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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46663)10/22/2010 2:41:29 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Despite tea party energy, outside groups funded by Swift Boaters, other old hands

By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 22, 2010; 1:25 PM
washingtonpost.com


The Swift Boaters are back.

Funders of the stealth campaign against presidential candidate John Kerry have returned in force six years later, giving millions of dollars to independent groups targeting Democrats in the November midterms, according to election disclosures and other records.

The donations are part of a broader pattern of giving this year dominated by longtime party fundraisers, Wall Street financiers and energy tycoons. Despite the burst of new political energy surrounding the tea party movement, only a thin slice of the population is donating, with the number of Americans giving $200 or more dropping dramatically.

Records suggest that much of the money fueling a wave of negative attack advertising comes from a stable of old political hands with roots going back as far as the Nixon era.

American Crossroads, one of this year's biggest Republican-friendly spenders, has received 42 percent of its money from a dozen supporters of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the independent group that ran ads in 2004 accusing Kerry of lying about his war record, according to a Washington Post analysis. The single biggest contributor to the group, with $7 million, is Bob J. Perry, the Texas home builder who was the top Swift Boat financier.

Perry and other Swift Boaters have given millions more to other prominent conservative groups as well, including the Republican Governors Association and the First Amendment Alliance, an independent group funded primarily by energy executives from Texas and Colorado.

On the left, a "super PAC" called America's Families First has reported contributions of $25,000 or more from wealthy Democratic donors including party fundraiser Fred Eyechaner, Barack Obama bundler Orin Kramer and Silicon Valley banker Sanford Robertson, records show. Others Democratic-friendly groups such as the Patriot Majority PAC rely heavily on large union transfers for their funding.

But the pattern of outsized giving is far more noticeable this year among independent conservative groups, which have drawn on a deep bench of Republican rainmakers while many of their liberal rivals are sitting out this election. Past GOP powerbrokers spending big again this year include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson; energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens; media mogul Philip Anschutz; and George W. Bush bundler Robert Rowling, records show.

These and other donors, who are revealed in disclosure documents filed with the Federal Election Commission or Internal Revenue Service, are only part of the fundraising picture. Much of the outside funding this year is going to large unions such as AFSCME, and nonprofit groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which are not required to publicly disclose many of their contributions.

The rise in monied donors comes amid a significant drop in contributions among the broader electorate, experts say. In 2008, propelled by the presidential race, more than 1.3 million Americans contributed $200 or more to a political campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; this year that number has been cut in half.

"The reality is that American elections are financed by a very small number of people," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch, which favors public financing for elections. "There aren't that many people who can play at that level or who can engage at that level, which means they have an inordinate amount of power."

Many of the largest independent groups are run or supported by a who's who of Republican operatives, from former Bush aides Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie - who helped launch American Crossroads - to Fred Malek, whose Washington political career stretches back to the Nixon administration. Malek is chairman of the American Action Network, which has spent over $7 million on House and Senate races, and has served as an adviser to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R).

Even Dick Morris, the Clinton-aide-turned-conservative-pundit, has gotten into the act, launching the aptly named Super PAC of America with the goal of raising $20 million. The group announced a $600,000 ad buy against Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) this week.

The tilt of outside giving is notably different than many previous election cycles, including 2004 and 2006, when unaffiliated liberal groups matched or exceeded their Republican-friendly opponents. This year, by contrast, some major Democratic players such as the financier George Soros have largely held back from funding election-related activities.

On the conservative side, well-connected groups with big donors have largely eclipsed the efforts of tea party-affiliated groups such as the Tea Party Express, which has spent only $2 million on election activities this year, much it during the primary season, FEC records show.

Keith Appell, senior vice president at CRC Public Relations of Alexandria, which helped orchestrate the Swift Boat campaign in 2004, said tea party groups have had little luck attracting deep-pocketed donors in part because of their populist roots.

"We have worked with several tea party organizations directly and indirectly, and all of them have been looking for financing of one kind or another," Appell said. "We have not seen any big-money people emerge in those groups. It's more organic than people give it credit for."

GOP consultant Ron Bonjean said the lack of "new money" in this year's elections isn't surprising. "Outside groups usually start with big donors to get them off the ground and then new donors usually follow once they are well established," he said.

American Crossroads has received at least $10 million from Swift Boat group veterans, including Perry; $2 million from investor Harold C. Simmons; and $400,000 from a company run by Ohio billionaire Carl Lindner, according to FEC filings. Overall, $21.5 million of the $24 million reported by the group has come from donors giving $100,000 or more, the data show.

B. Wayne Hughes, the billionaire founder of Public Storage Inc., gave $2.3 million to American Crossroads and sits on the board of the American Action Network, a group spearheaded by former GOP senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Hughes is a longtime GOP donor who contributed to Progress for America, which worked on behalf of Bush and other Republicans in 2004 and 2006.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads and its sister group, Crossroads GPS, which does not disclose donors, said focusing on the largest contributors obscures a rush of money from small- and medium-range donors. He said the Crossroads groups have taken in numerous unsolicited contributions from Midwestern businessmen and others giving $10,000 or less to the cause.

"A lot of folks are trying to make the case that the big money is artificially driving the intensity, but that gets it precisely backward," Collegio said. "The intensity of the grass-roots movement, starting with the tea parties, is what is driving the bigger contributors."

Other groups are also getting support from donors linked to the Swift Boat group, including the New Prosperity Foundation, which is running advertising to support Republican candidates in the Midwest. Hunter Engineering, a private manufacturing firm, gave $50,000 to the group. The company is run by Steven Bauer, a Swift Boat donor and a former ambassador to Belgium under Bush. Sam Fox, a Bush fundraiser and Swift Boat donor who was also appointed to be ambassador to Belgium by Bush in 2007, gave another $25,000 to New Prosperity, as did investment manager David Herro.

Perry, the owner of Houston-based Perry Homes, is garnering the most attention because of his leading role in giving $4.45 million to the Swift Boat group in 2004. The 77-year-old custom home builder has given at least $30 million to independent conservative groups and candidates over the past decade, including at least $14 million in the 2010 cycle, records show.

One beneficiary this year is New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez, who received $450,000 from Perry and his wife. (The state does not have donation limits.)

In Espanola, N.M., last week, former president Bill Clinton called attention to the Perry donations, describing the Swift Boat campaign as "the most dishonest ads in my lifetime" and suggesting that the Perrys had ulterior motives in supporting Martinez.

"They didn't just say, 'Oh, there's a girl born in Texas, I think I'll send her 800,000 bucks," Clinton said, drastically inflating the amount in his remarks. "I just feel so good that a girl from Texas made good in New Mexico, I think we'll ship 800 grand over there," Clinton added.

Then, wagging his finger, Clinton quipped: "I don't think so!"

Perry, who generally avoids the public spotlight, declined to talk about his political giving this year. "The donations speak for themselves," said Anthony Holm, a Perry spokesman.

Staff writer Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

eggend@washpost.com farnamt@washpost.com



To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46663)11/1/2010 11:46:14 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The ‘big dog’ in campaign spending
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / October 31, 2010

WHAT SPECIAL interest is spending the most money to influence the 2010 election? The answer isn’t the US Chamber of Commerce, notwithstanding President Obama’s recent attacks on the Chamber’s campaign contributions. Nor is it the Karl Rove-backed network of pro-Republican campaign organizations, including American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, that have also been assailed by the White House and the focus of critical media attention.

In reality, the biggest outside spender is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which is pumping almost $88 million into TV commercials, phone banks, and mailings to promote Democratic candidates.

“We’re spending big,’’ AFSCME President Gerald McEntee boasted to The Wall Street Journal. “And we’re damn happy it’s big. And our members are damn happy it’s big — it’s their money.’’

AFSCME isn’t the only public-sector union “spending big’’ to influence the vote on Nov. 2. So is the National Education Association and the Service Employees International Union, respectively the nation’s largest and fastest-growing unions. Together, the three government-employee unions will have spent nearly $172 million campaigning for Democrats in the course of this election cycle. That outstrips by more than $30 million what the Chamber of Commerce and the Rove network combined are pouring into the 2010 campaign.

I have no objection to close media scrutiny when business-linked organizations spend heavily on campaign ads. But it should be a far bigger story when public-employee unions do so. Indeed, it should be cause for concern.

“It’s their money!’’ the president of AFSCME declares, and the heads of the NEA and SEIU would presumably agree, but where does “their money’’ come from? From satisfied customers paying for goods and services they voluntarily purchased? From profits earned by designing safer cars, serving tastier meals, developing cleaner fuels? From investing prudently in the marketplace?

Of course not. Every dollar the government pays its employees is a dollar the government taxes away from somebody else. As it is, public employees generally make more in salary and benefits than employees in the private economy: For Americans working in state and local government jobs, total compensation last year averaged $39.66 per hour — 45 percent more than the private sector average of $27.42. (For federal employees, the advantage is even greater.) Which means that AFSCME and the other public-sector unions are using $172 million that came from taxpayers to elect politicians who will take even more money from taxpayers, in order to further expand the public sector, multiply the number of government employees, and increase their pay and perks.

Campaign contributions from public-sector unions, National Review editor Rich Lowry writes, drive “a perpetual feedback loop of large-scale patronage.’’ Not only don’t the unions deny it, they trumpet it. “We’re the big dog,’’ brags Larry Scanlon, AFSCME’s political director. “The more members coming in, the more dues coming in, the more money we have for politics.’’

Unlike labor unions in the private sector, government unions can reward politicians who give them what they want and punish those who don’t. The United Auto Workers has no say in hiring or firing the president of the Ford Motor Company, but public-sector unions like AFSCME and the NEA can use the political process to help elect the “management’’ that will have to negotiate with them. The unions flex their muscle to push not only for ever-more-lavish wages and benefits (including the exorbitant pensions and health plans that are devouring government budgets), but also for more government hiring and bigger government programs.

The cost of government has soared in tandem with the growth in public-sector unions — and those unions make no bones about their reliance on politics to enlarge their wealth and power. “We elect our bosses, so we’ve got to elect politicians who support us and hold those politicians accountable,’’ AFSCME’s website proclaims. “Our jobs, wages, and working conditions are directly linked to politics.’’ That is exactly the problem.

Public-sector unionism has been unhealthy for American democracy. The power to “elect our bosses’’ has turned government employment into a rigged game — rigged in favor of ravenous government growth and against the private-sector taxpayers who pay for it. AFSCME may be “damn happy’’ at the impact it has on US elections. But the rest of us ought to be alarmed.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

boston.com