"Billionaire Soros, Independent Groups Target Bush"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXXII

A fascinating — indeed, a very memorable — Reuters article at Wired News, Dec. 24.

President Bush's most-feared political opponents for now may not be any Democratic presidential candidate, but a billionaire financier and anti-Bush advocacy groups with big-spending plans.

"Liberal special interests, led by billionaire currency trader George Soros, are raising millions in soft, unregulated money to defeat President Bush," the Bush campaign says in an Internet posting.

Bush has already raised more than $110 million for his primary campaign, in which he has no challenger, far outstripping any Democratic rival.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said anti-Bush groups threaten to spend as much as $400 million, justifying the Bush's primary-season goal of raising a record $170 million, largely through a network of major supporters who funnel donations to the campaign.

But campaign finance experts say there is little chance of Bush being outspent. "The Bush campaign is raising money hand-over-fist. He has the aura of the incumbency and the power of the presidency. He's in the catbird seat," said Celia Wexler, research director of the Common Cause good-government group.

Along with Soros, the Hungarian-born financier who has pledged $12.5 million to ensure "we can write off the Bush doctrine as a temporary aberration," another chief target of Republican ire are independent political groups such as the Internet-based MoveOn.org.

The group has raised nearly $7 million to run ads attacking Bush, and launched an anti-Bush television ad contest which has drawn more than 1,000 submissions from the public.

Groups such as MoveOn.org are banned from coordinating activities with any party or candidate. But they have gained prominence under last year's McCain-Feingold campaign finance act which ended unregulated "soft money" donations. Democrats had relied on soft money to help claw back a Republican advantage in individual donations.

"They have the potential to do an incredible amount of damage," said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House. He said the independent groups could run "over the top" ads attacking Bush with political impunity, and there was little financial accountability.

He suggested Soros may be seeking "payback" for the Iraq war, reflecting business interests in France and Germany.

INDEPENDENT GROUPS

Soros pledged his money to two independent political groups -- MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. "My contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to re-elect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process," he said in a Washington Post opinion piece earlier this month.

Soros said he was "deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush administration is taking the United States and the world."

The Bush team's fund-raising appeals sharply criticize such efforts and accuse the independent groups of raising money overseas. "To beat these billionaire liberals and the flood of foreign money they're encouraging, we need your help today," an e-mail solicitation read.

MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd said the groups accepts no foreign donations and defended the group's methods. He said its donors have no expectation of access to a successful candidate, unlike those who donate directly to a campaign. "There's no strings attached," he said.

The Center for Public Integrity government watchdog group said independent committees from across the political spectrum have raised $32 million this year, although the Soros-backed America Coming Together had yet to report.

Wexler said it was too early to judge how effective the groups would be. The Federal Election Commission is expected to issue guidelines in February on their political activity.

Conservatives have also used independent political groups and are doing so again this year. "They're playing catch-up ball," after waiting for the Supreme Court's December ruling upholding the campaign finance reform legislation, Reed said.

The conservative Club for Growth has run ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the nation's first major nominating contests take place, attacking front-running Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Yes. Fascinating. And memorable. On several levels.

First, this article pretends, even in the headline, that these groups are "independent". But that is only a legal fiction: they were founded by, and are run by, hard-core Democratic political operatives. Is there no obvious, official connection to the party or any candidate? Smoke and mirrors. Just like when even I refer sometimes to "mainstream media" and sometimes to "the Democratic Party" when to refer to either is really referring to conjoined parts of a greater whole.

Second, this article shows not the slightest hint of a trace of outrage that money is being poured by the truckload into a political race. Isn't money corrupting? And, the more money, the more the corruption? Oh... wait... money must corrupt politics only when it comes from conservatives. I guess that means that liberals are incorruptible. Who'dathunkit?

Third, this article is bilgewater. The only effect Soros et al. might have on the general election is to get more votes for George W. Bush. But mainstream media will continue to pump bilgewater like this article right up until election day next November. ("Think we've scared those stupid Republicans enough yet?") After they've spent a couple of months recovering from their strokes, heart attacks, and binge drinking in the aftermath of the election, some Democrats will start to wonder if maybe this Soros thing was really such a good idea. After a few more months, or a few years, some of them will actually figure out that it worked to the advantage of the Bush re-election campaign.

Indeed, this is a good time to you remind you, Faithful Reader, that one of the key reasons we have the Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode is that they believe their own lying propaganda.

But, the most fascinating and memorable part of this fascinating and memorable article is this one sentence: "Democrats had relied on soft money to help claw back a Republican advantage in individual donations." Individual donations are/were capped at IIRC $1,000 or $2,000 dollars. In other words, this article is admitting that Republicans have had the advantage in getting donations from politically committed individuals, while Democrats have been getting theirs from political action committees and suchlike (a.k.a. special interest groups).

They slipped that in there, casually and subtlely, in the middle of the article so nobody would notice. But, hey, noticing little things like that is why you read The Blog from the Core, isn't it, Faithful Reader? :-)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 12/31/03 03:11:45 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.