  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Money Behind the Anti-McCain AdPosted on Mar 6, 2008
This story was reported by Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting and Peter Overby of National Public Radio. With Sen. John McCain having clinched the Republican presidential nomination, a new Democrat-funded group has already begun an ad campaign labeling him the “McSame” as President Bush. The campaign represents the opening salvo from a consortium of top Democrat donors, operatives and unions that at this point has raised $6.75 million for the election season. The ad campaign is an example of what is expected to be a messy advertising battle among a slew of independently operating liberal and conservative groups, with many millions of dollars spent on each side.
The Center for Investigative Reporting and National Public Radio have traced the flow of money and interwoven connections behind the anti-McCain ads, which are being run by the Campaign to Defend America, a nonprofit set up last year by MoveOn.org co-founder Wes Boyd, among others.
The group has run ads in Erie, Pa., over the past weeks, and plans to spend more than $1 million on the anti-McCain ad, according to a press release.
The group’s money comes from the Fund for America, a new “527 organization” run by major Democrats and top union officials to help coordinate the effort to take back the White House. The fund’s money comes from billionaire investor George Soros ($2.5 million), the Service Employees International Union ($2.5 million) and hedge fund manager Donald Sussman ($1 million), among others. Its leadership includes President Clinton’s former chief of staff, John Podesta; Taco Bell heir Rob McKay; and executives from the SEIU and a national teachers union.
“A trillion dollars in Iraq over the next 10 years. McSame as Bush,” declares the ad. “Tell John McCain we need a new direction. Not the McSame old thing.”
The Campaign to Defend America declined repeated requests for interviews.
As an independent organization, the CDA can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, as long as it doesn’t coordinate with the candidate or party committee that it is helping.
The CDA uses lawyers who also represent the Democratic National Committee. For example, DNC general counsel Joseph E. Sandler helped incorporate the Campaign to Defend America in March 2007, according to documents. Sharing lawyers is usually not a violation of the coordination rule, as long as the lawyers don’t share or influence strategy, says election lawyer Kenneth Gross. But it can raise the question of the appearance of improper coordination. Gross notes that in 2004, a legal adviser to President Bush’s campaign resigned because he had also represented the independent group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The McCain ad isn’t the only production of the Campaign to Defend America. The group is closely affiliated with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (or “Iraq 2008"), a coalition of liberal groups that ran the “Iraq Summer” campaign last year, which organized grass-roots opposition to Republican members of Congress who opposed withdrawal timetables for the war in Iraq. The Americans Against Escalation coalition is an alias for the CDA, according to records filed with Washington’s secretary of state. The Campaign to Defend America itself is organized as a 501c4 nonprofit organization, a form of tax-exempt group growing in popularity among political operatives because it doesn’t have to disclose its donors. As yet, the group has not received tax-exempt status from the IRS, according to an IRS spokesman.
Unlike 527s such as the Fund for America, the CDA wouldn’t have to disclose who funded its automated calls to voters, which have already been the target of complaints. But running a TV ad about a candidate close to the date of an election is subject to stricter rules, which is why the CDA filed papers revealing its funding. In the filings, the CDA also claimed a special exemption that would allow it to use stronger wording than other organizations, explicitly urging voters to vote for or against a candidate. Only organizations that don’t accept any corporate or union money qualify for that exemption. The CDA’s funder, the Fund for America, is based at the Service Employees International Union’s Washington, D.C., headquarters, counts union officials among its directors, and took in $2.5 million in union funds. The Fund for America, however, sent only nonunion money to the CDA and reimbursed the SEIU for staff and office expenses, steps it must take for the CDA to follow the letter of the law, according to campaign finance experts. Whether the CDA is violating the spirit of the rule is “a political or moral question,” says Larry Noble, former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission. “Your spirit may be different than mine. People can’t be prosecuted for violating the spirit of the law. If you’re allowed to do it, you’re allowed to do it.” Listen to NPR’s on-air story and view a chart of the money and connections behind the Campaign to Defend America. For more articles on money and politics and other important topics, go to the Center for Investigative Reporting’s Web site. Previous item: The Race Goes On Next item: Dems Dropping the Ball on Iraq Debate Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By J.Anthony, March 6 at 9:39 pm # MORE OF THE SAME????
By Ashley, March 6 at 4:11 pm # What's left at the end of the moneyI appreciate the long and thorough explanation of the money trail and legal standards that must be adhered to in this type of advertising campaign. The American people deserve to know how these slanted creations come about, and who is ultimately responsible for them. This is obviously not the first time we have seen a campaign like this designed to smear the competition, yet the participants are not associated with the opposition, and I am sure that this will not be the last we see, as more loopholes are discovered in the legal and financial standards for such an organization. However, while I do find it important to investigate the fairness in competition, and that there should be a level playing ground between the two parties and candidates, is anyone honestly going to say that equality in practice exists? I am definitely not asserting that because we haven’t seen fair practices in politics (which as I write this sounds like an oxymoron) doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive or attempt to achieve them. However, what I would like to point out comes directly at the end of the article, after we have been informed on what the standards for the organizations, donors, and their affiliations, after we have seen where exactly the money did and should come from, after we have been notified of the practices and affiliations one is allowed to engage in…is that the question arises “Whether the CDA is violating the spirit of the rule is ‘a political or moral question.’ The answer is then given by the former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission that “People can’t be prosecuted for violating the spirit of the law. If you’re allowed to do it, you’re allowed to do it.” I find this response completely expected, but also completely disgusting. Everyone has an expectation that politicians and policy practices are dirty, and while there was always examples to support that claim, now there is complete confirmation. We live in a nation that acts by dancing on the line between good and evil, failing to cross in only when the law prohibits us from doing so. I’m sure all these individuals are interested in the positive future of the country, otherwise they wouldn’t go to so much trouble to ensure that a particular candidate is not elected into office. But is it so much to ask that we find truthful and honest ways to shoot down the opposition without dirty money and secret conniving. Once again, I ask the simple question if anyone, or their attorney, has any ethics anymore. Though we are a relatively new country, we have a long foundation in the concept of the “marketplace of ideas,” which allows for the people to decide what ideas are best and elect our leaders and shape policy resulting from those decisions. While it isn’t “required” and you can interpret the law in various “spirits,” didn’t anyone ever decide that sometimes doing what’s right/just can be in everyone’s best interest? Maybe I’m way too much of a if given the time and opportunity to do so.
By Joe, March 6 at 2:38 pm # I’m having a hard time feeling badly for these two creepy knob gobblers. These warmongering scumbags, along with their scabby-thighed confederate, Hillary, represent only desperation for a world weary of war and bullying.
By kath cantarella, March 6 at 1:19 pm # how's this for an anti-Mccain ad:McCain knowingly dropped napalm on non-combatants. On kids. People with any real honour don’t do that. He could’ve said no. He didn’t. They were just ‘gooks’ after all. Decades later, he advocated more war crimes. Hundreds of thousands of people died. I’d make a wild guess that most of them never held a gun. McCain believes the US military generals should be running the world. It’s my world too. If you put this guy in charge, i will never forgive you.
By Thomas Mc, March 6 at 8:59 am # They're all McSameToo bad Hillary is McSame as McCain, and Obama is McSame as Hillary. US presidential elections are now officialy a joke.
By HC, March 6 at 7:44 am # Big YawnMaybe I’m missing something, but just what’s the big deal and the earth shattering news here, as if we couldn’t figure out something like this was already going on? And this is supposed to be an example of “investigative reporting” by NPR? Stale, unimaginative, pedestrian, and next to useless is more like it. Why doesn’t NPR do some real investigative reporting by showing how truly important issues, like the erosion of civil liberties, have been shunted aside in all the politicking, and not even touched by the timid, complacent, lazy media?
By SuGee, March 6 at 5:22 am # Talk about flip floopers! McCain has become just another one of the Military Industrial Complex. He was a prisoner of war for a reason. He was dropping bombs in NORTH Viet Nam, where as our country was fighting in SOUTH Viet Nam. He’s sang Bush’s war criminal song now, “We’ll be in Iraq for 100 years” It doesn’t get any more pathetic than that.
By weather, March 6 at 4:34 am # the truth does set you freeDenial is very cruel, a dis-ease sets in that a capitalist model ever dependent upon a level of confidence fails to deliver. Privately, if we’re lucky we sense that we are only as sick as our secrets - and as long as that film continues to cover our activities as a society we’ll limp along along in a conviction-less, passion-less place where very little progress can take hold. This is the point in the screenplay where a country so lied to itself, it transformed a potentially esteemable vision into a nightmare, a sheepdom and much of it accomplished in broad daylight. Arrest Silverstein/Bushco and start to heal or stay stuck in the lie? Add Your Comment |
|
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article