Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

The Reinvention of Political Morality

By THOMAS B. EDSALL
December 5, 2011, 1:07 am

Struggling to justify a recent television spot [ http://mittromney.com/embed/video/believe-america ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3a7FC0Jkv8 ]

that reached new heights of deception, a top operative in Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign put it plainly, while insisting on anonymity:

“First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business…. Ads are agitprop…. Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context…. All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”

The back story: On October 16, 2008, campaigning in Londonderry, New Hampshire, Obama cast his opponent, John McCain, as out of touch with the problems facing the country – a month after the financial collapse that saw the American economy crater. Obama was expressing his incredulity at McCain’s lack of understanding of the full import of the world-engulfing fiscal crisis: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’ ”

Fast forward to 2011. Two weeks ago, the Romney campaign, perhaps banking on the arcane nature of its deception, instigated a new epoch in aggressive messaging and took Obama’s 2008 Londonderry remarks and obliterated the fact that Obama was at that time quoting the words of a McCain staffer. Obama’s statement was cut to “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose” — with the erroneous implication that the “we” referred not to McCain’s 2008 effort but to the current Obama campaign.

The non-partisan web site Politifact, which evaluates the accuracy of political ads, said that the Romney spot [ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/ ] was “ridiculously misleading,” and gave the ad its worst rating, “pants on fire.”

The significance of the spot lies in its explicit distortion of an opponent’s remark, but the spot’s direct duplicity is also the latest step in the transgression by political operatives of formerly agreed-upon ethical boundaries. What was once considered sleazy becomes the norm.

Over the past four decades, moral standards governing the conduct of political competition have been violated by both left and right, with two goals: winning elections and making money. In this endeavor, the early 1980s were a fertile period.

Shortly after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, three of his campaign operatives, Charlie Black, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, recognized that they could make money from their willingness to break the unwritten rule requiring the separation of campaign consulting from lobbying and collect huge fees in the process.

Stone, who first won fame by orchestrating dirty tricks for Richard Nixon in 1972, proved by far the most creative [ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_toobin ]: his rules include “politics is not about uniting people. It’s about dividing people” and “getting your fifty-one per cent”; “attack, attack, attack—never defend”; and “admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.”

In 1981, Stone and his confreres joined together and set up the first “double-breasted” political consulting and lobbying firm [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/25/mccain-swims-with-the-sha_n_103518.html ] — Black, Manafort and Stone (BM&S) — erasing the traditional line separating the two.

During elections, the firm’s principals served as paid consultants conceptualizing and executing key campaign strategies for Republican candidates; when the election was over, and close bonds with successful politicians had been firmly established, the operatives resumed their lobbying activities. Their decision paid off handsomely. Clients seeking access to power brokers in the Republican-controlled Senate flocked to BM&S, where partners could confidently guarantee access to those members of the House and Senate they had guided to victory – a promise no other firm was then able to make.

It didn’t take long for the practice to become standardized, and today firms on both sides of the aisle are “double breasted.” It is just this kind of ‘inside-the-beltway’ cronyism that both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street define as corrupt.

The willingness to horse trade without compunction spread quickly. On the Democratic side, Congressman Anthony Coelho of California was picked in 1981 to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The previous year, business groups, along with their political-action committees and lobbyists, had moved decisively to the Republican Party and Coelho foresaw a dangerous future in which corporate support for Democrats dried up.

Until Coelho took over as chair of the D.C.C.C., the fact that contributors were buying a commodity — access to elected officials —was implicit rather than explicit.

Cohelo came to believe that a more effective way to convince lobbyists to open their wallets was to lay the deal out on the table. He created a hierarchy of clubs [ http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/return-the-shyster ] — the Speaker’s Club, the Chairman’s Club, and so on — for donors. The higher the dues you paid, the more intimate your access to Democratic House leaders and to Democratic committee chairs was.

“Members of the Speaker’s Club serve as trusted, informal advisers to the Democratic members of Congress,” a promotional brochure declared. When Coelho was asked what the givers got, he answered: “Access. Access. They meet with the leadership and with the chairmen of the committees. We sell … the opportunity to be heard.”

The business community may have liked Republicans better — Republicans had the White House and the Senate — but Democrats still controlled the House and the legislative agenda. Democrats determined which bills would be called up for action and when. For a lobbyist seeking to tack an amendment onto a bill, access to the appropriate committee chairman could prove crucial.

With the cost of access now clearly defined, lobbyists knew that if they did not play ball, others would, putting the interests of their clients at risk. Few could afford to tell Coelho, “No.”

Some reform-minded Democratic candidates were uncomfortable with Coelho’s tactics, but no one in a tough race turned down D.C.C.C. money. Coelho’s cash-for-access worked.

While Coelho’s skills were praised by both Democratic and Republican fundraisers, Republicans have generally demonstrated far more willingness to push the envelope.

Take the end run candidates started to do around campaign finance law — specifically around the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act [ http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#anchor686308 ] — legislation which, following Watergate, aimed to reduce the role of private money in politics and to establish spending limits in exchange for public funding of presidential races.

In 1976, and throughout the 1980s, all presidential candidates accepted public financing in the primary and general elections. One of the most common complaints among Republicans and Democrats, however, was that accepting public money required candidates to stay within constricting state-by-state spending limits, limits that operatives argued were unrealistically low in such key battlegrounds as Iowa and New Hampshire.

In 1980, an obscure Republican National Committee staffer, Robert Perkins [ http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/159784802.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug+12%2C+1984&author=By+Thomas+B.+Edsall+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&edition=&startpage=A4&desc=%27Soft+Money%27+Will+Finance+Voter+Signup ], who never achieved the celebrity status of Tony Coelho, found a way to circumvent spending limits by exploiting a seemingly minor 1979 amendment to federal election law. In doing so, Perkins opened up one of the biggest loopholes in post-Watergate history.

The 1979 amendment was designed to encourage local grassroots political activities — get-out-the-vote drives, telephone banks, coordination of volunteer programs, voter registration, the purchase of bumper stickers, buttons, lawn signs and other campaign materials — by exempting the money raised to pay for them from federal contribution regulations.

Under Perkins’s direction, this exemption was used to collect “soft-money” — unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and other sources — which was then transferred to state and local political party organizations.

In 1980, the Reagan campaign raised an estimated $15 million in soft money — at the time a groundbreaking sum — and the use of soft money promptly exploded. It was a core source of cash for Michael Dukakis’ presidential bid in 1988 and for Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign. By the 1999-2000 election cycles, each political party raised more than $240 million [ ] in soft money.

In 2000, George W. Bush became the first major candidate to reject public financing of his primary bid altogether in order to spend unlimited amounts. John Kerry followed suit in 2004. Obama in 2008 rejected all public financing — and the attendant restrictions — for both his primary and general election campaigns. In 2012, both general election nominees are expected to forego public financing.

***

Campaign contributions, lobbying, negative advertising, and the commodification of access are all interrelated and together constitute the underbelly of American politics. The Republican House leaders who gained power after the 1994 elections introduced at least three major innovations. The first was the now infamous K Street Project, spearheaded by former House whip and majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, in which Republicans denied access to lobbyists who had contributed to Democrats [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11073-2004Nov24?language=printer ]. DeLay kept a ledger on his desk listing all lobbyists’ donations. In addition, DeLay and other project leaders pressed trade associations and assorted industry lobbying groups to fire Democrats and hire Republicans [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html ], especially former Capitol Hill staffers, to fill lucrative executive posts.

The second innovation was to turn the conservative Republican lobbying community into a formal arm of the House leadership, empowered to write legislation and to serve as the whip team lining up votes for tough-to-pass bills — especially free-trade bills that were difficult for Republicans in manufacturing and garment-producing districts to support.

The third innovation was the direct intervention of DeLay and other House leaders on behalf of major soft money donors to insert favorable provisions — never subjected to committee review — into conference reports during closed meetings.

For example, in 2003, an investigation of alleged illegal activities by a Kansas energy company [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21913-2003Jun5¬Found=true ], Westar, revealed an email in which a Westar executive wrote to a colleague that getting a favorable provision inserted into pending legislation “requires working with the conference committee,” adding that “we have a plan for participation to get a seat at the table, which has been approved by David, the total of the package will be $31,500 in hard money (individual), and $25,000 in soft money (corporate).”

The $ 25,000 that Westar gave in corporate soft money went to a political committee with strong ties to DeLay, Texans for a Republican Majority PAC. A DeLay spokesman in 2003 denied any impropriety, adding “We have no control over any fantasies they might have about what they might get for a campaign contribution.”

DeLay escaped serious trouble in Washington, but back in his home state of Texas, an Austin prosecutor and a criminal jury found he had broken a state law against money laundering. DeLay is now appealing a three-year sentence imposed on Jan. 10 this year [ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/10/politics/main7231774.shtml ].

***

Every four years, at the Republican National Convention, the merging of politicians and lobbyists reaches new heights, trumping similar but less omnipresent practices at Democratic conventions. To a larger extent than the Democratic party, the Republican party turns over the entire convention operation [ http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2010 ], from top management to floor runners, to Washington lobbyists. This saves a substantial amount of money since these selfless men and women generally work for free.

One of harshest critics of the lobbying community was John McCain. In 2008, he told Politico [ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12678.html ], “Whenever there’s a corrupt system, then you’re going to have these birds of prey descend on it to get their share of the spoils.”

Even as he spoke, however, McCain showed no reluctance in selecting 11 “birds of prey” to run his 2008 campaign [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/huffpost-exclusive-more-l_n_53456.html ], including such major players in the special interest universe as former Republican congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas as campaign co-chair; David Crane, senior executive at lobbying powerhouse The Washington Group, as top policy adviser; and the ever-present Charlie Black as campaign spokesman and strategist.

In this context, the misleading ad put together by Romney’s staff two weeks ago — passing off a McCain staffer’s quote as Obama’s — is relatively small potatoes, despite the fact that it is the first irrefutable violation of ethical standards in the 2012 campaign.

For operatives, strategists, and office holders, some ethical gambles are clearly worth the risk. If the current flap generated by the Romney campaign’s doctored messaging redounds to the candidate’s detriment, it will prove to have been a bad bet, but he may get away with it. However it plays out, it will not be the last demonstration during the campaign of the continuing reinvention of political morality.

Thomas B. Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics.”

© 2011 The New York Times Company

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/the-reinvention-of-political-morality/ [with comments]


===


Mitt Romney For Obama 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4uMW84GkY ( http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69264577 )


===


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69263931 and following

from earlier this string, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69577859 and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69579302 and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69593836 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69609295 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69609160 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69606022 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69605994 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69603614 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69600090 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69594954 and following