SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (11315)10/8/2003 7:13:10 AM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793868
 
Clark May Have Broken Law in Paid Speeches

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8, 2003; Page A06

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark may have violated federal election laws by discussing his presidential campaign during recent paid appearances, according to campaign finance experts.

Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17. Under the laws governing the financing of presidential campaigns, candidates cannot be paid by corporations, labor unions, individuals or even universities for campaign-related events. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) considers such paid political appearances akin to a financial contribution to a candidate.

Clark is getting paid as much as $30,000 for speeches, according to people familiar with his arrangement. He has two more scheduled for next week.

Clark, like any other candidate, would likely be permitted to deliver the paid speeches only if they did not "expressly" cover his campaign or his political opponents, the experts said.

But in his speeches, Clark has talked about his campaign positions and criticized President Bush's policies. At DePauw, during a question-and-answer session after the speech, Clark "absolutely" covered his political views on everything from education to the economy, said Ken Bode, a visiting professor of journalism who moderated the session.

Larry Noble, a former FEC general counsel who heads the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said Clark's speeches are "problematic" because "the insertion of campaign-related items into his speech can turn it into a campaign speech." If so, the paid appearances would amount to "illegal contributions," Noble said.

"If somebody is going to get involved in a presidential campaign, they need to know the rules," Noble said.

William Oldaker, Clark's general counsel, said the retired general did not run afoul of FEC laws because Clark "is not attempting through those speeches to specifically . . . influence his election."

Oldaker said Clark only "incidentally" mentioned his candidacy in the speeches, and, therefore, the purpose of his appearances had nothing to do with his presidential campaign.

But Don Simon of Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog group, said, "It's potentially a real problem if he used these speeches in any way to even refer to his campaign." Simon said the FEC should investigate whether Clark crossed the line by talking too much about his campaign, even if that wasn't the candidate's intent. Simon said the FEC would look at the "totality" of Clark's appearances to determine if he violated any laws.

Clark has been paid for speeches at DePauw, the University of Iowa and Midwestern State University. If the FEC reviews the matter, it would look at how much of each appearance was campaign-related, according to Noble and Simon.

Clark's appearance on Sept. 23 at DePauw appears most problematic for the candidate.

Throughout his speech to the DePauw audience, some of whom waved "Draft Clark" signs they were handed on the way in, Clark blasted Bush's Iraq policy and outlined how he would handle foreign affairs differently. During the Q&A that followed, Clark talked in detail about his qualifications and ideas for the presidency.

Ken Gross, the former head of enforcement at the FEC, said most candidates "shut down speaking" because "it just creates too many problems for them." In 1999, Republican Elizabeth Dole, who was exploring a run for the presidency but was not officially a candidate, came under fire for allowing corporations to pay for her speeches. At the time, her spokesman said Dole would quit delivering paid speeches once she was officially running. Clark is officially running.

Gross said Clark would "be open to investigation," but it is not clear what the FEC would do because there is "no entirely bright line" that indicates when a paid appearance becomes a political one.

The FEC dealt with a similar case in 1992, when Republican candidate David Duke requested permission to allow Vanderbilt University to pay him an honorarium and cover his travel expenses for a speech on affirmative action.

In an advisory opinion, which reflects the view of the FEC at the time, the commission said if Duke discussed his campaign or the "qualifications of another presidential candidate, either during the speech or during any question and answer period [it] will change the character of the appearance to one that is for the purpose of influencing a federal election."

Brad Litchfield, who helped draft the 1992 FEC advisory opinion as head of that department, is now working for the Clark campaign.

washingtonpost.com



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (11315)10/8/2003 7:14:45 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793868
 
I expect to post a lot more about the LA Times in the coming days. I agree with this strategy by Rove.
__________________________________________
latimes.com


THE NATION

Bush Campaign to Keep Its War Chest Lid Closed
Early reelection ad spending is ruled out in favor of focusing on fund-raising, waiting for Democratic nominee.
By Edwin Chen
LA Times Staff Writer

October 8, 2003

WASHINGTON — By the time President Bush ends an address to the Republican Party's annual black-tie, fund-raiser gala here tonight, the GOP expects to be $10 million richer, thanks in part to an unprecedented number of $2,000-per-head donors, including many first-time contributors.

And as the Republican campaign coffers swell, so does the suspense over how, and when, Bush and his party intend to spend the tens of millions of dollars they are amassing for the 2004 elections.

This much is certain: After considerable internal debate, the Bush-Cheney campaign has decided to sit tight, at least for now, on the roughly $80 million it has raised — and press toward its stated donation goal of $170 million to $200 million while waiting for a Democratic presidential nominee to emerge early next year. Karl Rove, the president's top political tactician, acknowledged Tuesday that campaign strategists have recently discussed when to launch Bush ads. But he insisted those talks were not inspired by the drop in Bush's job-approval ratings — a decline sparking speculation that advertisements touting the president could soon surface.

"We have discussed an appropriate point [to launch political ads], but the idea of doing that now is just totally not true," Rove said.

Some independent analysts said Tuesday that while a case could be made for the Bush campaign to launch a round of positive advertising, the arguments for holding fire seemed more persuasive.

An early advertising blitz would likely erode the above-the-fray aura that Bush is cultivating — even as he travels around the country in a march toward a fund-raising record for a presidential campaign. He holds the current record, having raised $101 million in 2000.

Stuart Rothenberg, a Washington-based political analyst, said it is unlikely many voters would pay much attention to a spate of pro-Bush ads. "Right now, people are focusing on the [baseball playoffs], Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas."

Rothenberg noted that as president, Bush "can dictate the nature of the public discourse — on the economy, on Iraq and on the direction of the nation," without relying on paid political messages.

He said early advertising would "make every Bush decision seem like a political decision and make it hard [for the White House] to keep a straight face that they're not in a campaign mode."

The Bush-Cheney reelection campaign is eschewing federal matching funds for the primary campaign, thereby allowing it to avoid the spending limits that come with accepting such public funds. But the campaign intends to accept federal funds during the general election campaign.

If it continues to husband its growing campaign treasury, the Bush-Cheney ticket would be able to let loose a barrage of ads early next year that could go largely unanswered for several months once the winner of the Democratic race emerges. Given that schedule of primaries, the Democratic race is expected to be decided by early March.

In the 1996 campaign, President Clinton employed a similar tactic with great success. Early in the year, his campaign launched an extensive advertising campaign and kept it up after then-Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas emerged as the GOP presidential pick.

By then, Dole's campaign was virtually penniless as a result of the spending to win the GOP primary fight. He had to wait until he was officially nominated in August, before he had access to federal funds to fight back. The eventual Democratic nominee next year may well end up in similar straits. The 2004 Democratic National Convention is scheduled for the end of July.

Last month, Bush-Cheney operatives spent time with Dole's strategists to review their 1996 experience. Ultimately, according to one source, the Bush aides "decided to hold the line" on beginning ads now.

"My sense is, the Bush guys have too much pride. Going on the air this early would amount to an admission of failure," he said.

In a series of recent polls, the president's job-approval rating has fallen to its level before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush's response to the attacks sent his ratings soaring.

A New York Times/CBS poll Friday reported that by a majority of 56% to 37%, the public was uneasy about his economic agenda and that support for his foreign policy was now virtually split, with 45% disapproving and 44% in favor.

The 2004 election cycle is the first to take place under the new campaign finance reform legislation, which outlawed unlimited "soft money" contributions that came mainly from organizations and corporations, while doubling the limit on individual contributions to $2,000.

One result is that tonight's Republican National Committee gala will rake in less than one-third of the amount raised at the same event a year ago. Still, there is no shortage of campaign dollars gushing into the system despite the reform legislation.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, for instance, says it has raised $16 million so far this year, including a 60% increase in contributions from individuals.

Its GOP counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $21 million in the same period.

In the House, the National Republican Campaign Congressional Committee has raised $56 million; and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has collected $20 million.

The RNC has raised $76.6 million to date, thanks in part to more than 1 million first-time contributors; The DNC has raised $30 million so far this year.

In addition, "backdoor committees" are funneling millions of dollars into various campaigns by claiming a tax-exempt status to avoid regulation by state or federal election authorities, according to critics.