Posted on 05/09/2003 11:35:49 AM PDT by Jimbaugh
Democratic duplicity on soft money
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Perkins
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
May 9, 2003
American people know that our current campaign finance system is broken. And, today, a clear majority of the Senate has said that it is time for us to fix it."
– Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle,
D-South Dakota
"[C]ampaign finance reform will end the corrosive influence of special interest money. ..."
– House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
D-San Francisco
Boy, it sure didn't take long for the less-avaricious-than-thou Democrats to reveal their hypocrisy.
For no sooner did a three-judge federal panel strike down several provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban of soft money, before the party of Daschle and Pelosi kicked off a new "soft money" campaign.
Of course, Daschle and Pelosi were among the Democratic leaders who declared soft money – the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals – a particular evil of the campaign finance system.
That is why, supposedly, they supported the ban on such donations, as did the overwhelming majority of their fellow Democrats who voted for McCain-Feingold.
Yet, in the wake of last week's ruling by the judicial panel, which may or may not be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in whole or part, the Dems couldn't wait to reopen the soft money spigot.
The Washington Post reports that the Dems' strategy "involves creating two groups unmistakably aligned with the Democratic Party's long-standing campaign organizations for the House and Senate."
Indeed, House Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat, were headliners at a fund-raiser this week for a new outfit called the New House PAC.
The two House Democratic leaders helped the group raise "hard money," the limited, regulated category of donation that lawmakers can lawfully solicit. But the group plans to ask donors for soft money later this year, according to the Post, and serve as sort of shadow committee for the Democrat Party.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Daschle and Minority Whip Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, are slated to headline a hard money fund-raiser next week for another new group, the Democratic Senate Majority Fund.
The group's literature boasts that it provides a means to funnel soft money through a "critical, and indeed, unique" venture to elect Democrats to the Senate.
The Post informed that the group "intends to operate as the all-but-official stand-in for Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee," which raised and spent millions of dollars in soft money in past years.
The executive director of the new fund-raising group
doesn't even attempt to hide its intentions, as the Post attested. "Can I go to Microsoft," said Marc Farinella, "and say Daschle, Reid and other senators are committed to this organization" and ask the company for soft money? "Yes, I think I can have that conversation."
And Daschle and Reid apparently are fine with such an end run around McCain-Feingold. Despite their professed aversion to soft money.
Such duplicity on campaign finance reform is par for the course for the buckraking Democrats.
While they accuse Republicans of being captive to "special interest money," while they made political hay for themselves by seemingly backing McCain-Feingold, they have done everything they can to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of the law.
And in a party of campaign finance hypocrites, none are bigger than New York Sen. Charles Schumer and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
The New York Post reported last month that Schumer, one of the loudest advocates of campaign finance reform, accepted nearly $50,000 in donations earlier this year from Guardsmark, a private security firm.
The contributions came in the form $1,000, $1,500 and $2,000 checks from Guardsmark employees around the country, all "bundled" together. As a thank you for their generosity, Schumer became a cosponsor of legislation that would give security firms like Guardsmark access to the FBI's criminal database.
Of course, the lawmaker insisted there was no quid pro quo.
Then there's Edwards, the erstwhile trial lawyer, who hopes to be his party's presidential nominee next year. The Justice Department's criminal division is investigating contributions to the Democrat's campaign by employees of a Little Rock law firm (No, not Rose again).
Justice is especially interested in $2,000 contributions the Edwards campaign accepted from four legal assistants at Turner & Associates, a firm specializing in personal injury litigation.
One of those legal assistants, Michelle Abu-Halmeh, told The Washington Post that her boss, Tab Turner, the firm's principal lawyer, promised he would reimburse her for her donation.
Of course, Turner denied, denied, denied that he broke campaign finance law on behalf of fellow trial lawyer Edwards, to whose political committee, New American Optimists, Turner's firm contributed $200,000 in soft money last year.
And the Edwards campaign said it was shocked to learn of the illegal fund raising. And to show how committed it is to "abiding by the highest ethical standards," it returned $10,000 to the clerks and paralegals at Turner & Associates.
Yet questions remain about many of the donations Edwards has not returned. The Hill, a newspaper that covers the doings of Congress, reports that the Democrat's campaign finance documents show a pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.
Indeed, it is hard to believe that so many paralegals – earning an average pre-tax salary of $44,416, according to the Legal Assistant Management Association – have so much extra cash lying around that they are able to cut the Edwards campaign $2,000 checks, the maximum allowed under McCain-Feingold.
It's not quite on a par with the $1,000 checks the Buddhist nuns donated to Al Gore back in 1996. But it's close.
The party of Daschle and Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer, and Schumer and Edwards feigns commitment to McCain-Feingold, to campaign finance reform.
But when the Dems are presented opportunities to demonstrate that commitment, they surreptitiously raise soft money, they accept campaign contributions from interests for whom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.