"It just seems to me it is improper. It reduces confidence in government and also particularly the Party. I think the Party is going to have a tough time with all this publicity raising money from the smaller donors."
-Bob Stern, President, Center for Governmental Studies on KCRW last night talking about the California Democratic Party wasting $450,000 on Senator Don Perata's criminal defense fund. CDP flack Roger Salazar refused to go on at the same time as Stern and Rick Jacobs to debate the scandal.
Which brings me back to last night's ill-timed fundraiser with Speaker Karen Bass. The actblue page to RSVP for the account said the money was going to support the California State Democratic Committee - Federal Account. Great idea, Madame Speaker Bass helping Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi pick up more seats and be able to overcome the Blue Dog Caucus siding with the GOP to obstruct Pelosi's leadership.
With California unable to count on DCCC ad money against any of the very vulnerable Republican Representatives, it is clear California Democrats need to plan to win on our own. Which is why yesterday's LA Times editorial on the CDP wasting money on Don Perata is so counterproductive. We need the resources to win on our own and we need small dollar donors to get there. Yet the actions of the CDP discourage small dollar donations. The results are clear, including last night, the CDP has only raised $6,630 ALL CYCLE in federal money on actblue. To put in perspective, San Diego County Democrats have raised more than 20 times that much federal money on actblue -- from more than 30 times as many small dollar contributions.
It could be another landslide year, but it probably will be yet another year when Democratic Congressional challengers don't get the support they could and should count on from the CDP. In fact, when taking into account outstanding debt, the CDP Federal Account had less than $300,000 as of the end of May. And Democratic state senate challengers have already seen $450,000 wasted on not helping elect Hannah-Beth Jackson and Lois Wolk. We can trust in the CDP if the goal is to seize defeat from the jaws of victory (which it might be, Perata already called uncle on two state senate races so far this year). Or we can reform and begin fighting to beat Republicans instead of coddle the Democratic Party establishment. The first step is accountability. Again, Senator Don Perata needs to give back the $450,000 and Art Torres should step down as CDP Chair for wasting $4,450,000 not electing Democrats this fall.
Roger Salazar has been firing back about the shaky legal ground the Pro-Hillary 527 he is working for is treading on, or will be treading on when they ask for money and pay to air ads.
There isn't anything in our efforts that would warrant such a barefaced attempt to quell free-speech with this kind of unsupported legal bullying.
The American Leadership Project was organized in strict adherence to all new federal rules and regulations as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision. It was established to highlight issues of importance to middle-class families. The type of 527 we have organized does not intend to engage in express advocacy or the functional equivalent of express advocacy and so will not qualify as a political committee under the Federal Election Commission rules, but it will, however, fund "electioneering communications" - ads that feature a candidate and run within the 30 days before the election - and so will have reporting requirements with the FEC as well as the IRS. We intend to be open, transparent and to make all full and appropriate disclosures as required by the law.
I am no lawyer, but what they are arguing is that this organization is not actually working to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic primary. It means that they cannot ask people for money to help Hillary. Someone else can sort all of that out.
What I am concerned with is the messaging Salazar is using. I'm sorry, but questioning the legality of this organization has not approached anything close to bullying. There is no big powerful entity trying to shut up the little guy. Not to mention the fact that they are twisting themselves into pretzels to be able to claim that this is legal with phrases like "functional equivalent of express advocacy".
This is a bunch of really rich people trying to evade campaign contribution limits. Those of us raising concern about this are not trying to take away their free speech. We just don't want them to have a bigger megaphone than the rest of us and have disproportionate impact on the outcome of this race. The use of "free speech" to talk about campaign finance law is a right wing frame. It is extremely distressing to see it used by a Democrat in the context of campaign where one candidate is outspending the other on the basis of an unprecedented amount of small donors.
(And here's AdamB's post on this at the Big Orange. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
In the wake of Feburary 5th some of Hillary's major bundlers started floating the idea of financing a Pro-Clinton 527 to try and make up ground on Obama's phenomenal small donor fundraising. Today they are launching it and Roger Salazar, who has served as a spokeman for many a campaign here in California will be running it.
The new pro-Clinton 527, the American Leadership Project, incorporated with the IRS on February 15, and lists as its chief a former Clinton White House deputy press secretary and former Gray Davis aide, Roger Salazar, according to its federal filing.
They are targeting white women under 50 and are running tv, radio and sending mailers. More details here.
The AIP may have some serious FEC problems establishing itself as a 527. MoveOn and other orgs payed huge fines after the 2004 cycle for incorporating that way and doing express advocacy in the presidential election. This is from the press release on the fines from the FEC.
If an organization receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $1,000, and its major purpose is involvement in campaign activity, it must register with the Commission and abide by the contribution restrictions and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Each of these entities registered with the Internal Revenue Service as "Section 527" organizations - tax exempt groups whose function is to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential electors.
I imagine we will see an Adam B post on this over at the big orange later today.
[UPDATE] Roger just called. He noted that they have not actually done any campaign work, thus they have not filed with the FEC and therefore could not have broken any laws yet. Indeed this is true. He did confirm to me that they will be operating as a 527. Thus I believe they may have a legal issue once they do start working. Now they may just proceed and deal with any fines afterwards. This is huge soft money and the whole organization is an attempt to get around contribution limits and BCRA.
UNITE-HERE and their allies in the race track community and others submitted what appears to be enough signatures to get four initiatives on the ballot to repeal the gaming compacts with four tribes that were approved by Arnold and the legislature. However, the tribes under the auspices of their new coalition "Coalition to Protect California's Budget and Economy" are challenging the signature submission process in court. They are now trying to claim that they did not submit them in time and that the Secretary of State has been misinterpreting the state constitution for the past decade. John Meyers:
The language at issue is found in Article II, Section 9: A referendum measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State, within 90 days after the enactment date of the statute, a petition certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election, asking that the statute or part of it be submitted to the electors.
With that in mind, did the 433,971 signatures have to be certified within 90 days? Or did they merely have to be gathered within 90 days?
Secretary Bowen, using guidelines established by her predecessors, said that it's the latter, that the 90 days only refers to the gathering and submitting of signatures. And that's consistent with a bench ruling by a state judge in 1998 about how the referendum process works (ironically, a case that also revolved around Indian gaming).
But the new legal challenge argues that the constitution intends for the entire process to be over in the 90 days. And if that's true, then there will be no referendums on the ballot; local elections officials have not yet sent their final tabulations to Bowen's office.
The tribes have hired Roger Salazar, spokesman for the CDP and co-founder of CMR as their press flack. His quotes and their strategy on the flip.
