Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rush, Davis defend Jackson
Next Post: Bloomberg to run ads for Dold
Posted in:
* 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.
* Related…
* Davis refuses to sign anti-tax pledge
* Tom Kacich: Sources of funding for 13th District candidates
* Davis, Gill both back concealed-carry, agree on little else
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 11:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rush, Davis defend Jackson
Next Post: Bloomberg to run ads for Dold
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
–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.–
Channeling the ghost of Big Daddy Unruh? As he once admonished some weak-kneed Cally legislators in Sacramento:
“If you can’t take their money and turn around and —- them, you shouldn’t be up here.”
Also the source for: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 11:42 am
Like Royko said “Lord, save us from the reformers”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 11:54 am
Beginning to wonder where the DNC is here…I would like to believe they have firemen available for the duckworths and gills of the world. Both should be beating their opponents handily at this point.
Comment by Madison Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 11:56 am
We can only image how bad RapidRodney, valet of the hedge fund hustlers must have been with the SJR edit board to blow the endorsement
Yikes
BTW anyone looking to see where all the Rebooters cash ended up? Some went to Rove’s speaking fee, but looks like a lot stayed with Gags Brady. Is he spending or holding?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 12:01 pm
Minor but important point, IL-13 was not drawn to elect a Democrat. It was drawn to give the Dems a fighting chance by incorporating many of the Dem-leaning areas of central IL but it’s not a Dem district.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 12:02 pm
===but it’s not a Dem district. ===
It is in presidential years.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 12:11 pm
Obama won it by about 10, Quinn and Giannoulias lost it by about 20. It’s plausible that it could be won by a Dem but I wouldn’t call it a Dem district.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 12:16 pm
Quinn ran in a non-prez year, captain. Because of the large student vote in this district (UIUC, ISU, UIS, SIUE, etc., etc., etc.) , it’s a decent D seat in presidential years and not good at all in off years.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 12:21 pm
who cares it ain’t a Chicago district>>> the winner couldnt even qualify as a mushroom in Madigan’s den…talk about insignificant in the fish bowl
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 12:42 pm
This is something that I find very troubling. The fact that outside groups, PACs, National Comittees, and the like can post ads that the candidate has not seen, has not approved, and probably might not want run. I know Gill’s ad was partially paid for by his campaign so it doesn’t quite qualify. But shouldn’t the candidate be able to decide how his campaign is going to be run? I also understand that a candidate turning down an ad by someone else would probably mean that he might not get offered help again from that group, but the fact that he turned down a tasteless ad might be a plus in some cases.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 1:06 pm
I believe Bush won 13 in ‘04. at the very least it was very close.
Comment by Disconnect Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 2:24 pm