Election ad battle smashes record in 2004

By Mark Memmott and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

Candidates, political parties and independent groups spent at least $1.6 billion on TV ads this year, more than double the previous record of $771 million set in 2000.

The 2004 figure, released this week by the non-partisan Alliance for Better Campaigns, "raises the question whether having candidates spend so much of their time raising money to spend on TV is really what we want our campaigns to be about," says Meredith McGehee, the alliance's president and executive director.

"Candidates are forced into the arms of the moneyed interests" to pay for TV ads, McGehee argues. They can't afford not to wage the ever-escalating ad battle, because their opponents will be on the air with their own commercials. But many TV ads, she says, "don't provide a very effective way of conveying good information" about issues and candidates' positions. Instead, many are attacks on opponents.

The alliance's report is based on data gathered by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group in Alexandria, Va. The research firm tracked advertising in the nation's 100 largest media markets. The firm has been collecting data on political TV advertising since 1997. In 2000 it tracked spending in the 75 largest markets.

Because TNSMI/CMAG did not study spending in smaller markets, the final totals for 2000 and 2004 are sure to be even higher than the $771 million and $1.6 billion estimates.

Evan Tracey, chief operating officer at TNSMI/CMAG, says spending on TV advertising exploded this year in part because both presidential campaigns decided to raise and spend their own money up to and through their political conventions. If they had chosen instead to accept public financing of their pre-convention efforts, each candidate would have received $18.6 million in government funds and been limited to raising another $27 million.

Bypassing that $45.6 million maximum, Bush raised and spent about $260 million in the primary season while Kerry raised and spent about $220 million. By the time the Democratic convention was held the last week of July, Kerry had spent more than $80 million on TV ads. By the time the Republican convention was held the last week of August, Bush had spent more than $120 million on TV ads. Spending by independent liberal groups on anti-Bush ads more than erased the gap.

The Bush and Kerry campaigns, the Republican and Democratic parties, and independent groups spent more than $500 million on TV ads aimed at winning the White House. That also was about double the spending on presidential campaign TV ads in 2000.

Spending on campaign ads also soared because candidates, parties and independent groups used the Internet to supercharge their fundraising, Tracey says. And Democrats were able to parlay lingering anger over the 2000 election outcome into increased donations.

Fundraising also was affected by rule changes. The 2004 election was the first run under a new law governing how federal campaigns are financed.

The law, named after Senate sponsors John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, barred the national political parties from accepting unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. At the same time, it doubled to $2,000 the amount a congressional or presidential campaign can accept from a donor.

The parties and candidates adapted quickly. In the presidential campaign, both Kerry and Bush raised record amounts during the primary season: Bush $266 million, Kerry $221 million.

Independent political groups that sprang up to rake in the unlimited contributions the parties no longer could accept spent at least $262 million, much of it on TV.

When money is pouring in, Tracey says, "there's not a campaign manager out there who's going to say 'Let's not use it' or 'Let's do less TV.' They're going to spend it, and TV is still the biggest megaphone."

The TV ad wars began in earnest the first week in March, shortly after Sen. John Kerry wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination. The Bush campaign landed that week with its first ads. Kerry soon followed with his own.

The alliance describes itself as a public-interest group. It is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Open Society Institute, the Joyce Foundation and the Stuart Family Foundation. The alliance's honorary co-chairs are former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and retired CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite.

"Apparently Louisiana health officials lack political courage,” Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said Monday. She pointed to an Associated Press story [ “Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied,” written by Laura Meckler] published by several news sources in early November as "misleading," by stating the National Cancer Institute and a Lancet review had found no link. Meckler's story led to Louisiana officials taking the warning off the state's website a week ago.

Five medical groups have recognized abortion as a cause of breast cancer at the time of the AP report, Malec said. Since then a sixth group, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, has added its name to the medical group list.

"Women would have the right to know if only one medical group recognized a link,” Malec said. “The AP has a moral duty to correct its report.”

Malec, who has spoken on the abortion breast cancer link throughout the nation and in Europe, asked, “How many women must die and how many teenagers will unknowingly risk their lives for an optional procedure before the public realizes that women are being financially exploited by the abortion, the pharmaceutical and the cancer fundraising industries?”

The sweeping allegations expressed the coalition’s five year long frustration that the medical community and media continue to ignore 28 of 36 studies worldwide and 13 of 16 American reviews linking breast cancer to abortion.

The first study linking breast cancer to abortion was published in a 1957 English publication and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who had experienced induced abortions.

Studies connecting lung cancer and cigarettes were first met with the same distrust fifty years ago. At that time, smokers denied that cigarette smoking appreciably increased a person’s risk of developing lung cancer.

History may be repeating itself, Malec’s group suggests.

History repeats itself?

A 1957 study on the link between smoking and lung cancer, first reported upon by the British Broadcasting Corporation, was then afterward published in the British Medical Journal and The Lancet. When the British minister of health at the time was asked what he was going to do about the findings, he replied, “Nothing.”

Years later tobacco industry CEOs admitted their knowledge of a possible link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking and that chemicals were added to cigarettes, effectively making cigarette smoking irresistible for many and addictive for most.

Smoke-filled newspaper offices either ignored or hid the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking, to the point of quoting medical authorities who also denied the link. At one point, even genetic weaknesses were pointed to as a reason for chain smoking, and thus, lung cancer.

Meckler’s AP story declared there was no found link between breast cancer and abortion. When she contacted Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, the state’s new director said he was not aware of inaccuracies in a pamphlet given to women linking breast cancer and abortion.

"If there is scientific evidence, and it certainly appears there now is, we would certainly make the necessary changes in that brochure," the department spokesman told Meckler.

He said in the story that it is “incumbent on us as the health agency to make sure any information is factually correct. We don't want to be misleading women who are making this important choice.”

Skeptics of the link say that scientific evidence is weak and the push for informing women about a potential connection is ideologically driven by prolife activists.

The Coalition explains on their website how an induced abortion could lead to cancerous breast cells.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

Professor Joel Brind, President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute told an Australian audience in 1999 that abortion is an "elective surgical procedure and a woman’s exposure to the hormones of early pregnancy -- if it is interrupted -- is so great, that just one interrupted pregnancy is enough to make a significant difference in her risk.”

Louisiana and Minnesota officials continue to resist the coalition's objections to removing the breast cancer/abortion link reference from their website.

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Nevada controller impeached for using state workers to do political work

Monday, November 15, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

Evidence suggests Nevada Controller Kathy Augustine used state-paid workers and equipment in her 2002 re-election campaign, and the state assembly intends to hold her accountable.

Nevada, a state known for legalized gambling and prostitution, takes seriously the suggestion its elected officials are involved in illegal or unethical behavior, political observers say.

“Nevada allows legalized prostitution, but won’t put up with corrupt politicians, unlike Illinois,” Christina Tobin, President of Free and Equal Elections, said.

In Illinois, the media or the U.S. Attorney’s office has led the charge against corruption, not government itself.

“In modern Illinois political history, most allegations or instances of wrong-doing of major state officials have resulted, frankly, from newspaper investigations,” explained Taylor Pensoneau, former St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter and biographer of former Gov. Dan Walker.

“With some notable exceptions, that has been pretty much the case, the reality of it," Pensonaeau said, "and that has been the way it has been for both parties.”

Besides former Governor George Ryan, other political figures such as Republicans State Rep. Lee Daniels and State Treasurer Judy Baar-Topinka have been under investigation for the alleged use of state workers in political campaigns. Thus far, only George Ryan has been charged.

In Illinois most recently, the hammer has been used by the U.S. Attorney’s office when state employees are accused of using their employees and equipment for political purposes. There have been exceptions, however.

Former U.S. Attorney Jim Burns, who serves as Jesse White’s Inspector General, referred the case of former State Rep. Mike Curran’s misuse of state paid time to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as well as several other instances of official corruption.

When asked if Illinois could police itself, Burns answered, “I don’t know. I think there is belated effort here with this next ethics act. It does provide some new I(nspectors) G(enerals)."

Burns said that in his job as Inspector General for the current secretary of state, he reported six criminal cases that either went to the feds or local prosecutors last year.

“Part of the problem is the human nature part of it,” the former U.S. Attorney continued. “You will always have this as long as you have political offices.

“What have been the real reform movements in Chicago and the State of Illinois?” he asked. “You don’t much from the 'goo-goo' organizations. It has all come out of the federal government. Maybe it says something about hiring, job placement, promotions, how you do business."

Burns said in political offices, there are always political pressures.

"Unfortunately, your friends are the ones who will take most advantage of you," he said.

Former Governor George Ryan faces federal charges next spring and his former chief of staff Scott Fawell is currently serving a six year federal prison sentence, partially for involving state workers in political work while Ryan was running for governor.

When asked how one avoids patronage in political office, Burns said he has seen improvement at the secretary of state's office.

“If an IG’s office is set up and done right, I can do so much more in this job for the Secretary of State than I could ever have done as U.S. Attorney,” he said.

However, the state's legislative branch holds onto any evidence such as personnel time sheets which could indicate whether political work was done on state time. Recently, a judge upheld House Speaker Mike Madigan's refusal to make state worker time sheets available through the Freedom of Information Act.

Christina Tobin, the Libertarian designated by the Ralph Nader campaign to defend Nader’s petitions this past summer, discovered that employees of the Democratic House Speaker were regularly signing in to challenge petition signatures.

Both Tobin and Illinois Leader filed Freedom of Information requests for the time sheets of Madigan’s employees. Both were denied. A subsequent suit filed by Tobin and Illinois Leader reporter Cal Skinner met with no further success.

Cindy Canary, Executive Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform has hope that Illinois will begin self-policing itself. She points out that the Nevada sanctions began with its ethics commission, which fined its state controller $15,000 for her use of state resources for political purposes.

“We’ve have had numerous public officials at the state level go on to federal court and then onto jail...after leaving office,” she told Illinois Leader. “And, we haven’t until very, very recently had an ethics commission that had the authority to make findings and impose sanctions.”

When asked if she held out hope for Illinois reforming itself, she said, “I’m always holding out hope for the state or else I’d be crying myself to sleep.”

GOP primary U.S. Senate candidates repeatedly were asked whether they supported retaining U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, brought to Illinois by now-retiring U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald.

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and Senator-elect Barack Obama both pledged their support for the current political corruption busting U.S. Attorney in northern Illinois.

© 2004 Illinois Leader.com -- all rights reserved

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

According to a report by CBS Marketwatch,

In a filing Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bear Stearns told investors that the SEC has begun a formal investigation into its municipal bond offering practices. The SEC probe joins an investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois; the state of Illinois, office of executive inspector general; and the Illinois Securities Department.

A spotlight has been on the company ever since a whistleblower suit, filed by Edward Hospital, was unearthed by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Edward Hospital suit was sealed at the U.S. Attorney’s request so that federal investigators could have first crack at its allegations.

Among the charges reportedly made, two related to Bear Stearns.

First, that Janesville-based Mercy Hospital received state permission to build the first completely new, non-replacement hospital in Illinois since the mid-1990’s only after agreeing to allow Kiferbaum Construction to build it and Bear Stearns to finance it.

Second, the allegation was made that Bear Stears had engaged in questionable practices to win the right to be the managing partner on the sale of $10 billion in pension bonds, a state borrowing scheme of Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat. It was on that bond deal that Illinois GOP National Committeeman and Springfield lobbyist, Bob Kjellander received over $800,000 in commission income.

It remains unclear what, if anything, Kjellander did to earn the fee, which was the largest for a bond consultant during 2003, according to the publication Bond Buyer. For his part, Kjellander has been unwilling to talk about it, simply maintaining that he did nothing illegal or unethical.

It is not unusual for a U.S. Attorney’s Office to call upon the expertise of other Federal agencies. In the Chicago area, for example, the SEC is helping with the investigation of NICOR, whose primary subsidiary is Northern Illinois Gas.

The managing director of Bear Stearns' Chicago office, Nick Hurtgen, resigned shortly after the alleged “pay to play” scheme was made public.

Hurtgen, now a resident of Glencoe, is a political ally of Kjellander. He served in the Wisconsin administration of Governor Tommy Thompson before taking the job with Bear Stearns in 1995. Investigations are also reportedly ongoing in Wisconsin where a $100 million Milwaukee County bond issue is under review.

The Sun-Times found that Hurtgen’s wife, Kim, is a 3.5% owner of Knight Infrastructure.

Subsequent to Blagojevich's election, Knight was awarded a lucrative contract to design and act as construction manager for the $30 million World Shooting Complex in Sparta, Illinois. Knight is also on tap to earn $4.7 million for its oversight role in the remodeling of Illinois tollway oases.

Recently retired Bear Stearns Chicago Managing Director Peter Fox was director of Gov. Jim Thompson’s Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA)---now known as the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO)--in the late 1970’s before he moved over to the investment house.

Fox is reported to have brought Hurtgen to Bear Stearns, but Fox still called the shots. "Nick didn't do anything without the okay of Peter Fox," said one source close to the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Cook County Judge Thows Out FOIA Complaint Against Madigan

Friday, October 15, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

In tossing out the suit, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Julie M. Nowicki ruled October 15th that the Ethics Act “clearly recognizes the private nature of employee records. It goes to great lengths to maintain the confidentially of these records even where they are the subject of an investigation by the Commission or the Inspector General.”

Nowicki's ruling essentially argued that because last fall’s Ethics Act did not specifically amend the Freedom of Information Act to include employee time sheets, they were not subject to FOIA disclosure requirements

The complaint was predicated on an all too familiar suggestion of late in Illinois politics that Speaker Madigan, who also serves as the Illinois State Democratic Party Chairman, may have used state employees do to political work on state time.

Judge Nowicki suggested that the complaint was more appropriate the province of the General Assembly’s Inspector General or a local state’s attorney. She noted that a state’s attorney could obtain the time sheets through subpoena.

A disappointed Tobin said, "“We thought the legislature was committed to reform. But, apparently, the judge doesn’t think it was."

Tobin added, "It’s unethical to deny Illinois taxpayers the ability to determine whether or not their public employees are being used for political purposes."

The Genesis of the complaint

Christina Tobin, the Libertarian hired to defend Ralph Nader’s Illinois presidential nominating petitions in Illinois, noticed that employees of the House Speaker Madigan's Office were signing in at the Cook County Clerk’s Office and the Chicago Board of Elections to participate in the Democratic party challenge to Nader signatures in an effort, which turned out to be successful, to keep Nader off the ballot in Illinois.

Cal Skinner, a reporter for IllinoisLeader.com, obtained payroll documents from the Comptroller’s Office that raised the possibility that Madigan employees participating in the Nader petition challenge were not taking personal time to do so and may instead have been on the state clock, a clear violation of state law.

Both Tobin and Skinner filed Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests with Madigan for his office’s time sheets. Both were turned down.

They then filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court last month.

Similar cases

A similar complaint was filed in 2000 by election attorney Richard Means, who also handled the Skinner and Tobin complaint. Means sought time sheets from the offices of Speaker Madigan, former House Republican Leader Lee Daniels, former Senate President Pate Philip, and current Senate President Emil Jones.

Means lost that case as well but he was able to obtain Daniels’ employee time sheets from a whistle blower.

After analyzing them, Means subsequently turned the information over to former Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan who, in turn, turned over the information to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office.

Daniels has been the target of an ongoing federal investigation for months, possibly in connection with the ongoing Operation Safe Roads investigation that has resulted in more than 60 convictions and has former Governor George Ryan awaiting trial on federal corruption charges.

Daniels has refused to comment on the investigation other than to say, as he did on primary election night in March that, the matter was "ongoing."

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Bremen Township GOP Committeeman to plead guilty to federal charges

Monday, October 04, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

Feeley continues to serve as Bremen Township GOP Committeeman, where he was elected in 2002. New ethics legislation signed into law this spring will force Feeley to step down from his party post when the plea process is completed. At that time, Cook County GOP Chairman Gary Skoien will have the authority to appoint a replacement.

Feeley faces 20 years in prison for racketeering and extortion, ten years for bribery, ten years for witness tampering, five years for mail fraud, three years for filing a false income tax return.

Married and father of four children, Feeley was also charged with accepting a bribe to place a worker on his department’s payroll. In addition, Feeley was accused of directing seven public works employees to spend about 200 hours remodeling his home at 4924 Sycamore Lane in Oak Forest, cleaning his boat and home, plus performing mechanical repair to his boat and personal vehicles.

Also indicted by the U.S. Attorney and some of whom chose to become government witnesses against Feeley were:

 Alan Grove, 56, of Midlothian, owner and operator of Sure Construction Company, a road repair and construction firm, of bribery ($175,000);

 Michael Langland, 29, of Palos Hills, owner and operator of A Cut Above Tree & Stump Removal, of bribery ($200,000);

 Scott Kebleris, 38, of Midlothian, owner and operator of Chicagoland Electric, of two counts of bribery;

 David Rodrigues, 37, of Tinley Park, a former employee of Midwestern Electric in Markham, of bribery and perjury; and

 Ronald Randich, 68, of Tinley Park, a part-time employee of Grove, of bribery. Feeley’s indictment says he also diverted Oak Forest resources to construct a driveway at Randich’s home.

Feeley was accused of “stringing out” contracts in order to keep them under the amount he was allowed by ordinance to let without higher approval.

"I don't think there's any issue that it's going to resolve itself with a change of plea (to guilty)," Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar said during a court hearing, the Daily Southtown reports. "It's just a matter of the terms."

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Fawell to Plead Guilty to Bid-Rigging, Cooperate with Feds

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

Fawell was appointed chief executive of McPier by George Ryan shortly after his successful gubernatorial election in 1998.

In exchange for his guilty plea, it is expected Fawell will receive a reduced sentence. Fawell is already serving a 6-year sentence after being convicted on separate public corruption charges last year.

Fawell is expected to cooperate with federal authorities in ongoing prosecutions of other former McPier personnel, including former McPier board member and George Ryan confidante, Larry Warner. Warner is scheduled for trial later this Fall.

One source close to the situation also suggested that part of the plea arrangement might include cooperating with federal authorities in their prosecution of Fawell's former boss, George Ryan. The former Governor is currently under indictment on numerous public corruption charges and is awaiting trial set for March 2005.

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com - all rights reserved

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

The MSRB stipulates that consultant agreements are to be terminated if they fail to report contributions, and “the dealer” does not have to pay the consultant for current or past services rendered but still owed.

Kjellander’s bond consultant career began with an $809,000 jackpot fee for a still undisclosed role in Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s $10 billion pension bond sale last year.

After being informed of Kjellander’s reporting lapse by IllinoisLeader.com, the company he works for, Bear, Stearns, & Co., Inc., filed an amendment adding the omitted contributions.

Included in that filing is $5,500 in contributions by Kjellander to the Illinois Republican State Central Committee, previously unreported to the MSRB.

Bear Stearns also said it would not terminate its $15,000 per month contract with Kjellander’s firm. “We believe this was an oversight and we’re filing an amendment,” Elizabeth Ventura, head of the firm’s corporate communications department, told IllinoisLeader.com September 13.

Enforcement of MSRB violations lies with the National Association of Securities Dealers and the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Efforts to reach Kjellander’s business number were met with the recording, “The number is being checked for trouble.”

Kjellander is the Illinois Republican Party’s National Committeeman and has become a moving force in the moderate wing of the ILGOP since working for former Gov. Jim Thompson in various capacities, including his campaign manager in 1982, until he was replaced right before the election by Phil O’Connor. The 1982 race was the close one against U.S. Senator Adlai Stevenson, III.

Kjellander political ally Nick Hurtgren resigned as manager of Bear Stearns' Chicago office recently after press revelation of an alleged "pay to play" scheme outlined in a whistle blower law suit filed by Naperville’s Edward Hospital officials.

Applicants were allegedly told they could receive approval to build a new hospital from the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board if they used Bear Stearns for financing and Kieferbaum Construction as their general contractor.

Bear Stearns is the firm that managed Governor Rod Blagojevich’s $10 billion pension bond sale last year from which Kjellander’s firm was paid $809,000.

Investment houses like Bear Stearns are required to report certain political contributions exceeding $250 that are made by consultants they hire to help them obtain local public financing business. Such reports are made quarterly to the MSRB.

The MSRB is currently considering a rule change with regard to consultants. Under it, the bond dealer would have supervisory responsibility over its consultants, quite unlike the current arrangement.

Bear Stearns most recent report to the MSRB stated either Kjellander personally or SCG corporately made the following political contributions during the second quarter of 2004:

 $1,000 to state Senator Larry Bomke [R-Springfield], April 7 (Bomke reported it as a $100 contribution to state authorities. Bomke did not return IllinoisLeader.com’s call requesting clarification.)

 $1,000 to the Illinois House Republican Organization, April 22

 $1,250 to the Republican State Senate Campaign Committee, May 3 and June 16

 $250 to state Senator Pam Althoff [R-McHenry], May 25

 $300 to the Sangamon County Republican Central Committee, May 25

Illinois State Board of Elections’ records for the same time period show Kjellander or SCG made these additional contributions:

 $225 to the Lake County Republican Federation, April 12

 $5,500 total to the Illinois Republican Party on May 5 and 17

 $250 to GOP candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court Lloyd Karmeier [R-Nashville], May 17

 $500 to the Kane County Republican Central Committee, June 2

 $500 to Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin [D], elected in a non-partisan election, June 30

According to MSRB rules, one might expect the $500 Kjellander contributed to the Kane County Republican Central Committee should have been reported.

Note Kjellander did report a similar $300 contribution to his home county’s GOP, the Sangamon County Republican Central Committee.

According to the State Board of Elections, Kjellander made a personal contribution to the Sangamon County Republican Central Committee and corporate contributions to the Kane County GOP organization and the Lake County Republican Federation.

While county parties are not part of state government, state legislators who can approve authorization of bond issues are often influential members of county parties. State Rep. JoAnne Osmond, [R-Antioch] for instance, is the chairman of the Lake County Republican Central Committee. The Lake County Republican Federation is the fund raising arm of the Lake County GOP. Kjellander gave Lake County slightly less than the reportable $250.

An assistant at SCG who previously said she would pass on IllinoisLeader.com’s questions if Kjellander called in said that the type of contributions determined whether Bear Stearns had to report them to the MSRB.

IllinoisLeader.com asked specifically why the $5,500 to the Illinois Republican State Central Committee was not reported by Bear Stearns to the MSRB and also why Bear Stearns had reported a contribution to the Sangamon County Republican Central Committee but not to the Kane County GOP and the Lake County Republican Federation. No reply has been received to date.

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com - all rights reserved

Much is made of the unprecedented sum of money spent by the presidential campaigns and political advocacy groups in the 2004 election. But, as Democrats found out, what's important is not so much the amount of money spent, but how it is spent.

A critical component of the Democratic Party's strategy was the use of so-called "527" committees. Named after a section of the IRS tax code, a 527 group can accept unlimited donations for spending on ads, voter mobilization efforts and other activities as long as it doesn't directly coordinate with a political party or candidate.

While Republican national party groups raised more money than Democrats overall -- $558 million vs. $452 million -- the liberal 527 committees leveled the fund-raising playing field.

Of the $464 million raised by 527s, the overwhelming majority went to Democratic-leaning groups. The top three fundraisers, Joint Victory Campaign 2004, America Coming Together and the Media Fund, spent more than $175 million. The Media Fund spent $50 million on radio and TV ads while America Coming Together raised $125 million for voter mobilization efforts. They were joined by a myriad of other 527s, giving the Democrats a near-monopoly on the 527 market.

By contrast, the pro-Republican Progress for America Voter Fund, the largest of the pro-GOP 527s, raised just $38 million. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth raised $26 million.

But it was the seemingly underfunded GOP 527s that carried the day. They did so by simply producing ads that made the biggest impact on voters. According to election night surveys by GOP pollsters, nearly 75 percent of voters said they were familiar with the Swift Boat TV ad that featured Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans questioning Kerry's military service.

Public Opinion Strategies found that voters in six battleground states were strongly influenced by three ads -- all pro-Bush or anti-Kerry. In addition to the Swift Boat ads, they included the "Wolves" TV ad produced by the Bush campaign using the image of a wolf pack to symbolize the terrorist threat, and the "Ashley" TV ad produced by the Progress for America Voter Fund.

"Ashley" may very well have been the year's most poignant ad. Progress for America Voter Fund spent $16 million buying TV time for the ad in the decisive closing weeks. It shows President Bush locked in a tearful embrace with Ashley Faulkner, a 15-year-old Ohio teenager whose mother was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. After that moving scene, Ashley tells the camera: "He's the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I'm safe, that I'm OK."

Despite a huge fundraising advantage, the Democratic 527s never produced an ad that was as emotionally riveting and memorable. Said Kerry campaign advisor David Thorne, "The only three ads remembered by voters were all Republican ads -- and that was after we spent over $100 million on advertising."

So in the end, the Republican-leaning 527s got more bang for their buck than the Democratic-leaning ones.

Raising lots of money in political campaigns is certainly desirable. But it must be spent wisely to do any good.

Individual contributions to political candidates and parties will total $2.5 billion this year, $1 billion more than in the 2000 election cycle, according to the Center For Responsive Politics, which monitors political contributions.

The dynamics in this area are distinct from other areas, Hernson says. “You also have a lot of people who have, for lack of a better term, Beltway fever,” he said. Fundraising is also different this year compared to past election cycles.

Big checks and little checks are equally critical to the candidates’ and parties’ success. “Political parties raise a lot of money from people giving the maximum. And they raise a lot of money from people giving $50 and $75,” Weiss said. “If they ignore one or the other they won’t be as effective in raising the money.”

But if the laws governing individual contributions are becoming increasingly opaque, the contributions themselves are increasingly transparent. The Federal Election Commission releases data monthly that lists all individual contributors of $250 or more: name, address, and employment. Sites like the opensecrets.org (the Center for Responsive Politics site) and fundrace.org, compile and analyze that data.

People give for different reasons.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act).

McCain is republican. Bush signed the BCRA into law in 2002.

The stated objective of the McCain-Feingold Act was to ban soft money contributions to candidates and rein in campaign advertisements disguised as "issue ads." Prior to the passage of BCRA, individuals, corporations and unions were permitted to funnel unlimited amounts of money into campaigns to be earmarked for get out the vote and party building activities, basically any activity that does not directly support or oppose specific candidates with the words "vote for," "vote against," "elect," etc. With the rising impact of television advertising came the "issue ad," a television spot that clearly supported or opposed a candidate but failed to use the "magic words."

By the 2000 elections, the two major parties were raising and spending $500 million on these ads (Holman, Craig and Joan Claybrook, "Outside Groups In The New Campaign Finance Environment: The Meaning of BCRA and the McConnell Decision," Yale Law and Policy Review, Spring 2004), and it was believed that their impact on the elections was affording interest groups undue access and power to manipulate political leaders. Banning all soft money contributions to parties or candidates while allowing certain non-profit groups to remain exempt from these limits, it was believed, would take the corruption of money out of politics.

Critics of BCRA's refusal to regulate 527s cite the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad as evidence of continued soft money corruption. Many of the Democratic-leaning 527s, however, are waging "ground wars," also known as old-fashioned grassroots organizing, with their soft money contributions. In fact, many of the anti-Bush ads on television are not even sponsored by 527s, but rather political action committees (PACs) like MoveOn which are regulated by BCRA. In contrast, 527s like the one I work with, the Young Voter Project, are engaged in such atrocious behavior as asking their staff to talk to young people for the purpose of encouraging them to vote and providing them with information on the candidates and issues that might be of interest to them.

Critics who accuse these 527s of "astro-turfing" or using the funds of leftist millionaires to purchase the human resources, rhetoric, literature, and other superficial trappings that mimic grassroots campaigning tend to focus on the source of the money rather than how it's used. Grassroots activists are acutely aware that even popular campaigns cost money, and that money doesn't grow on trees. In light of this fact, 527s like the Young Voter Project and America Coming Together have appealed for donations from certain wealthy individuals, but these funds when pooled with the donations of hundreds of other donors and channeled through the voices of hundreds of volunteers has a decidedly different affect than a direct donation from a wealthy individual to a candidate or even a party.

Even if direct involvement with a 527 could buy access to a candidate, which it probably couldn't as collaboration between 527s and political parties is strictly prohibited and scrutinized, what would a non-profit take for a political favor? PACs, which are directly linked to corporations, might well be rewarded with some pork-barrel contracts, or private goods. A 527 like the Young Voter Project might ask for programs to enfranchise more citizens, in other words, for public goods.

Buying access to politicians through soft money is not, of course, the only concern surrounding soft money, but critics of electioneering non-profits also site their agenda-setting abilities. As I listen to politicos clamber over the need to wrest control of the message from these "stealth PACs," however, my experience with the grassroots populism of the Young Voter Project makes me question whose interests these critics have in mind. If these kinds of broad-based movements are unable to raise funds equal to the agenda-setting efforts of corporate PACs and the national political parties through yet another wave of soft-money curtailment policies, it will be very difficult for the voice of the people to be heard above the clamor of hard money interests with even more direct access to politicians.

In the end, the questions posed by the sudden growth of 527s may be irrelevant as their activities in reality account for only a tiny fraction of the sum total of electioneering activities. Thus far the two major political parties have raised over $430 million, adding more than two million new donors, a whopping figured compared to the one million spent by the Swift Boat crew (Corrado, Anthony and Thomas Mann, "Flap Over 527s Aside, McCain-Feingold Is Working As Planned," Roll Call, 20 May 2004). Additionally, it is unlikely that any further regulation of non-profit activities and spending would be deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, as to do so would require a drastic curtailment of their free speech and petitioning rights.

For those who believe that money ought to be divorced from politics all together, might I suggest a careful examination of our founding document, the Constitution at Its First Ten Amendments, The Bill of Rights. The reality is that while speech, assembly, and petition are guaranteed "free" that does not mean they do not have a cost. The marketplace of ideas is now holding court on television, where ads are expensive and the press is more generous to some points of view than others. The public squares have been bought up by big box retailers, so assemblies must now occur through high tech web-powered "meetups" and in rented halls, with paid staffers and catered buffets.

Money has always played a role in politics. The problem that campaign finance reform ultimately seeks to remedy is not too much money, but too much money that buys "undue access" for the wealthy and elite. Like most things dealing with money, there is a top-down "supply-side" approach, and a bottom-up "demand-side." The latter approach focuses on allowing for greater breadth of ideas and viewpoints into the political debate, while the former approach attempts to stymie the flow of harmful or corrupt political speech. To date, campaign finance reform has attempted to tie the hands of the wealthy by limiting their campaign contributions and what can be said in their issue ads. Fundamentally, this supply-side approach violates their First Amendment Rights, since the right to free speech is not revoked for saying something disingenuous, misleading, or stupid.

While a certain amount of regulation and disclosure of the flow of money in politics is important, the rhetoric of divorcing money from politics by limiting political speech is dangerously undemocratic and it has just as much potential to block popular influence as it does corporate influence. What has been suggested innumerable times, yet never implemented, is to empower those without access to enormous amounts of capital to voice their political views. What about free television and radio advertising? Open debates? Publicly funded community forums and independent newsletters? These are just a handful of ways to make the marketplace of ideas more inclusive and politicians more accountable to the people, instead of wealthy individuals or interest groups.

According to Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, BCRA is already accomplishing its objective to put distance between politicians and their donors as he asserts that, "Members of Congress and national party officials are no longer soliciting unlimited contributions for the party committees, nor are they involved in the independent fundraising efforts of leading 527 groups" (Roll Call, 20 May 2004). Perhaps the problem, then, is not what 527s can say, but what they cannot say. The ban on express advocacy often forces non-profits to couch their arguments in negative terms, using attack ads that have been shown to turn off voters and embitter public discourse, contributing heavily to the perception that Americans are growing ever more politically polarized. While it is clear that the objective of campaign finance reform is to prevent corruption and encourage voter confidence in the integrity of their given candidates, one might suggest that the real heart of the matter is to encourage public participation in our great democratic experiment.

If campaign finance reform succeeds at divorcing money from politics, but fails to rescue our flagging democracy, then its success is more a measure of our ability to enforce the rule of law than to foster responsive and responsible governmental institutions. Organizations like the Young Voter Project that encourage democratic participation through grassroots activism may prove that 527s are not at the heart of the problem, but at the root of the solution. 2004 PopMatters.com. All rights reserved

The big secret to DeLay’s success was raising money. He’s not a likeable person. He’s a guy with no Elvis in him; he’s not Bill Clinton. But he’s respected, feared, and appreciated because of the staggering amounts of money he’s raised. He raised $12 million dollars in two-and-a-half years. His political action committee, ARMPAC, is the largest in the House. Size matters. He uses power to the point of abusing it. He’s called “The Hammer” because of the force with which he attacks both his legislative agenda and his colleagues when they don’t work for him. DeLay, as well as being ruthless, really understands the way Congress works. Yes, he really understands the institution. He really understands the members of the Republican House. He doesn't just twist their arms; he rubs their backs. When he was running the whip operation, if they wanted reservations at a golf course, if they wanted hotel reservations, if they wanted a fundraiser in their district, if they needed reservations in a restaurant, he had someone who would take care of it. It was a full-service operation.

What drives Tom DeLay? The sheer acquisition and use of power -- building a Republican majority in the House that he himself can control. I don’t see any real personal financial corruption. He lives in a $345,000 house on a golf course, but that’s not a big deal for a congressman. He’s not the kind of guy who would live in a fancy house on Capitol Hill. That might come later, though. These guys get a payoff in the end, not through official corruption but through incredible lobbying jobs or consulting jobs. It’s all about power with him, and implementing an agenda.

he wants to rule more than he wants to govern?

He has said that the Democrats are “irrelevant.” They don’t even talk to each other -- at least, the leadership doesn’t. There’s no communication whatsoever, even on committee staffs; this is unprecedented. Committee staffs used to work in collaboration, Democrats with Republicans. The Democrats are on holiday; there’s nothing for them to do!

On the other hand, the Medicare bill, the prescription drug bill that the White House also desperately wanted, wouldn’t have happened without him. The bill that was passed at six in the morning after an unprecedented three-hour open vote -- House votes are generally open for 15 minutes; never before in the history of the House was this done. They kept it open until they finally broke the will of the last Republican who was opposing it. That bill passed because of Tom DeLay.

DeLay has imposed his model on the House of Representatives. The House meets two days a week now. Most Americans think they show up every day. And they don’t debate bills anymore. Most legislation is a foregone conclusion by the time it gets to the floor. The model is now a parliamentary model. You vote or we fall. The government is the House leadership, and DeLay is effectively a prime minister who can compel his MPs to vote.

DeLay has, more than anyone else, domesticated the corporate lobby on K Street. He once called lobbyists into his office, showed them a book, and said “Here are your contributions. You’re giving to Democrats. You’re not giving enough to Republicans. He’s sent word to lobby shops that they couldn’t hire any more Democrats.

Along with Hastert, DeLay has made the lobby a fourth branch of government, working for the Republican leadership. A lobbyist told me that, with the first Bush tax cut, the House leadership called the lobbyists to a meeting in the basement and said, “You’re all here because you’re the best lobbyists in town and you’re loyal Republicans and because you’re going to pass the president’s tax cut for us. The bill wasn’t written yet! There could be no protest. The lobbyists were told to go out and pass this bill.

The problem was, half the $1.5 million they raised in Texas was corporate money. Well, it’s against the law to raise money from a corporation and spend it in Texas.

COLUMN ONE