Seeking to reshape a national political debate he finds frustratingly superficial, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York is plunging into the 2012 campaign in its final weeks, creating his own “super PAC” to direct millions of dollars in donations to elect candidates from both parties who he believes will focus on problem solving.
Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire and a registered independent, expects to spend from $10 million to $15 million of his money in highly competitive state, local and Congressional races. The money would be used to pay for a flurry of advertising on behalf of Republican, Democratic and independent candidates who support three of his biggest policy initiatives: legalizing same-sex marriage, enacting tougher gun laws and overhauling schools.
Among those whom Mr. Bloomberg will support are former Gov. Angus King, an independent running for the United States Senate in Maine; State Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, who is challenging a fellow Democrat, Representative Joe Baca of California, who the mayor believes has been weak on gun-control; and Representative Bob Dold, a Republican from Illinois who has backed gun-control measures.
Mr. Bloomberg suggested [Obama and Romney] were cowed by the National Rifle Association, which has endorsed Mr. Romney.
The point of his super PAC, he said, was to provide “spine” for politicians under that sort of pressure, which is why, for instance, it is supporting the re-election of Representative Robert J. Dold, a Republican from Illinois. Mr. Dold got a “D” from the National Rifle Association for backing some gun restrictions.
“You’re not going to beat the N.R.A. overnight,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “As you get going, people start realizing that there’s a sane group of people out there that want them to do intelligent things, and that that’s where their support is going to come from.”
“We’ll win some races, we’ll lose some of these, but it’s sort of to get our feet wet,” Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly appearance on John Gambling’s radio show. “Two years from now, when I don’t have to worry about just what’s good for New York City–I’m going to live here for the rest of my life, my kids are going to live here, I’m going to live in New York State, I’m going to live in America, so I care about all of these levels of government–I’ll be freer to do more.”
Discussing his motivation for the move, Mr. Bloomberg said he’s “complained about this partisanship and lack of cooperation” in Washington, and he finally decided to step up and try to fix things.
“I don’t respect people who complain and don’t try and do something about it,” he said. “Just complaining is not something I think is very productive, so I’m going to try and support candidates–and you can do it with $1, or $10, or voting–but I want to support candidates who believe as I do. Marriage equality and common-sense gun laws and educational reform, people who can work across the aisle.”
* Progress Illinois looked at Bloomberg’s decision last Friday…
Dold, who did not return calls for comment today, says on his campaign Web site that “I have worked with organizations like Mayor Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns” and “I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.”
But Schneider has similar gun control rhetoric on his Web site and goes a step further by laying out specific legislation he would support as a member of Congress. This includes reinstating the federal assault weapons ban, a bill that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996, which expired in 2004.
Dold has not given his position on the assaults weapon ban. In an interview with the Vernon Hills Review this August, campaign spokesman John McGovern answered a question about the assault weapons ban by noting that Dold “supports closing gun show loopholes” and “has worked with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to support legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of potential terrorists.”
* In another race, Democrat Bill Foster has a new TV ad. Rate it…
* The State Journal-Register editorial board wrote about something today which has been on my mind for the past week or so…
Candidates who try to be too goody-two-shoes about their campaign funding often run into the same problem as 13th Congressional District Democrat David Gill: Explaining how the money they said was dirty seeped into their campaign.
Gill spent Thursday trying to explain how the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which doesn’t have any scruples about taking cash from corporate political action committees and Wall Street banks, ended up paying for a television advertisement proclaiming Gill’s political purity.
The disclaimer at the end of the ad says it was paid for by the DCCC and Gill’s campaign.
Reporters and Republican opponent Rodney Davis rightly pounced on Gill’s inconsistency and it has dominated news coverage of the race.
The same type of thing happened in the 1998 gubernatorial campaign to Democrat Glenn Poshard, a fundamentally decent public servant who lost to the now-imprisoned George Ryan.
The lesson is clear: While the campaign finance laws may be rotten, by creating another set of rules for yourself, you set yourself up to fail. Change the system when you get elected.
Every time Poshard bent or broke his self-imposed ban on PAC contributions, the media - especially the Tribune - pounced on him. George Ryan was able to cast himself as the clean candidate in that race because Poshard was always so desperate for cash that he had to constantly try to find a way to get around his own contribution limits.
* First, you win. Then, you can change the laws. Poshard didn’t think that through when he ran for governor. It cost him dearly. Gill has made the same problem for himself.
When Gill was the lone wolf out on his own, decrying big DC and New York money was fine because he was never gonna get any of that loot. Now that he’s in the big show and in a race that appears to be going down to the wire, Gill needs every dollar he can find. But he can’t tap it because he’s tied one hand behind his back.
The SJ-R dismissed the controversy and went ahead and endorsed Gill anyway.
* I really doubt that this particular issue itself will lose the race for Gill. But what it very well may do is prevent Gill from spending the kind of money he needs from now until election day.
And if Gill loses to Rodney Davis by a handful of votes in a district that was drawn to elect a Democrat, that pledge of his will likely be pointed to as the reason. And if he can’t take New York money and still vote against New York money, then maybe he doesn’t deserve to win anyway. It’s not like Davis will be tougher than him on Wall Street. Win first, change second.
Rush said that Jackson’s absence from Congress has not harmed his district because the legislative body has been in session only 32 days since Jackson took his leave.
“Nothing really occurred in those 32 days, that his constituency has suffered,” Rush said.
And until his illness, Jackson had “an almost impeccable voting record,” according to Rush.
“It’s kind of paradoxical to me to see someone who has one of the best voting records in Congress now he’s being accused of being a loafer and not showing up for work,” Rush said.
Davis noted that Congress’ next lengthy session won’t be until January.
Rush was also critical of recent media reports about Jackson drinking in bars. “These accusations about bar-hopping and that kind of thing are ludicrous, it was not only disrespectful it had no basis in the truth. The man was not in a bar carousing with any women.”
But as both congressmen defended Jackson, once a rising Democratic prospect, the theme of the wounded innocent was ever-present.
“I remember a fella named Job who got sick during the Biblical days,” Davis said. “And Job’s friends went to see him because they thought that he must have done something that was terrible to have this illness heaped upon him. Turned out that Job had not done anything!”
Rush, meanwhile, likened Jackson’s situation to that of Bulls star Derrick Rose, who is recovering from a knee injury.
“Nobody is clamoring for Derrick Rose to come back before the doctors say he should come back,” Rush said.
Oh, please. Derrick Rose hasn’t mysteriously disappeared from public view and sent surrogates out to speak for him. Quite the opposite.
Confirming reports that Jackson planned to return to the Mayo Clinic this week for further treatment, Rush said the lawmaker left for Mayo by car later Monday.
“For Tammy Duckworth to bring up this private family matter that was resolved and dismissed is nothing short of graceless. It shows how desperate her campaign has become since polls have shown me ahead and it represents the worst in our political system. Ms. Duckworth has demonstrated she will do and say anything to win this campaign.”
Duckworth said [yesterday] that Walsh has attacked just about everyone in this district, whether it was Latinos, African Americans, women who want access to their contraception….He’s attacked me from everything from the clothes that I wear to my military service.”
“I think for him to now cry foul is very typical of a bully,” she said. “They bully other people and when you point out their own problems, then they cry foul.”
* Walsh is now planning to turn up the heat in what will surely be a high-profile press conference with his son. From a press release…
Congressman Walsh and his son Joe Walsh (speaking on behalf of his siblings) will hold a press conference today to respond to the recent attack ads on Congressman Walsh and his family currently being aired by the Duckworth Campaign.
WHAT: Joe Walsh press conference
WHO: Congressman Joe Walsh and Joe Walsh Jr.
WHEN: TODAY, October 23 - 2:30PM
WHERE: 55 West Monroe, 5th Floor Conference Room, Chicago, IL
This will get intense. Stay tuned.
*** UPDATE 1 *** This Walsh presser puts me in the mind of 1996. Democrat Terry Link was not given a chance in heck of winning a Senate seat that year. But then the Republicans blasted him for not paying child support. Link held a press conference with his ex-wife, who praised him up and down for being a great father.
Link won.
This could be a very dramatic turn of events, campers. Watch closely.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From a press release quoting Walsh’s son…
“Our Mom and Dad didn’t agree on everything, but even during the divorce they made it clear to us we were their top priority. After the divorce, they continued to do their best to provide for us financially and emotionally. Most of all, they both made us their priority during the public child support dispute last year by not discussing the case or us in public and this past April, they privately resolved their issues once again keeping us out of the news.”
Walsh Jr. continued, “We understand that politics is a rough business, but these ads are wrong and very hurtful to us. It’s wrong you’re saying these untrue things about our Dad. Please, Ms. Duckworth, try to win this campaign on the issues where you disagree with our Dad. But don’t attack him as a Father. He was and is a wonderful Father.”
“Please pull these TV ads. It’s just not right to be doing what you’re doing,” Walsh Jr. concluded.
Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
The cable industry is asking lawmakers to place a NEW 5% tax on satellite TV service. HB 5440 is not about fairness, equity or parity – it’s a tax increase on the 1.3 million Illinois families and businesses who subscribe to satellite TV. They cannot afford another NEW tax – not now and not in this economy!
HB 5440 Will Hurt Illinois Families and Small Businesses
• Satellite TV subscribers will see their monthly bills go up 5%.
• This tax will impact every bar, restaurant and hotel that subscribes to satellite TV service, which will translate into higher prices, decreased revenues, and fewer jobs.
• Rural Illinois has no choice: In many parts of Illinois, cable refuses to provide TV service to rural communities. Satellite TV is their only option.
HB 5440 Is Not About Parity or Fairness
• Cable’s claim that this discriminatory tax is justified because satellite TV doesn’t pay local franchise fees could not be further from the truth. Cable pays those fees to local towns and cities in exchange for the right to bury cables in the public rights of way—a right that Comcast and Charter value in the tens of billions of dollars in their SEC filings.
• Satellite companies don’t pay franchise fees for one simple reason: We use satellites—unlike cable, we don’t need to dig up streets and sidewalks to deliver our TV service.
• Making satellite subscribers pay franchise fees—or, in this case, an equivalent amount in taxes—would be like taxing the air It’s no different than making airline passengers pay a fee for laying railroad tracks.
