Democrats Forming Parallel Campaign

[kskiska]

Interest Groups Draw GOP Fire

Wednesday, March 10, 2004; Page A01

Led by veterans of presidential and congressional campaigns, a coalition of Democratic Party interest groups, armed with millions of dollars in soft money, is rapidly constructing an unprecedented political operation designed to supplement the activities of Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign in the effort to defeat President Bush.

The newest visible sign of the coalition's activities will be seen beginning today, when a $5 million advertising campaign begins in 17 battleground states. But behind the scenes, Democratic operatives are moving to set up coordinated national and state-by-state operations that amount to the equivalent of a full presidential campaign, minus the candidate.

The Democratic groups have created five organizations to oversee facets of the campaign: paid advertising; voter identification and turnout; communications, polling, research and rapid response; fundraising; and the coordination of the operations of more than two dozen liberal organizations.

This parallel Democratic campaign, already under legal challenge, grows out of changes in campaign finance laws. Those changes prohibit the national party committees from raising and spending soft money -- large, unregulated contributions -- on behalf of their presidential candidates. The Democrats have taken the expertise they developed in past campaigns and applied it to the new, separate operation. By law, coalition members cannot coordinate with the campaign of Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic candidate.

"Our sense was we needed to have a message up on the air that tells the truth about the Bush record and defends the Democratic position on the issues," said Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily's List and a driving force behind the coordinated effort. "There is no question that Bush has $100 million and Kerry is down to zero. It's very important that there are alternative voices out there talking about the Bush record."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44513-2004Mar9.html

[David Dunham]

1. If these groups are declared illegal, it'll backfire on Kerry.

[David Dunham]

2. I hope they are legal, but if they are not, that'll be bad for Kerry.

[tkmorris]

7. I doubt it

Two reasons really. Number one, there are a number of right-wing organizations doing exactly the same thing and historically those groups do it more than Dems do since, like the Repub party, they raise more funds than we do (corporate).

Number two, people don't like hearing that someone isn't allowed to say something. This is a nuanced issue but most people in the mainstream and rightward see this as a very simple freedom of speech thing. I disagree with them and frankly would like to see most of the money taken out of politics but the other team is fighting dirty and until we beat them we are powerless to change it from the outside. So, we are forced to play by their rules. This is an old game and one the Repubs usually beat the pants off of us in, our recent successes are an anomoly. I doubt the Repubs will do much except low level whining about "special interest groups". They can't even do that too loudly, a close scrutiny of special interest money makes them look far worse than we do.

Just be glad that this time we actually can compete in this area.

[struggle4progress]

23. I think you're right

If the Rs really successively prevented any external-group criticism of Bush for two months, they might get two months of coverage on "Shutting Up the Opposition."

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. This is why the GOP is trying to change the rules mid stream

They want 527s made ilegal becuase they dare speak against the annointed one

[Nancy Waterman]

5. But they can't buy influence which is the point

of McCain Feingold. It is not the same as giving a candidate a lot of money and hoping for something back. These are really separate.

[UpInArms]

4. how do these groups rate

with The Heritage Foundation?
American Enterprise Institute?
The Federalist Society?

Would this not then make all the actions taken by The American Spectator (The Arkansas Project) and right-wing organizations too numerous to mention - but mostly funded by Richard Mellon Scaife - and so many others - Joseph Coors comes to mind.

So when the hell will those people just shut the f*** up?

[ScrewyRabbit]

6. Like the hours of RW propaganda spewing over the AM radio waves

isn't a parallel campaign 24/7 for the GOP.

[David Dunham]

8. As a lawyer, I think these groups may be illegal under McCain-Feingold

If they are held illegal, Democrats and Kerry will be hurt. People will think we are trying to circumvent the law by using "soft" money to pay for ads.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Excuse me, but I'm willing to bet that the Dems have a pretty good...

...set of high-powered lawyers that know exactly what they're doing.

[David Dunham]

9. If these groups only used "hard" money, they'd be okay, but they don't

[bobbyboucher]

10. Well, that's four of nine, and you have basically

said nothing. If you are a lawyer, as you claim, please explain how these groups are illegal. Thanks.

[David Dunham]

12. The groups rely on soft money, not only on hard money.

McCain-Feingold was intended to curtail the use of soft money. These groups, the Bush campaign will argue, are an improper attempt to continue the use of soft nmoney (over $25k per person) to pay for ads to attack Bush. While I concede there may be legal arguments both ways, I am concerned that a Republican-appointed federal judge will rule them illegal, at least to the extent they are relying on soft money. The Republican will then trumpet that ruling and accuse the Democrats of being caught trying to illegally circumvent McCain-Feingold. That will hurt Kerry and Democrats generally.

[bobbyboucher]

16. It's not money given to a candidate,

it is given to a cause. Doesn't hard and soft relate to campaign contributions? If anything, it will show Americans that the Repubes are whining little turds who can give $180 million to Bush but throw a temper tantrum when a fraction of that sum is raised by people who think their entire agenda is horseshit, irrespective of who the Dem candidate is.

[54anickel]

13. According to this site, it looks like it's OK until 60 days before the GE

http://www.fecwatch.org/law/court/mcconnelltable.asp

And those limitations are for corps and unions, nothing about individuals. :shrug:

[David Dunham]

14. I hope you are right, but I think GOP judges may rule against this.

[54anickel]

15. GOP judges? If that means the Supreme Court, they are the ones

who made the decisions that went into creating the table I posted.
It's linked to this article:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2003/SCtDecision.asp

[truthisfreedom]

17. if the groups are found to be illegal, there will be a furious explosion

of contributions to Kerry's campaign. i'll cough up $2k immediately. i know my neighbors up and down the block will do so as well. kerry's message has been rock-solid... we are going to win this thing NO MATTER WHAT. stolen votes? pshaw. we'lll vote him out anyway. lies? heard 'em all before. more terrorism? it will only serve to show that bush can't keep it in check. nothing, i repeat, NOTHING, will keep us out of the whitehouse in 2005.

[Voltaire99]

18. Nice payday for media fat cats!

"Our sense was we needed to have a message up on the air that tells the truth about the Bush record and defends the Democratic position on the issues," said Ellen Malcolm"

Had we a press worthy of the name and not just corporate termites nibbling away at the supports of our democracy, this wouldn't be necessary. As it stands, people will respond to the ads as ads - they'll embrace or tune them out with the heightened partisan predisposition that people always bring to political ads.

Media reform is the answer. The $5 million would be better spent, say, endowing Democracy Now or other independent media - rather than putting more money in the pockets of barons who will laugh all the way to the bank.

[Joanne98]

19. They wouldn't have to do this if we had a free press

That told the truth everyonce in awhile. Replacing the press is as important as replacing Bush. The "thugs" can't stop this. It's a tidal wave of anger. They're getting scared. I love it.

[Khephra]

20. kick

[Ganja Ninja]

21. I would compare Democrats efforts in this to...

TV preachers that constantly drift off the topic of religion and blatantly shill for the GOP.

[ashling]

22. Parallell campaign?

I am looking to create a parallell universe.

I refuse to be stuck in the same one with that insipid little twit!