Former Edwards supporters say 527 spending highlights difference between Edwards and Obama

[jefferson_dem]

Obama Campaign: Former Edwards supporters say 527 spending highlights difference between Edwards and Obama
12/28/2007

Total Special Interest PAC spending more than $3.3 million for Edwards and Clinton campaigns

DES MOINES – The Obama Campaign today released a letter from 8 Iowans who supported John Edwards in the 2004 caucuses but are now supporting Barack Obama. They believe Edwards’ willingness to allow millions of dollars worth of ads by 527 groups run by his Washington, D.C. supporters underscore a clear difference between Edwards and Obama.

Yesterday’s New York Times suggested the Edwards Campaign knew in advance that The Alliance for a New America, a 527 group run by Edwards’ former campaign manager, would spend millions to support him in Iowa. Edwards’ former supporters said the multi-million dollar, Washington, D.C.-based effort to support Edwards’ campaign has left them questioning his commitment to bringing change to Washington D.C.

See below for the text of the letter:

December 28, 2007

Dear fellow Iowan:

During the 2004 Iowa Caucus we supported Senator John Edwards in part for his commitment to fight Washington insiders on behalf of working families. He said he would change Washington, and we believed him.

Times have changed, and so has John Edwards. This week, a new PAC run by his former campaign manager launched a television ad campaign in an attempt to influence the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses.

Then yesterday, The New York Times reported the Edwards campaign knew the group was forming to help him. Yet, Senator Edwards and his campaign have done nothing to stop these Washington insiders and others from spending more than $2 million dollars on his behalf to influence the outcome of the Iowa Caucus.

So this time, we support Barack Obama for President. He is the ONLY candidate in this race who’s not getting any help in Iowa from Washington lobbyists, special interest PACs, or the Washington-based organizations known as 527s. We can trust Barack Obama to change Washington , to tell us the truth, and most importantly – to win in 2008.

Join us, caucus for Barack Obama Thursday, January 3.

Frank Best, Columbus City, former Louisa County Edwards Chair

Thom Determan, Dubuque, precinct captain for Edwards in 2004.

Katie Determan, Dubuque, precinct captain for Edwards in 2004.

Judy Jones, Ames

James Cox, Cedar Rapids

Eileen Lundberg, Runnells

Dan Lundberg, Runnells

Ryan Sewell, Council Bluffs

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=114205

[Frances]

1. It's posts like this that make me think less of Obama

I think that labor knows that Edwards is the best candidate for them and I think they have a right to put money into the campaign. It's not as though Obama is hurting for money himself. He has LOTS more money than Edwards does.

Anyway, I just can't get upset if labor puts money into a campaign.

Obama is doing the same thing the MSM does: equate Edwards' haircuts with Rudy's total corruption. Labor money is not the same thing as swift boat money in my opinion.

[ThatPoetGuy]

2. The text of the ad Obama wants to stop.

"The price of dependence on foreign oil; Health care in crisis; Government run by corporate lobbyists; Isn't it time someone had a plan to take them on?" asks the ad's narrator. The ad goes on to detail the "Edwards plan" that would -- among other things -- "Ban campaign cash from lobbyists; End tax breaks for Big Oil; Stop job-killing trade deals; Stand up to insurance companies for real health reform."

At the ad's end, the narrator urges: "Ask all the candidates for their plans to level the playing field."

-------

Workers contribute money to their labor unions in order to have a voice in the way things work in America. They paid for these ads. There is nothing unfair or dishonest in that ad.

Obama's line of attack is so repugnant and so dishonest that I don't just think less of him -- it makes me think he isn't even a good human being.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Extraordinarily dishonest.

Obama really needs to be called on this. The letter states this, "Then yesterday, The New York Times reported the Edwards campaign knew the group was forming to help him." The New York Times article did no such thing. Rather the article attempted to smear both unions and the Edwards campaign by linking his campaign to a 527 through loose inference. The basis of the Times article was an October memo between union leaders. It was not an exchange with the Edwards campaign. It recapped a meeting and an agenda to rally support behind Edwards. It was, in essence (I reproduce it below) a bulleted plan of action including the formation of a 527.

I am extremely frustrated that Democrats would attack union organizing on behalf of another Democrat. (Though not surprised that the New York Times would do so.) I have been asking Obama supporters on this board to read the email and show me where it proves that the Edwards campaign knew about the formation of the 527 and/or coordinated with it. No not one has given me the courtesy of a response. Also I ask the OP, other Obama supporters, and those who wrote the letter cited above, are you willing to disavow union campaign activity if Obama gets the nomination?

To recap:

1) The NY Times article was a smear of inference both on labor campaign activity and the Edwards campaign.
2) The evidence that the article presented to insinuate a link between Edwards and the 527 was,in fact, and intra-union communication and occurred before the 527 was formed.
3) The letter that the Obama campaign is circulating contains flat out lies. It is despicable.

Below is the text of the email that is the basis of this smear.

From: David Rolf
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:27 PM
To: Rickman Jackson; redacted; redacted; Tom Woodruff; Anna Burger; Josie Mooney; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; Alice Dale, Kristy Sermersheim; Dana Graham; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; Gary Smith; redacted; David Rolf; redacted; redacted

Cc: Stacy Pederson
Subject: SEIU for Edwards conference call

This email provides the notes from today’s “SEIU for Edwards,” meeting, a summary of decisions, and an announcement of our Saturday phone call. Skip to the end for the call-in numbers for Saturday if you were at the meeting and don’t need the summary. And also note everyone’s email addresses above, for future communications.

At today’s “SEIU for Edwards” meeting convened in Chicago upon adjournment of the IEB, we decided:

1) To spend this week moving the maximum number of states into a pro-Edwards position using the procedures adopted by the IEB. Our targets for an early round of endorsements are: AZ, AR, CA, CO, GA, IA, ID, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, OH, TN, TX, WA, and WV. (A potential second round might include any from the above list that can’t move as fast as this week, plus OR, RI, CT, NV, and PA, depending on some state-specific factors).

2) To be prepared to roll out thse endorsement in a coordinated press strategy with the Edwards campaign next week, possibly as early as Monday.

3) To discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us, given our new state-based strategy. Tom Woodruff will talk to David Bonior; I will talk to Chris Cafe; Cathy Singer Glasson and I will visit the Edwards operation in Iowa on Wednesday.

4) To bring-on a full-time staff person to coordinate our efforts and plan the campaign. Payroll & legal structure will be determined by attorneys, but will not be on SEIU International payroll, since SEIU International is not making an endorsement at this time. People should move suggested names to Tom. W. There was general agreement that the campaign will likely involve fundraising, field work in early states, media in early states, and require full time staffing and a serious 527 legal structure for any communication beyond our membership.

5) To operate this group as an “SEIU for Edwards” steering committee, and to expand it to include local union executive officers from non-IEB locals that are pro-Edwards (for example, Missouri).

6) To meet again by conference call on Saturday, October 13 at 8 am PDT/11 am EDT. The call-in number will be the same as previous “SEIU for Edwards” calls” 1-866-285-7776 participant code 775000; host code 465874.

Talk to you then,

David Rolf

[zalinda]

4. Obama is positioning himself in case he loses Iowa

He's blaming Edwards for a 527 ad. And, he knows very well that once the Edwards campaign found out about the 527 forming that they could not be in communication with them at all. If they did try to communicate with the 527, Edwards would have been accused of co-ordinating with them. Obama just proved to me that he is a liar, and will do anything to win. That's a repub tactic, not a dem one. Shame on him.

zalinda

[Luminous Animal]

9. Indeed. Shame on him.

And his supporters. This is the 3rd or 4th thread that I've posted asking Obama supporters to put up or shut up regarding Edwards "knew" about the formation of a 527. Some went so far as to accusing him of coordinating with a 527 that wasn't even in existence yet. Not one has replied and the threads quickly fall off the page.

I am flabbergasted that Democrats would use a sloppy NY Times article as evidence of Edwards' complicity with a 527. Rather, the article is a smear by inference and a comprehensive reading of it proves, actually, the opposite. It is no surprise that the corporate media would seek to undermine labor's campaign activity in support of a Democratic candidate. It is embarrassing and dismaying that Democrats would do the same.

[Dawgs]

5. Another example of Edwards being all talk and no walk.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Really?

Show me how the NY Times article shows that Edwards knew that a 527 was being formed to support him. The Obama campaign is distributing a letter that contains a flat out falsehood.

[Dawgs]

7. I'm basing my opinion on Edward's history.

[Luminous Animal]

8. I won't jump to conclusions

so what does this mean? "Another example of Edwards being all talk and no walk."

What, based on the OP, is another example?

[Luminous Animal]

10. Obama's 527

Vote Hope

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/08/MN9JREV751.DTL&type=printable
Obama's supporters get around money limit

Lance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Exploiting a legal loophole, the Obama supporters have set up a so-called 527 group - an unregulated committee of the type deployed by Republican Swift Boat Veterans in the 2004 presidential campaign - as a centerpiece of political fundraising for the California Democratic primary in February.

So far, wealthy donors have written checks in the amounts of $90,000 and $50,000 to "Vote Hope 2008," the Obama supporters' 527 group, federal records show. The group is led by San Francisco lawyer Steve Phillips, son-in-law of wealthy financier and Democratic political donor Herbert Sandler.

Named for the section of the U.S. tax code that regulates these groups - and independent of the input or control of political candidates - 527 groups aren't subject to the Federal Election Commission's legal limit on contributions of $2,300 per donor per election.

The same Obama supporters have also set up a political action committee - the type of fund-raising device used by special-interest groups to funnel donations to multiple candidates - and used it to raise money for Obama's California campaign, records show. The political action committee also is called "Vote Hope 2008."

The Vote Hope Web site says their goal is to "deliver California for Barack Obama" by mobilizing 500,000 Democrats to cast absentee ballots in the primary. Spokeswoman Jenifer Ancona said Vote Hope is independent of Obama's campaign, and complies with all laws. Together, the political action committee and the 527 group hope to raise and spend $3 million on what Ancona called "a positive campaign, a grassroots campaign to increase voter turnout."