing a chorus of affirmations.
He offered his life story as a legacy of the civil rights movement, asserting formative events in his life as touchstones of the movement's achievements: Election to high office, the opportunity to study at prestigious Ivy League universities, and even his birth of a mixed-race marriage.
"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born," Obama said. "So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala..
Obama was born in 1961, four years before the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. But spokesman Bill Burton said Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."
As both Obama and Clinton court the African-American vote, one of the most important constituencies of the Democratic Party, loyalties are divided.
"We love the Clintons, but it's a brand new day," said Freddie Gholston, 55, of Trinity, Ala., who attends the "Bridge Crossing Jubilee" every year. "It's really possible for Obama to become president."
Althea Roy, 67, a lifelong resident of Selma, said of Clinton: "I think she would be good for our people. Her husband was."
Clinton spoke at the First Baptist Church, just two blocks from the Brown Chapel. During voting rights demonstrations in the early 1960s, the Baptist church often served as a meeting place for King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference organizers. After King's assassination, Lowery led the group.
Clinton, drawing upon biblical scriptures and the sermons of King, added that after all the "hard work getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes, we've got to stay awake because we've got a march to continue." To shouts of approval and applause, she added: "How can we rest while poverty and inequality continue to rise? We all know we have to finish the march. That is the call to our generation."
Following the church services, Clinton and Obama appeared together outside the Brown Chapel for a rally that kicked off the march from the church over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They praised each other.
"It is excellent that we have a candidate like Barack Obama who embodies what all of you fought for here 42 years ago," Sen. Clinton said. Clinton is "doing an excellent job for this country, and we're going to be marching arm-in-arm," Obama said of his Senate colleague.
When the commemorative march began, Obama linked arms with Lowery, who had led the Selma-to-Montgomery march at the request of King. Clinton joined arms with her husband.
FACTBOX: Likely U.S. presidential candidates in 2008
(Reuters) - Here are the declared U.S. presidential candidates for the Republican and Democratic Party nominations for the 2008 election.
In alphabetical order:
DEMOCRATS:
Announced candidates:
Joseph Biden, U.S. senator from Delaware and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. senator from New York and former first lady.
Chris Dodd, U.S. senator from Connecticut.
John Edwards, former U.S. senator from North Carolina and the vice presidential nominee in 2004.
Mike Gravel, former U.S. senator from Alaska
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. representative from Ohio and 2004 presidential candidate.
Barack Obama, U.S. senator from Illinois.
Bill Richardson, New Mexico governor.
Declared candidates who dropped out:
Evan Bayh, U.S. senator from Indiana.
Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor.
REPUBLICANS:
Announced candidates:
Sam Brownback, U.S. senator from Kansas.
James Gilmore, former Virginia governor.
Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor.
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor.
Duncan Hunter, U.S. representative from California.
John McCain, U.S. senator from Arizona and 2000 presidential candidate.
Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor.
Tom Tancredo, U.S. representative from Colorado.
Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin governor.
Declared candidates who dropped out:
None
In alphabetical order:
DEMOCRATS:
Announced candidates:
Joseph Biden, U.S. senator from Delaware and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. senator from New York and former first lady.
Chris Dodd, U.S. senator from Connecticut.
John Edwards, former U.S. senator from North Carolina and the vice presidential nominee in 2004.
Mike Gravel, former U.S. senator from Alaska
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. representative from Ohio and 2004 presidential candidate.
Barack Obama, U.S. senator from Illinois.
Bill Richardson, New Mexico governor.
Declared candidates who dropped out:
Evan Bayh, U.S. senator from Indiana.
Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor.
REPUBLICANS:
Announced candidates:
Sam Brownback, U.S. senator from Kansas.
James Gilmore, former Virginia governor.
Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor.
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor.
Duncan Hunter, U.S. representative from California.
John McCain, U.S. senator from Arizona and 2000 presidential candidate.
Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor.
Tom Tancredo, U.S. representative from Colorado.
Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin governor.
Declared candidates who dropped out:
None
McCain to Formally Announce Bid in April
By LIZ SIDOTI
WASHINGTON Feb 28, 2007 (AP)— Republican Sen. John McCain will officially enter the presidential race his second run after a bitter loss to George W. Bush in 2000 with a formal announcement in early April.
The Arizona senator disclosed the timing of the long-expected announcement in a taping for the "Late Show With David Letterman" on CBS for airing Wednesday night.
"I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States," the senator told the talk show host and then added he would give a formal speech to that effect in early April.
There was no doubt that McCain would eventually become a full-fledged White House candidate, and he had been expected to make his candidacy official in the spring.
The 2006 midterm campaign had just ended when McCain took the first formal step toward a presidential run in November. He formed an exploratory committee and gave a speech casting himself as a "common-sense conservative" in the vein of Ronald Reagan who could lead the party back to dominance after a dreadful election season by returning to the GOP's core principles.
A political celebrity, McCain is considered a top contender for the nomination.
However, he faces strong challenges from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has widened his lead over McCain in popularity polls in recent weeks, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is little-known nationally but is drawing notice for his deft fundraising.
The other two have spent the past two months mostly campaigning while McCain largely has been tied to Capitol Hill in his role as the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is focused largely on the unpopular Iraq war.
McCain, a former Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has emerged as the Senate's go-to guy on Iraq. He has become President Bush's most outspoken supporter of sending 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, a position that could endear him to GOP primary voters but anger much of the rest of the electorate.
Continue at Source
WASHINGTON Feb 28, 2007 (AP)— Republican Sen. John McCain will officially enter the presidential race his second run after a bitter loss to George W. Bush in 2000 with a formal announcement in early April.
The Arizona senator disclosed the timing of the long-expected announcement in a taping for the "Late Show With David Letterman" on CBS for airing Wednesday night.
"I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States," the senator told the talk show host and then added he would give a formal speech to that effect in early April.
There was no doubt that McCain would eventually become a full-fledged White House candidate, and he had been expected to make his candidacy official in the spring.
The 2006 midterm campaign had just ended when McCain took the first formal step toward a presidential run in November. He formed an exploratory committee and gave a speech casting himself as a "common-sense conservative" in the vein of Ronald Reagan who could lead the party back to dominance after a dreadful election season by returning to the GOP's core principles.
A political celebrity, McCain is considered a top contender for the nomination.
However, he faces strong challenges from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has widened his lead over McCain in popularity polls in recent weeks, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is little-known nationally but is drawing notice for his deft fundraising.
The other two have spent the past two months mostly campaigning while McCain largely has been tied to Capitol Hill in his role as the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is focused largely on the unpopular Iraq war.
McCain, a former Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has emerged as the Senate's go-to guy on Iraq. He has become President Bush's most outspoken supporter of sending 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, a position that could endear him to GOP primary voters but anger much of the rest of the electorate.
Continue at Source
Hunter's campaign ads may violate campaign laws
MANCHESTER, N.H. – Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter,
a California Congressman, has used his political action committee to run New Hampshire TV ads introducing himself to voters -- in what some
specialists say could be a violation of campaign finance laws.
In the ads, Hunter walks beside a giant wire fence and calls for it
to be extended along hundreds of miles of the US border with Mexico.
Looking into the camera he asks for viewers to "join with me, Duncan
Hunter, at Peace Through Strength. Let's make sure Homeland Security builds the border fence."
At the end of the ad, viewers are encouraged to visit the PAC's
website, peacethroughstrengthpac.com. If viewers to go to the site a page appears asking them to "please visit Duncan Hunter for President 2008" and providing the link to his homepage, a move that implies the PAC's endorsement, another potential violation of federal law.
Campaign-finance laws limit the use of PACs, which have much higher
limits on individual donations than those imposed on presidential
campaigns, to no more than $5,000 in spending on any presidential
candidacy.
But in New Hampshire alone, Hunter's Peace Through Strength PAC made
two separate ad buys on WMUR-TV in Manchester totaling $17,575. Both
purchases were made after Hunter opened his presidential committee, which is supposed to cover the costs of his run for the White House.
"He is in some pretty dangerous [legal] territory," said Jan Witold Baran, a noted campaign law lawyer who served as general counsel to the Republican National Committee and to President George H.W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.
Hunter's campaign spokesman, Roy Tyler, said the PAC-finaned ad is simply an "issue ad" and does not promote Hunter's presidential campaign.
He said the campaign's lawyers approved the decision to run the spot.
"We believe they are just issue ads and as such we can run them where
we want as often as we want," said Tyler, noting that Hunter does not
identify himself as a presidential candidate.
Among those Tyler said he asked was Michelle Kelley, an election
lawyer who serves as the PAC's treasurer. Kelley declined to comment for this story.
Politicians considering presidential races often have used political
action committees to pay for travel to early primary states, hire early staff, and build support by contributing money to people running for state or local offices. But once a candidate forms a presidential committees -- as Hunter has -- he is required to use campaign-committee accounts for all money spent running for office.
The advantage of using a PAC is that donors can contribute up to $5,000 per person a year versus a campaign account where donors are limited to just $2,300 per person per election cycle.
"I don't think [Hunter's use of both committees] is a loophole -- it
might be an outright violation," said Dr. Stephen Weissman, Associate
Director for Policy at the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington.
The Federal Election Commission has the jurisdiction to enforce
violations of campaign law. It fined the 1980 campaign of former President Ronald Reagan for using a political action committee to defray some of its expenses.
Hunter, the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is a self-described "longshot" for the Republican presidential nomination. But campaign-finance specialists said that if he gets away with using PAC money for ads promoting himself then such expenditures will soon become routine, with candidates using PACS to bypass limits on funding presidential campaigns.
"If the FEC doesn't enforce this and do it in an airtight way then
others will surely exploit it," said Ray La Raja, a political science
professor at University of Massachusetts at Amherst who has written
extensively on the issue
a California Congressman, has used his political action committee to run New Hampshire TV ads introducing himself to voters -- in what some
specialists say could be a violation of campaign finance laws.
In the ads, Hunter walks beside a giant wire fence and calls for it
to be extended along hundreds of miles of the US border with Mexico.
Looking into the camera he asks for viewers to "join with me, Duncan
Hunter, at Peace Through Strength. Let's make sure Homeland Security builds the border fence."
At the end of the ad, viewers are encouraged to visit the PAC's
website, peacethroughstrengthpac.com. If viewers to go to the site a page appears asking them to "please visit Duncan Hunter for President 2008" and providing the link to his homepage, a move that implies the PAC's endorsement, another potential violation of federal law.
Campaign-finance laws limit the use of PACs, which have much higher
limits on individual donations than those imposed on presidential
campaigns, to no more than $5,000 in spending on any presidential
candidacy.
But in New Hampshire alone, Hunter's Peace Through Strength PAC made
two separate ad buys on WMUR-TV in Manchester totaling $17,575. Both
purchases were made after Hunter opened his presidential committee, which is supposed to cover the costs of his run for the White House.
"He is in some pretty dangerous [legal] territory," said Jan Witold Baran, a noted campaign law lawyer who served as general counsel to the Republican National Committee and to President George H.W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.
Hunter's campaign spokesman, Roy Tyler, said the PAC-finaned ad is simply an "issue ad" and does not promote Hunter's presidential campaign.
He said the campaign's lawyers approved the decision to run the spot.
"We believe they are just issue ads and as such we can run them where
we want as often as we want," said Tyler, noting that Hunter does not
identify himself as a presidential candidate.
Among those Tyler said he asked was Michelle Kelley, an election
lawyer who serves as the PAC's treasurer. Kelley declined to comment for this story.
Politicians considering presidential races often have used political
action committees to pay for travel to early primary states, hire early staff, and build support by contributing money to people running for state or local offices. But once a candidate forms a presidential committees -- as Hunter has -- he is required to use campaign-committee accounts for all money spent running for office.
The advantage of using a PAC is that donors can contribute up to $5,000 per person a year versus a campaign account where donors are limited to just $2,300 per person per election cycle.
"I don't think [Hunter's use of both committees] is a loophole -- it
might be an outright violation," said Dr. Stephen Weissman, Associate
Director for Policy at the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington.
The Federal Election Commission has the jurisdiction to enforce
violations of campaign law. It fined the 1980 campaign of former President Ronald Reagan for using a political action committee to defray some of its expenses.
Hunter, the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is a self-described "longshot" for the Republican presidential nomination. But campaign-finance specialists said that if he gets away with using PAC money for ads promoting himself then such expenditures will soon become routine, with candidates using PACS to bypass limits on funding presidential campaigns.
"If the FEC doesn't enforce this and do it in an airtight way then
others will surely exploit it," said Ray La Raja, a political science
professor at University of Massachusetts at Amherst who has written
extensively on the issue
GOP Insiders Say 2008 Nomination Is Up For Grabs
U.S. News White House Correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh gives us this item on what senior GOP insiders think of the field of 2008 presidential hopefuls:
Republican insiders are updating their assessment of the strengths and weakness of their presidential front runners. Their verdict: No one has a lock on the nomination and the campaign could last well into next year.
"Rudy Giuliani has had a really good couple of weeks," says a senior GOP strategist with close ties to the White House. The former New York mayor is proving himself a charismatic campaigner, very smart, and fully aware that he needs to address the concerns of conservatives that he is too liberal on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and gun control. His answer: He would appoint conservative judges to the bench, including the Supreme Court, and won't let his liberal views interfere with that overriding objective.
This is proving to be an effective message to conservative activists, the insiders say, but these activists need further reassurance that Giuliani isn't too liberal.
And Giuliani still can't count on winning the Iowa and Nevada caucuses or the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina--the first battlegrounds for the GOP nomination early next year. But if he can hold on until the mega-primaries shortly after that, including those tentatively planned for California, Florida, and other big states where his social views are more popular, he can reinforce his charisma with a barrage of TV ads and could go on to win the nomination.
John McCain, who trails Giuliani in some national polls, is still mistrusted in conservative circles for breaking with conservative orthodoxy on tax increases, campaign reform, and other issues. But he still benefits from a strong following among moderates and independents, and he seems to be more energetic and enthusiastic on the campaign trail than he was a few weeks ago. This is easing the concerns of some who had wondered if, at age 70, he was losing some of his fire.
Conservatives are also impressed by McCain's support of President Bush's surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, which remains popular among many Republicans. This is reminding Republican voters of McCain's reputation as a principled leader who sticks to his guns despite adversity and someone who would be a strong general-election candidate.
Mitt Romney is doing well on the road but remains a questionable commodity among conservatives because he has changed his views on abortion and gay rights. Many GOP insiders think an image of flip-flopping would be devastating in the general-election campaign, as it was for Democrat John Kerry in 2004.
"It's wide open but no one has broken away from the pack, and it's doubtful that anyone will until early next year," says a prominent GOP strategist.
Republican insiders are updating their assessment of the strengths and weakness of their presidential front runners. Their verdict: No one has a lock on the nomination and the campaign could last well into next year.
"Rudy Giuliani has had a really good couple of weeks," says a senior GOP strategist with close ties to the White House. The former New York mayor is proving himself a charismatic campaigner, very smart, and fully aware that he needs to address the concerns of conservatives that he is too liberal on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and gun control. His answer: He would appoint conservative judges to the bench, including the Supreme Court, and won't let his liberal views interfere with that overriding objective.
This is proving to be an effective message to conservative activists, the insiders say, but these activists need further reassurance that Giuliani isn't too liberal.
And Giuliani still can't count on winning the Iowa and Nevada caucuses or the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina--the first battlegrounds for the GOP nomination early next year. But if he can hold on until the mega-primaries shortly after that, including those tentatively planned for California, Florida, and other big states where his social views are more popular, he can reinforce his charisma with a barrage of TV ads and could go on to win the nomination.
John McCain, who trails Giuliani in some national polls, is still mistrusted in conservative circles for breaking with conservative orthodoxy on tax increases, campaign reform, and other issues. But he still benefits from a strong following among moderates and independents, and he seems to be more energetic and enthusiastic on the campaign trail than he was a few weeks ago. This is easing the concerns of some who had wondered if, at age 70, he was losing some of his fire.
Conservatives are also impressed by McCain's support of President Bush's surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, which remains popular among many Republicans. This is reminding Republican voters of McCain's reputation as a principled leader who sticks to his guns despite adversity and someone who would be a strong general-election candidate.
Mitt Romney is doing well on the road but remains a questionable commodity among conservatives because he has changed his views on abortion and gay rights. Many GOP insiders think an image of flip-flopping would be devastating in the general-election campaign, as it was for Democrat John Kerry in 2004.
"It's wide open but no one has broken away from the pack, and it's doubtful that anyone will until early next year," says a prominent GOP strategist.
The political power of the network
Online campaigns and e-petitions are only the beginning of what the net can do to politics, argues Bill Thompson.
Over the last few weeks we have seen many candidates for the US Presidency launch campaigns to seek nomination by their respective parties, and all have used the internet to get the message out.
Hillary Clinton actually launched her campaign on her website, while Barack Obama has been pushing himself to the bloggers.
On the Republican side John McCain seeks to prove his own credentials with a somewhat stilted video outlining his position, and he too will be working hard to ensure that he speaks directly to the wired world.
Sites like Prezvid have been set up to keep a keen eye on what's going on, and commentators are already claiming that the activities of YouTube activists, blogging pundits and citizen journalists will be as significant to the outcome as editorials in the New York Times or commentary on Fox News.
And throughout the process the word "conversation" has been bandied around with gay abandon by candidates seeking to hitch themselves to the bandwagon of conversational media, despite the fact that serious political campaigning is as much about proselytising and arguing as it about gentle discussions via video conference.
Yet whatever its faults, the whole thing is generally seen as an exercise in democracy, as one aspect of the democratising influence of the internet on the political system.
Here in the UK the Downing Street e-petition service, developed by the mavens of social change at mySociety, has attracted widespread publicity after nearly two million people signed a call to abandon plans for road pricing.
Novel way
The petitioners, all of whom received an e-mail from the Prime Minister, have certainly engaged with the political system in a novel way, but as with electronic voting there are questions to be asked about the value of making something easier.
The effort of going to a polling station and marking a piece of paper is, to me at least, a valuable part of the whole process, and I wonder whether signing a petition electronically has the same weight as being stopped in the street to scrawl on a badly-printed sheet of A4.
Yet despite these reservations it is reassuring to see the network having an impact on the level of political engagement, and if getting an e-mail from Tony Blair encourages people to become more interested, more active and more involved then this is a wholly good thing.
However I am not sure that online campaigns and online petitions justify the claims that the internet is revitalising democracy either here or in the US or in any other country where online activism and e-government are coming together.
Encouraged debate
The network, and the tools and services it supports, have certainly encouraged debate and discussion. Websites have cast light on political funding and how it distorts the exercise of power, and social network sites have encouraged citizen action of many different forms.
Thanks to the internet we have, in some places and some areas, a more open political system, but there is a fundamental difference between openness and democracy.
Democracy is a political system, and as such it is concerned with the exercise of power. While open debate is generally recognised as being one of the building blocks of an effective democracy it is, as the philosophers put it, a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Free speech
Free speech does not, of itself, build a democracy and having held a consultation does not give a democratic mandate to the holders of office.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, especially the sort of representative democracy that has evolved in this country as we seek to combine elements of an autocratic monarchy with an elected legislature, is about far more than openness.
In the media openness to different points of view may be desirable but does not amount to democratisation. Power in the media still lies with editors and proprietors, just as power in the British political system still lies with the government.
So although we should welcome openness and interaction we have to hope that new technologies will lead to changes in the distribution of power and not merely superficial changes to political practice, just as access to the network and mobile phones are starting to change business, education and forms of social engagement.
The emergence of online candidacies, and the success of e-petitions, are far from being the end of the process. They mark, at best, the point where we can finally see that the earthquake is beginning, where the early tremors are starting to shake some buildings but the real shock is yet to be felt.
Over the last few weeks we have seen many candidates for the US Presidency launch campaigns to seek nomination by their respective parties, and all have used the internet to get the message out.
Hillary Clinton actually launched her campaign on her website, while Barack Obama has been pushing himself to the bloggers.
On the Republican side John McCain seeks to prove his own credentials with a somewhat stilted video outlining his position, and he too will be working hard to ensure that he speaks directly to the wired world.
Sites like Prezvid have been set up to keep a keen eye on what's going on, and commentators are already claiming that the activities of YouTube activists, blogging pundits and citizen journalists will be as significant to the outcome as editorials in the New York Times or commentary on Fox News.
And throughout the process the word "conversation" has been bandied around with gay abandon by candidates seeking to hitch themselves to the bandwagon of conversational media, despite the fact that serious political campaigning is as much about proselytising and arguing as it about gentle discussions via video conference.
Yet whatever its faults, the whole thing is generally seen as an exercise in democracy, as one aspect of the democratising influence of the internet on the political system.
Here in the UK the Downing Street e-petition service, developed by the mavens of social change at mySociety, has attracted widespread publicity after nearly two million people signed a call to abandon plans for road pricing.
Novel way
The petitioners, all of whom received an e-mail from the Prime Minister, have certainly engaged with the political system in a novel way, but as with electronic voting there are questions to be asked about the value of making something easier.
The effort of going to a polling station and marking a piece of paper is, to me at least, a valuable part of the whole process, and I wonder whether signing a petition electronically has the same weight as being stopped in the street to scrawl on a badly-printed sheet of A4.
Yet despite these reservations it is reassuring to see the network having an impact on the level of political engagement, and if getting an e-mail from Tony Blair encourages people to become more interested, more active and more involved then this is a wholly good thing.
However I am not sure that online campaigns and online petitions justify the claims that the internet is revitalising democracy either here or in the US or in any other country where online activism and e-government are coming together.
Encouraged debate
The network, and the tools and services it supports, have certainly encouraged debate and discussion. Websites have cast light on political funding and how it distorts the exercise of power, and social network sites have encouraged citizen action of many different forms.
Thanks to the internet we have, in some places and some areas, a more open political system, but there is a fundamental difference between openness and democracy.
Democracy is a political system, and as such it is concerned with the exercise of power. While open debate is generally recognised as being one of the building blocks of an effective democracy it is, as the philosophers put it, a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Free speech
Free speech does not, of itself, build a democracy and having held a consultation does not give a democratic mandate to the holders of office.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, especially the sort of representative democracy that has evolved in this country as we seek to combine elements of an autocratic monarchy with an elected legislature, is about far more than openness.
In the media openness to different points of view may be desirable but does not amount to democratisation. Power in the media still lies with editors and proprietors, just as power in the British political system still lies with the government.
So although we should welcome openness and interaction we have to hope that new technologies will lead to changes in the distribution of power and not merely superficial changes to political practice, just as access to the network and mobile phones are starting to change business, education and forms of social engagement.
The emergence of online candidacies, and the success of e-petitions, are far from being the end of the process. They mark, at best, the point where we can finally see that the earthquake is beginning, where the early tremors are starting to shake some buildings but the real shock is yet to be felt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)