Want the facts on Kerry's fundraising in the Senate? Read and learn

[jpgray]

From today's Daily Howler:

CASH AND KERRY: An e-mailer makes an excellent point about Kerry and that mountain of “special interest” money. As we noted yesterday, a Bush campaign ad complains that Kerry has taken $640,000 in “special interest money” over the past fifteen years:

E-MAIL: What I find interesting about that earth-shaking $640,000 is that spread over 15 years, it comes out to less than 43 thousand per year. Now, that’s more than I make, but in Washington, to a “multi-millionaire” senator, it’s laughably paltry. I’ve pointed this out to several at CNN and elsewhere, but it seems like my point is a little too tough for them to grasp, let alone make part of the script.

Indeed, given the scope of modern fund-raising, this is a fairly modest sum. Again, we quote Brooks Jackson on his Annenberg site: “So far, for example, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist reported $1,022,063 in PAC donations for his 2004 campaign alone.” Weirdly, the Bush ad complains about a much smaller amount—an amount raised over the past fifteen years!

As we noted yesterday, the Bush ad is based on a front-page report by the Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei. This January 31 report was profoundly misleading, in ways that should be made clear.

What was wrong with the Post report? Let’s start with a blatant misstatement—a misstatement made by the Bush ad itself. As we noted yesterday, VandeHei did not say that Kerry has received “more special interest money than any other senator,” the bogus claim which appears in the ad. VandeHei said something quite different; he said that Kerry “has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years.” The total came to $640,000, the scribe said in his front-page report.

So what was wrong with VandeHei’s work? First, lobbyist money comprises only one small part of “special interest” money. As Jackson noted, total “special interest” donations to Frist dwarf those received by Kerry. According to Peter Beinart, Kerry actually ranks 92nd among senators in raising special interest money. By failing to offer this small bit of context, VandeHei’s article was extremely misleading.

[blm]

1. Bush was just parroting the Dean campaign

and his supporters here.

What's the difference?

[Larkspur]

4. Dean had a legitimate case against Kerry

Over 75% of Dean's campaign was funded by average Americans. Bush's is completely sold to corporate interests.

[sangh0]

7. That's certainly fair

"Bush has completely sold out to corporate interests, so Dean had a case against Kerry"

uh-huh

[blm]

10. Really? Care to put up all of Dean's lifetime donations and compare

them to the lifetime donations of Kerry's that he complained about?

Kerry's lifetime total had 1% of the donations coming from so-called special interests. What was Dean's LIFETIME total?

[sangh0]

11. The silence will be deafening

That's my prediction

[Padraig18]

12. Dean supporters are Bush?

Is that waht you're saying, blm?

[sangh0]

13. No

they are Bush*-enablers

FYI, I said that, not blm

[Padraig18]

15. You stand corrected:

blm (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-24-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message

1. Bush was just parroting the Dean campaign


and his supporters here.

What's the difference?

[sangh0]

18. I doubt it

It says "Bush parrots the Dean campaign and his supporters" not "Dean is Bush"

[Padraig18]

20. But you do stand corrected, nonetheless.

:)

[sangh0]

21. Not in this thread

but irl, since my surgery, yes.

[mitchum]

22. LOL!

[blm]

17. Check the archives and the threads that quoted Dean and his supporters

on this very subject.

I'm sure you remember clearly. If Bush's ad sounded just like what Dean and his supporters said here back then, there is your answer.

[Padraig18]

19. It sounded like what the WP and Time said, IIRC...

Dean didn't originate the story. You always leave that part out, for some reason...

[blm]

23. Yes, and noone from the Dean camp bothered to get the facts first

did they?

Or did they bother to apologize once they discovered the truth?

Or did they USE the perception to smear Kerry for a couple weeks?

[markus]

27. The original reports were about donors, not PACs

and tracing them back to the source.

As someone who worked on Capitol Hill and on campaigns for almost a decade, I know what bundling is. It's how you get money without having to go to the PAC. And that's what Kerry's fundraising history smelled like.

Hell, they all do it.

That doesn't make it right, and Bush will certainly use it against Kerry to some effect.

They don't care about the truth one tiny bit as much as you or I do.

I don't see why Dean or any other candidate's supporters need to apologize for pointing out a Kerry weakness. Hell, that's what primaries are for.

I think in the end this issues comes out for us, but is compromised (like a lot of things) by Kerry's long service in the Senate. But I'd love to script the add about Haliburton, our beloved vice president and his "deferred compensation."

The analysis above offered above pretty much difuses an attack on Kerry if done nimbly and well. And Bush can never get away from that issue, because his presidency is just so damned corrupt.

If the Kerry campaign wants to deflect a pissing match about who raised what from whom when, they need to go after Bush on "corruption". Chenney/Haliburton, Enron, etc.

[The Magistrate]

28. Nonsense, Fellow

The original reports refered not to "special interests" but to lobbyists, and refered specifically to personal donations from persons registered as lobbyists. The total was about $640,000 over a fifteen year period, or about $40,000 a year. Concentrating on this narrow slice of donations was the only way the figures in the report drawn on could be made to yield any result that placed Sen. Kerry in a disfavorable light; all more normal examinations of the figures on total funds raised from corporations or political action committees rank roughly ninety Senators above Sen. Kerry in totals received. Gov. Dean's campaign, and his supporters, ought to have done this basic examination of the report the journalists cited to their own ends, and not simply parroted what must have seemed a heaven-sent opportunity, that turned into an official Republican attack line.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mouse7]

26. Stop ripping scabs off wounds, blm

Just let it rest. Kerry is doing very well nationally. Be happy with Kerry's success and move on.

[mouse7]

24. The Kerry/Dean discussion has ended nationally

The GOP and the Bush campaign has free will. They create their own campaign literature and media. The Bush/GOP people are responsible when their ads are inaccurate.

There is no point in ripping the scabs off old wounds, blm. Let it rest.

[redqueen]

2. I love Bob Somersby

:loveya:

[cindyw]

3. Kick

:kick:

[displacedtexan]

5. $1000 from a lobbyist for Greenpeace v millions from Enron?

Time for "special interests" to be defined more precisely.

[OKNancy]

14. That's my big bugg-a-boo

define a special interest

A special interest group could include:
Greenpeace
ACLU
Sierra Club
Amnesty International
ASPCA

and any number of other groups. Not all special interests are evil.

[On the Road]

6. I Think Kerry Will be Able to Deflect the Special-Interest Attack

once his finances are more fully publicized.

Bush certainly did take his cue from Dean. I don't agree with the good doctor's line of attack. It was an act of desperation that might actually have hurt Kerry's candidacy.

[emulatorloo]

8. My hat is off to Gov Dean

for backing way off that line of attack during the debate right before Wisconsin. You could see how upset he was that GWB had run with it.

[WiseMen]

9. Thank You. Trully Kerry was being attacked Despite a Good Recored

on fundraising.

Many experts tried to clarify the fact that the story was missleading because it only used individual donations (which was all that Kerry accepted) and excluded PAC money which was the mainstay of most
campaigns. Despite the erroneous nature of the
analysis the Post used, Corp Media keep perpetuating the
false impression to the public a large.

[maddezmom]

16. thanks for the post :)

[mouse7]

25. Great post. I'll put those numbers to good use. n/t

That was one of those issues I was a little afraid to enter until you dug up this data for us. This was really needed, and most appreciated.