FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENOVEMBER 22, 20041:40 PM

CONTACT: Americans United for the Separation of Church and StateTelephone (202) 466-3234; Facsimile (202) 466-2587E-mail: americansunited@au.org

 Taxpayer-Funded Americorps Program Should Not Promote

Religion, Watchdog Group SaysAmericans United Urges Appellate Panel To Bar Religious

Instruction By Program Participants WASHINGTON -- November 22 -- Teachers taking part in the taxpayer-funded AmeriCorps program should not be permitted to engage in religious instruction at sectarian schools, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has advised a federal appeals court.

The AmeriCorps program, run by the Corporation for National and Community Service, provides stipends called “national service education awards” to individuals for work at certain locations around the country.

Some of these positions are at religious schools, and some of the award recipients teach religion and lead religious activities as part of their work at these schools. A U.S. District Court ruled July 2 that the arrangement is unconstitutional. The federal government has appealed.

“This program provides teachers to parochial schools at taxpayer expense,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It is patently unconstitutional.”

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, Americans United asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule against religion subsidies in the program.

“Here, religious institutions actually use AmeriCorps participants and grant funds for religious instruction and activities,” reads the brief. “The government has failed to create an effective system for monitoring how the aid is used. The aid consists of religious instructors who have received religious training from faith-based institutions. And the instructors perform core teaching functions at parochial schools.”

Joining Americans United in the brief are the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and People For the American Way Foundation. The case is Corporation for National and Community Service v. American Jewish Congress.

###

Political Opportunism?(in this case, Mutual)GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay charged yesterday that his Democratic counterpart, Nancy Pelosi, engaged in her own crooked fund-raising practices that actually broke the law.

Reports the San Francisco Chronicle:

"DeLay was referring to a Federal Election Commission decision in 2003 in which one of Pelosi's fundraising committees was fined $21,000 for making illegal political contributions during the 2002 congressional elections.

"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution."

Pelosi and other Democrats have urged the top Republican to step down from his leadership post after the House Ethics Committee admonished him last week for allegedly giving donors special access by hosting a June 2002 fund-raising golf outing for energy lobbyists.

The committee also rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to try to track a plane that Democratic state legislators in Texas flew out of state to stall a vote during last year's redistricting battle.

.A.R.E.'s "Principle 3" says, "We identify those with an obligation toward poor and marginalized people, and support and encourage their efforts to fulfil their responsibilities," naming corporate investors terrorists may want to keep away. Australia's C.A.R.E. partners bring to Iraq ideologies the violent elements appear to be resisting: Data Solutions- technological access to the outside world; on line and off site gambling- Tattersalls; Qantas- carrier for outside tourism; Australia Post, Rupert Murdoch's News Limited- images from the outside world including Page Three Girls; Goldman Sach JB Ware, Ernst and Young - taking money outside the country, bringing outside money and foreign interest into Iraq. Potential council members are advised former economies receiving Australian C.A.R.E. aid have become consumers of Australian exports, "Australian businesses rely on each year for employment, import and export opportunities, income and profits" "gaining access to prominent business leaders and the elite corporate community."

C.A.R.E. is one of 160 members of Washington DC based American Council For Voluntary International Action, receiving advocacy and other direction. interaction.org self-formed in 1984, self-described as "the nation's leading advocate for international relief, refugee and development programs talks to Congress, the Administration and the public to build understanding and support for programs that save lives and help poor people help themselves." InterAction posts it unifies members who, collectively, receive annual contributions from private donors, of more than $3 billion. Members pay annual dues based on

a small percentage (.15%) of their internationally related expenses. Funds from dues ranging from $1,000 and to $30,000 are used to "influence policy and debate on issues" affecting millions worldwide.InterAction requires its members to ascribe to a - Private Voluntary Organization Standard "asking accountability in the critical areas of financial management, fundraising, governance, and program performance" because it does not "bear lightly the responsibility of the trust the America people place in us." InterAction posts on its website members must "have tax-exempt status under section 501 (a) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code and have received such status at least two years prior to submitting their membership application." C.A.R.E. is a 501(c )(3) (www.guidestar.org) requiring individual CARE Members register as a non-profit charitable organization regulated by laws and statutes of its own country.

InterAction's Iraqi working group, co-chaired by Sandra Mitchell and Rick Augsburger, was set up in September 2002, engaging as "issues emerge, in relevant advocacy and policy interventions." Months before Ms. Hassan's abduction, interAction posted a "plain language handbook on Counter-Terrorism Measures: what US non profits and grantmakers need to know" discussing the Patriot Act, IRS rules and Treasury Department voluntary guidelines to their site along with postings from the International Rescue Committee's "Lack of Preparedness for Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq Will Risk Innocent Lives." The handbook focused on money management in these days and times of fearing funding terrorist organizations.

InterAction offers, as does C.A.R.E., to help "open doors and provides access to top-level government officials and policymakers." InterAction says it is not a political organization but "we do sometimes take positions on things like the US international affairs budget, protecting refugees and other issues that affect our members and their efforts," working "to coordinate the efforts of member organizations to influence policy and budget priorities in order to maximize effectiveness of advocacy and outreach to the Congress and the administration on humanitarian and development issues" and "work to educate elected officials and others about how little of the federal budget goes to international assistance programs and why Americans should support such efforts."

Monday Pay-to-play politics

On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council will be asked to reform laws that govern how elected officials and candidates raise and spend money. One key recommendation will deal with the money elected officials raise for general expenses such as attending community events, advertising in neighborhood newsletters and taking constituents out for a meal. The proposal would forbid officials from forming political action committees to get around city rules for fundraising.

Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, is leaving the agency - forced out by an administration that confuses fealty to the imperial presidency with loyalty to the country - signals the systematic dismantling of the country’s last and best defense against a burgeoning threat to our national security. Last Tuesday, Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA - and, up until 1999 in charge of the task force assigned to track Osama bin Laden

The views expressed in Imperial Hubris - that we aren’t hated for our vaunted "freedom" to show Viagra ads on television, but because of a foreign policy that is idiotic, Israeli-centric, and irredeemably evil to many millions of Muslims throughout the world - are shared by a significant number of intelligence professionals at the CIA. Scheuer and his co-thinkers are fierce critics of the Iraq war and occupation, and in the run-up to the invasion they "leaked" a considerable body of material that debunked the lies of the War Party - and accurately

predicted the ensuing disaster. Now they are being blamed, excoriated, and purged by the likes of John "Boots on the ground" McCain, who smears them as a "rogue agency" and is among the loudest calling for "reform." He is joined by the liberals’ favorite neocon, David Brooks, whose softly wonkish demeanor masks a characteristic tendency to go for the jugular:

"Now that he’s been returned to office, President Bush is going to have to differentiate between his opponents and his enemies. His opponents are found in the Democratic Party. His enemies are in certain offices of the Central Intelligence Agency."

EVER SINCE THE Guardian of London revealed almost two weeks ago that "Anonymous," the author of the soon-to-be-published Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror (Brassey’s, Inc.), is a CIA figure "centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden," the American press has been playing catch-up — yet in a strangely coy sort of way.

Public interest in the book itself isn’t at all hard to understand: it’s not every day that an active US intelligence officer publishes a work that disputes the Bush administration’s assertions, holding that, among other things, bin Laden is not on the run; the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer; and that Islamists are in a campaign of insurgency, not terrorism, against the US because of US policies, not out of hatred for American values. But what’s a bit harder to grasp is exactly why the media seem so reflexively deferential to the idea that "Anonymous" must be anonymous — especially when critical details revealed in a June 23 New York Times story indicated that his real identity is well-known to at least a few denizens of the Washington press corps.

Indeed, the Times piece revealed that Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll knows more about Anonymous than most — enough to give him a first name and details of his career in Coll’s recently published and highly acclaimed book, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. While the Times identified "Mike" via Coll’s book as a 22-year CIA veteran who ran the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden station (code-named "Alec") from 1996 to 1999, the paper also reported that in spite of that revealing detail — and despite the fact that "Mike" is an overt CIA employee whose name is not a state secret — a "senior intelligence official" held that "Mike’s" full identity had to remain unknown because revelation of his full name "could make him a target of Al Qaeda."

FOR THE MOMENT, all the general public knows about the book comes from excerpts posted on a handful of Web sites, and a slew of brief television and radio interviews, where Anonymous has appeared in silhouette. He also published another anonymous book two years ago, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, which analyzed the structure and motives of Al Qaeda. Anonymous is not squishy: both Hubris and Eyes seem sufficiently apocalyptic to warm the heart of someone as anti-Islamic and bloodthirsty as, say, Ann Coulter. So if liberals seem ecstatic that yet another career national-security official is blasting the Bush administration for unnecessarily invading Iraq and bungling the so-called war on terror, they’re also horrified by Anonymous’s apparent advocacy (largely rhetorical, actually) of a military campaign that includes "killing in large numbers" and "a Sherman-like razing

of infrastructure" as part of "relentless, brutal and blood-soaked defensive military action until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us."

But at issue here is not just the book’s content, but why Anonymous is anonymous. After all, as the Times and others have reported, his situation is nothing like that of Valerie Plame, a covert operative whose ability to work active overseas cases was undermined when someone in the White House blew her cover to journalist Robert Novak in an apparent payback for an inconvenient weapons-of-mass-destruction intelligence report by her husband, Joseph Wilson. Anonymous, on the other hand, is, by the CIA’s own admission, a Langley-bound analyst whose identity has never required secrecy.

A Phoenix investigation has discovered that Anonymous does not, in fact, want to be anonymous at all — and that his anonymity is neither enforced nor voluntarily assumed out of fear for his safety, but rather compelled by an arcane set of classified regulations that are arguably being abused in an attempt to spare the CIA possible political inconvenience. In the Phoenix’s view, continued deference by the press to a bogus and unwanted standard of secrecy essentially amounts to colluding with the CIA in muzzling a civil servant — a standard made more ridiculous by the ubiquity of Anonymous’s name in both intelligence and journalistic circles.

When asked to confirm or deny his identity in an interview with the Phoenix last week, Anonymous declined to do either, and said, "I’ve given my word I’m not going to tell anyone who I am, as the organization that employs me has bound me by my word." His publisher, Brassey’s, likewise declined to comment. Nearly a dozen intelligence-community sources, however, say Anonymous is Michael Scheuer — and that his forced anonymity is both unprecedented and telling in the context of CIA history and modern politics.

"The requirement that someone publish anonymously is rare, almost unheard-of, particularly if the person is not in a covert position," says Jonathan Turley, a national-security-law expert at George Washington University Law School. "It seems pretty obvious that the requirement he remain anonymous is motivated solely by political concerns, and ones that have more to do with the CIA. While I’m sure some would argue that there’s some benefit to book sales in being anonymous because it’s mysterious and fuels speculation, the fact is that if his full name and history were known and on the book, it would get a lot more attention. It’s difficult for the media to cover an anonymous subject who has to abide by limits on what he can say about himself or anything that might reveal who he is."

Upon reviewing Scheuer’s manuscripts, the CIA could have done what national-security agencies have done in the past with employees’ works that were based on open (i.e., unclassified or publicly available) sources, but whose wide distribution might be problematic: stamp a "secret" or "top secret" classification on it so it never sees the light of day. Yet according to intelligence-community sources, this really wasn’t an option with Scheuer’s work, given the unusual origins of Through Our Enemies’ Eyes.

"That book actually started as an unclassified manual in 1999 for new counterterrorist officers working bin Laden and Sunni extremism," says one veteran CIA terrorism specialist. "Scheuer had written it at the request of his successor as Alec station chief, who specifically wanted it to be something that was drawn from open sources in the Arab and Islamic worlds for two reasons: one, so people could take it out of the building and digest it at their leisure, and two, because he wanted new officers to appreciate how much is actually out there that’s useful that isn’t classified, particularly if you have a context for it."

Given his in-house manual’s open-source-based, unclassified status, Scheuer figured it wouldn’t be much of a problem to cull more public material to recast the approximately 100 pages as a marketable academic manuscript — which he did over the course of late 1999 and early 2000, submitting the book to the CIA’s Publications Review Board (PRB) in the spring of 2000. According to Scheuer, the manuscript was at first denied release because the board took issue with the book’s brief favorable discussion of Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" theory, which posits that antagonism between Western and Islamic cultures (among others) will drive world conflict in the coming years.

"They wrote back saying our Arab friends would be upset, and ‘his views of Huntington’s paradigm bring into question his ability to perform official duties,’" Scheuer says. "That came back, and I thought it was beyond the pale, so I appealed directly to the seventh floor [higher-ups]. And it took the better part of a year to get permission to submit it for publication. I believe it was because of 9/11 that they suddenly became less concerned with what they first considered ‘areas of sensitivity.’ But the condition was that I remain anonymous and that there be no mention of my employer on the cover or anywhere else."

Some have speculated that "Anonymous" has been publishing with at least a measure of blessing from a CIA so angered by certain White House and Pentagon elements that it has taken the unprecedented step of allowing an active intelligence officer to inveigh against the administration — and is enjoying the fact that it can unleash a critic protected by the vagaries of national-security protocols. But the fact of the matter — as interviews with other intelligence-community officials and CIA correspondence show — is that while there might be an element of truth to that now, the agency has only reluctantly approved Scheuer’s books for release because he shrewdly played by the rules. And the unique nature of CIA rules has forced him into an unhappy compromise where, even when confronted with his own name, he has to publicly deny his identity unless the agency changes its mind. (The CIA did not acknowledge a call from the Phoenix, and "declined to comment on [Imperial Hubris] or its author" to the Associated Press on Friday.)

According to several long-time intelligence officers familiar with Scheuer’s situation, there’s no question that the agency’s conditional permission was grudging. "Think back

to 2002, and imagine what would have happened if a book had come out that said ‘by Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit’ on the cover — it would have been a bestseller overnight, reviewed and discussed all over the place," says one veteran spook. "But because it was ‘anonymous’ and didn’t even say what exactly he did, let alone what agency he worked for, it was destined to be what it’s become: a required read among people who work this stuff, but not much else. Ironically, it seems to be selling well in the agency gift shop at Langley, and everyone from the [National Security Agency] to [the Center for Strategic and International Studies] has had him over to lecture about it. But I don’t think it even got reviewed but a couple of places."

One doesn’t have to read the manuscript terribly closely to see how it provides some benefit to the CIA. Critical as Anonymous is of his own organization — as well as of the Bush and Clinton administrations — he absolutely blasts the FBI on pages 185 through 192. Many progressives may not cotton to the broad notion he advances here — namely, that the US should simply dispense with any sort of legalistic, law-enforcement approach to combating Al Qaeda and leave it entirely to the covert operators. But in the context of Washington’s political postmortems on 9/11-related intelligence failures, this is stuff that at least makes the FBI look worse than the CIA.

Among some in the intelligence community who have either obtained copies of the Imperial Hubris manuscript or heard about certain passages, the rough consensus is that a not-long-for-his-job George Tenet indicated to the PRB that the book’s publication should be allowed, as it might blunt or contextualize some of the scathing criticism likely to assail the agency in forthcoming 9/11 Commission and Senate Select Intelligence Committee reports — and also might aid the cause of intelligence reform. According to several intelligence-community sources, the manuscript was in limbo at least three months past the Review Board’s 30-day deadline earlier this year. Says one CIA veteran: "I think it’s possible that it got the approval around the time Tenet decided for himself that he was leaving."

WHATEVER THE PRB’s rationale, Scheuer — who in interviews with the Phoenix never explicitly said he works for the CIA, only an "intelligence agency" — says he’s agreed to the conditions because, regardless of any issues he may have with the agency, he truly enjoys what he does and has no desire to quit government service. "I could make more money if I left — I have contractors leave cards in my office and take me to lunch, and I have a marketable set of skills, and it would be better for the books if I could actually say who I was. But I really like working where I work and doing what I do. We do marvelous things and stupid things here, but this place is essential to the security of America, and I think we have been at the lead of making the country safer. I’m not disgruntled. If I was, I would have left already. I just want this information and perspective out there."

What he does not like, however, is the notion advanced by the agency that he’s agreed to be "Anonymous" based on safety concerns. According to Scheuer and his editor at Brassey’s, Christina Davidson, when Nightline wanted to interview Scheuer in 2003, the

agency told the program that his anonymity was not compelled but his own choice — an assertion the agency also made in a 2002 note to Brassey’s. Davidson was so infuriated that she demanded the CIA state its actual position in writing, which it finally did in a May 25, 2004, fax signed by Paul-Noel Christian, chair of the agency’s PRB. The fax, obtained by the Phoenix, reads in part: "This letter is to confirm that it is the Agency, and not the author that insists that approval for the manuscript is predicated upon the author maintaining his anonymity and also that his association with the Agency is not disclosed."

In the wake of the June 23 New York Times story, Davidson sent a terse note to CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that has yet to receive a response. "To say that our author must be kept in the shadows because he has expressed fears about al Qaeda retaliation is patently false and impugns his courage," she wrote, adding the "respectful request that you cease and desist from spreading this falsehood and inform all members of your staff to do the same."

In an interview after the Times story came out last week, Scheuer sounded none too pleased. "I suppose there might be a knucklehead out there somewhere who might take offense and do something, but anonymity isn’t something I asked for, and not for that reason; it makes me sound like I’m hiding behind something, and I personally dislike thinking that anyone thinks I’m a coward. When I did the first book, I said it would be a more effective book if I used my name. And they said no."

Jason Vest is a contributing writer for the Boston Phoenix. Additional support for this article was provided by the Fund for Constitutional Government. Issue date is July 2 - 8, 2004

CIA Critic of U.S. War on Terror ResignsThu Nov 11, 2004 05:59 PM ET

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA analyst who wrote a book that criticized the U.S. war on terror has resigned from the spy agency after it effectively banned him from publicly discussing his views, his publicist said on Thursday.

Michael Scheuer, whose book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" was signed as "anonymous" and published this summer, will resign effective Friday after 22 years at the Central Intelligence Agency.

In a statement, Scheuer said the CIA had not forced him to resign, "but I have concluded that there has not been adequate national debate over the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and the forces he leads and inspires, and the nature and dimensions of intelligence reform needed to address that threat."

He intends to speak to the media over the next several weeks, including an appearance on the CBS show "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

Scheuer's statement said senior leadership had allowed the intelligence officers working against al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to be made scapegoats for pre-Sept. 11 failures.

Scheuer was chief of the CIA Counterterrorist Center's unit which focused on bin Laden from 1996 to 1999 and remained a CIA analyst after that.

"The Atlantic Monthly" in its December issue published a letter sent by Scheuer to U.S. congressional intelligence committees that said the key pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures were mainly the result of bad decisions by senior officials.

"While the 11 September attacks probably were unstoppable, it was decisions by human beings -- featuring arrogance, bad judgment, disdain for expertise, and bureaucratic cowardice -- that made sure the Intelligence Community did not operate optimally to defend America," Scheuer said in the letter.

In June, just before Scheuer's book was published, he did a series of media interviews, appearing on TV in silhouette and was identified in print as "Mike."

In the first week of August, CIA officials told him that he had to ask for permission in advance for media interviews and provide summaries of what would be discussed ahead of time, Scheuer's editor and publicist Christina Davidson said.

"They rejected every single request," she said. "It was effectively a ban."

His book said the United States was losing the war against terrorism and that sticking to current policies would only make its enemies in the Islamic world grow stronger.

The statement released by his publicist about Scheuer's resignation said that "after a cordial meeting with senior CIA officials on Tuesday, Scheuer decided that it would be in the best interests of the intelligence community and the country for him to resign in order to continue speaking publicly with regard to Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the 9-11 Commission Report." A CIA spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

Copyright Reuters 2004

Tallahassee surprise

A Times Editorial, Published November 18, 2004

The news from Florida's Legislature Tuesday told of presiding officers who like each other and respect the minority party, new rules to limit political fundraising, an appropriate wariness toward lobbyists and a declaration of independence from the executive branch. If this is only a dream, please: Don't pinch us.

Representative government is supposed to work that way, of course, but after the nightmare of the past few years, it appears too good to be true.

The credit belongs where the blame lay: on the powers of the presiding officers. The past Senate president, Jim King, used his wisely, continuing the Senate's tradition of bipartisanship, but megalomania ruled the House and rendered the entire process so dysfunctional that the two chambers couldn't agree even on the traditional session-ending ceremony last spring.

The new officers, Senate President Tom Lee of Brandon and House Speaker Allan G. Bense of Panama City, are both, by happy but rare coincidence, genuine citizen-legislators who entered politics to serve their communities rather than to make careers,

and who aren't running for anything else. That is an important factor in their good personal relationship. Though they will differ on issues, neither should have a reason to suspect ulterior motives on the part of the other.

The biggest surprise in Tuesday's organizational session was that Democrats, though outnumbered in Tallahassee by far wider margins than in Washington, now have leadership positions in the House as well as the Senate. Bense gave vice-chairmanships to 11 of the 36 Democrats and named another to co-chair the Agriculture Committee. He also consulted the minority on rules changes. Even their office assignments and parking places have improved. In the Senate, two Democrats chair committees and the other 12 are vice-chairs.

These are not small things; they represent the respect that ought to flow naturally to every member of a representative assembly. Regardless of party, each member speaks for the same number of citizens. As Bense put it in answer to a question Tuesday, "There are two parties."

Equally welcome are the new rules to restrict political fundraising, already prohibited in regular sessions, during special sessions as well, and to require lawmakers to post promptly on the Internet what their political committees receive and spend.

Good as this is, it should be better. Fundraising needs to be outlawed not just during session but during the weeks that committees meet between sessions. It is a distinction without a difference in regard to the implied coercion of lobbyists.

"We went about as far as we could this time," Lee said. "We're probably one step away from being able to do that right now." It is a step that still needs to be taken.

So is the governor's suggestion that lobbyists should have to disclose how much they are paid and which legislators they entertain, rather than merely how much they spend overall. The same transparency the new rules require of political fundraising ought to apply to the wining and dining. Lobbyists are usually the source of the last-minute amendments of which Lee wants his senators to be wary, and it was a smart move to stop them from routinely providing free lunches at the Senate majority office. If it's asking too much of legislators that they pay for all their own meals, let them at least disclose who's buying and who's taking.

That said, the 82nd Legislature since statehood deserves credit for an uncommonly good beginning.

© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved

Voters said yes to the Salvador Dali Museum's move. Now museum officials must raise $20-million to build the new facility.By CARRIE JOHNSON, Times Staff WriterPublished November 21, 2004

ST. PETERSBURG - The roof of the giant concrete cylinder known as Times Arena at Bayfront Center will be blasted into rubble Dec. 1.

Few are more excited about the demolition than officials at the Salvador Dali Museum, who hope to take over the arena site.

More than 75 percent of St. Petersburg voters approved a referendum authorizing the move. Also approved was a measure transferring the Dali property to the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, which wants to expand.

But there are still significant hurdles.

Hank Hine, executive director of the Dali, said the museum needs about $20-million to build a new 50,000-square-foot facility.

Museum officials say they hope to get a sizable chunk of that money from the state during the spring legislative session. Hine said the museum would like to get about $6-million from the transfer of its lease to USF, plus $8-million in state grants.

Hine said the museum also will launch a major fundraising campaign after the Legislature adjourns in early May.

St. Petersburg City Council member John Bryan, an early proponent of moving the Dali, said the results of the referendums should have a significant impact on the Legislature.

"I'm pretty confident," Bryan said. "Seventy-five percent of voters - that's huge. No legislator can ignore the fact that 75 percent of the people in St. Petersburg wanted this to happen."

State Sen. Jim Sebesta, R-St. Petersburg, has been slowly gathering support for the project for the last year and a half. He said he already has met with top state officials, including Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Glenda Hood.

Sebesta said he's optimistic, but it won't be easy.

"It's going to take a lot of hard work by a lot of people," he said. "The state doesn't have a lot of extra money sitting around on the shelf."

Hine said several members of the Pinellas County legislative delegation have also pledged their support, including Rep. Frank Farkas, R-St. Petersburg.

The building will be three stories, designed by Tampa architect Yann Weymouth. The top floor will be 20,000 square feet, offering twice as much exhibition space.

The permanent collection and any traveling exhibits will be displayed on the top floor, which will keep the priceless artwork better protected from flooding than its current ground floor location, Hine said.

The first floor will house an orientation room and a movie theater to introduce visitors to Dali's works. Two libraries will be on the second floor, one open to the public and the other reserved for staff research and archives.

"This really gives us the opportunity to move from protector of a collection to world-class interpreter of that collection," Hine said.

If they can raise the money in time, museum officials hope to have the new building completed and occupied by 2007.

The move would also give much-needed space to USF St. Petersburg, whose student population is expected to increase dramatically over the next few years.

Campus chancellor Karen White said her staff is still reviewing options for the Dali building. The final use will depend largely on what the university's needs are at the time.

Potential uses include space for classrooms, faculty offices, research laboratories or a student center.

White said the need will be dictated by the demands of students living in campus housing, which is scheduled to open at the beginning of the 2006-07 school year.

"That's really going to start the ball rolling," White said. "It's going to change the campus immensely."

The Dec. 1 demolition of the arena is scheduled for 7 a.m. Experts will discharge explosives in the roof, collapsing it "like a giant pancake," said Beth Herendeen, general manager of the Bayfront Center.

It won't be as impressive as the demolition of the old Soreno Hotel in downtown St. Petersburg or the giant explosions seen in movies. In fact, there won't be much to see from ground level. Herendeen said the implosion will be best viewed from the top of the Pier or some other above-ground perch.

The rest of the building will be destroyed using wrecking balls and other equipment, she said.

Carrie Johnson can be reached at 727 892-2273 or cjohnson@sptimes.com

© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved

Published on TaipeiTimeshttp://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/11/18/2003211524

Greens' approach legal and democratic, Cabinet saysBy Joy Su and Jewel HuangSTAFF REPORTERS Thursday, Nov 18, 2004,Page 3

The Cabinet yesterday supported the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) fundraising approach, saying the party was employing a practise that is legal and commonly seen in democratic societies.

"The DPP does not have much in assets, and as such government officials holding party membership have a responsibility to raise funds on the party's behalf," Cabinet spokesman Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) told a media conference after yesterday's closed-door Cabinet meeting.

Chen said that the DPP's fundraising tactics fell within the legal boundaries of the Political Donation Law (政治獻金法) and that fundraising was a common practice in the US and other democratic nations. He said that the DPP was effectively asking for people to support the party's democratic ideals.

According to Chen, the DPP had established an independent bank account for political contributions and issued receipts to contributors.

"Fundraising for a political party is common practice. The question is whether or not the fundraising conforms to legal procedures," Chen said, producing a copy of a letter the DPP had sent to government officials detailing the regulations on accepting and soliciting political contributions.

He said that government officials could participate in the fundraising if they wanted to, but stressed that it was not mandatory.

"If you're happy to do it, then you do it, if not, you don't," Chen said.

"Under the Political Donation Law, Premier Yu Shyi-kun cannot solicit political contributions for himself, nor has he ever done so. However, as DPP members who serve simultaneously as the premier or as a Cabinet member, of course there is a responsibility to help raise funds," Chen said.

Chen said that raising NT$2.5 million would not be a problem for Yu, as he had many enthusiastic supporters who have helped him out with campaign donations in the past.

Chen said that he is himself expected to raise NT$500,000.

DPP Information and Culture Department director Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) said that the pan-blue camp's accusations reflect the KMT's abuses, adding that no evidence has been produced to support the pan-blues' allegations.

Cheng said the contributions to the DPP's campaign that came from party members who serve as governmental officials had been made by DPP supporters or from the party members' own pockets, adding that it was impossible for state-run enterprises to donate money to the DPP directly, as the KMT had claimed.

"Every state-run business has it own account books. We suggest that the opposition parties take a look at the accounts of those state-run enterprises to see if anything illegal took place," Cheng said.

"If there was any illegal conduct, it would have been exposed long ago. The DPP's financial affairs are transparent and it has never forced any company to donate money to the DPP. We did not emulate the KMT's abuses of extortion by using its political clout," Cheng said.

Unlike the KMT, the DPP does not own any enterprises, and the system of DPP government officials raising funds for the party has been in place since the DPP was an opposition party, Cheng said.

"I believe that the DPP's annual expenses are far less than the campaign funds squandered by the KMT on `black gold.' The DPP welcomes public scrutiny of our fundraising efforts, but the same scrutiny should be applied to the KMT," Cheng said.

Published on TaipeiTimeshttp://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/11/21/2003211914

Chen: `one China' referendum possibleLIMITED TOLERANCE: Chen reminded Lien that an independence referendum is not allowed, but said he would not rule out a referendum on `one country, two systems' By Jewel HuangSTAFF REPORTER IN KAOHSIUNG Sunday, Nov 21, 2004,Page 1

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday said that he will not rule out of the possibility of holding a referendum on an issue such as "one country, two systems" if China keeps bullying Taiwan beyond the limit of Taiwan's tolerance.

In response to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) suggestion of holding a referendum on unification or independence, Chen reminded Lien that it was the pan-blue camp who passed the so-called "bird-cage Referendum Law" (鳥籠公投法) last November, which restricted the issues that the public could vote on in a referendum.

"We couldn't find any article in the Referendum Law that would allow us to hold the referendum suggested by Lien," Chen said, adding that if the pan-green camp wins a legislative majority they will have a chance to revise the Referendum Law.

Also yesterday, at a campaign rally held in Taitung County, Chen urged local government chiefs to maintain good relations with the central government for the sake of the citizenry, and not to intentionally hold views opposing those of the central government to curry favor with the opposition party.

Chen yesterday went to Taitung County to campaign for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Hsu Jui-kuei (許瑞貴) and Aboriginal candidate Chen Ying (陳瑩).

The most eye-catching scene at the rally was when Chen and Taitung County Commissioner Hsu Ching-yuan (徐慶元), appeared onstage together to endorse the DPP candidate.

On Friday, Hsu Ching-yuan announced his withdrawal from the People First Party (PFP) and turned to the DPP when the central government promised to fully support the construction projects in Taitung County.

During his speech, Chen spent much time voicing his appreciation for Hsu Ching-yuan.

Chen also criticized Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) recent political gestures, saying that Ma used the campaign tactic of highlighting himself by challenging the central government.

Taking himself as an example, Chen said that he had good communication and cooperated well with the Presidential Office when he was mayor of Taipei, pointing out that he tried his best to cooperate with the central government and took the responsibility of protecting the head of state.

Chen said that he would report to then president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and consulted Lee whenever he visited other countries, which was a sign of respect for the head of state.

"I urged local government chiefs to maintain good relations with the central government and not to intentionally hold opposite views to those of the central government on every issue," Chen said.

"Local governments must support the central government. People who have magnanimity are those who are blessed," Chen said.

Recently, Ma has targeted the Presidential Office and caused controversy by accusing Chen of exploiting his status as president by violating traffic regulations without being ticketed.

04:29 Nov-18-04 / 5 Kislev 5765

Hamas Prisoner to be Released Today Thursday, November 18, 2004 / 5 Kislev 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Sheik Hassan Yousef is scheduled to be released from prison today after serving a two-year term. Yousef, who was arrested in Operation Defense Shield in April 2002, was sentenced to prison for his activities pertaining to fundraising efforts for Hamas. He is considered the head of the Ramallah area political wing of the terror organization. (this is the entire article, sites is now on Fav List)

Freddie Mac may recruit Bush adviserBy Jonathan E. Kaplan and Bob Cusack

White House political director Matt Schlapp is a leading candidate to become the chief lobbyist for Freddie Mac, the embattled congressionally chartered and publicly traded company, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

If tapped, Schlapp would be among the first of President Bush’s senior aides to head to K Street after Bush’s reelection. Some senior White House aides have been promoted to run their corollary departments, and Ken Mehlman, Bush’s political director and campaign manager, has been named chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Freddie Mac’s position of vice president for government affairs has been unfilled since March, when Mitchell Delk was fired under allegations of illegal fundraising activities. The position is one of the most lucrative in Washington; other positions at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Chemistry Council and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers remain unfilled as well.

Schlapp worked for Bush during the 2000 campaign as a regional political director and then joined the White House staff as deputy political director. In 2003, he became the political director when Mehlman became Bush’s campaign manager. In 1994, he helped elect Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and served as his chief of staff.Republican political aides said that Schlapp, after working for Bush for four years and after two elections, wanted to earn more money and spend more time with his wife and their child. The Schlapps are expecting another child as well.

Schlapp is not out the door yet. He and White House political adviser Karl Rove had breakfast with Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) yesterday; Rove and Blunt try to meet every other Wednesday.

Executive slots at Freddie come with a lucrative benefits package, including Freddie’s stock, which has outperformed the S&P 500 index over the past five years. Schlapp’s salary would increase significantly from his current $130,125 annual White House salary.

Schlapp did not return a call seeking comment. A Freddie Mac spokesman declined to comment.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, its bigger competitor, are government-sponsored entities that buy home loans from banks and resell those mortgage-backed securities to investors. The companies were created to lower the price of mortgages by making more money available for borrowing.

Schlapp, if selected, would join a company plagued by numerous government investigations and sharp congressional oversight.

A Wall Street analyst said that if Freddie Mac hires Schlapp, the move would put a lot of pressure on Fannie Mae. Wall Street is leery of Fannie Mae, and hiring Schlapp would bolster the case that Freddie Mac is a better investment than Fannie Mae, the analyst said. Freddie Mac is more attractive to investors because it is building a solid reputation among Hill Republicans and because it is more conservative and more risk-averse than Fannie Mae, the analyst said.

Congressional Republicans are not fond of Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration.

Fannie Mae’s accounting practices are being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department.

Freddie Mac has had its share of problems as well. In January 2003, Freddie Mac announced that it would restate its earnings for the three previous years. Last summer, several top executives at the company were ousted, and, in November, Freddie Mac released a report that showed a series of overstatements and understatements designed to make the company’s earnings look more consistent.

Private-sector competitors and congressional critics are seeking to strengthen regulation of Freddie and Fannie.

In September, the SEC informed Freddie Mac’s board of directors that the agency would start an investigation because of the company’s accounting errors in which it misstated profits by $5 billion over three years, from 2000 to 2002.

Moreover, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said he was “greatly troubled” by the Department of Housing and Urban Development inspector general’s report on the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator that oversees Freddie and Fannie. In a letter to the inspector general, Frank said that portions of the report had been leaked and that there was no longer any reason to keep it private.

The report is extremely critical of OFHEO for its investigation of Fannie Mae, suggesting the agency’s investigation was politically motivated.

Frank also wrote a letter to the House Appropriations Committee withdrawing his support for an increase in OFHEO’s budget.

Congressional aides speculated that legislation might emerge in the 109th Congress to reform OFHEO by restructuring it altogether or moving it under the supervision of the Treasury Department.

Patrick O’Connor contributed to this report.

Article located http://www.thehill.com/news/111804/freddie.aspx

www.suntimes.com $388 billion bill is show of GOP power November 21, 2004

BY ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON -- Republicans whisked a $388 billion spending bill through Congress on Saturday, a mammoth measure that underscores the dominance of deficit politics by curbing dollars for everything from education to environmental cleanups.

The House approved the measure 344-51 margin, while Senate passage was by 65-30.

Senate approval took longer because of disputes over provisions dealing with abortion and members of Congress' access to income tax returns. Leaders agreed not to send the spending

package to President Bush for his signature until next week, when they expect the tax returns issue to be resolved in a separate bill.

Bush proposals cut

From its tight domestic spending to the Democratic-backed provisions on overtime and other issues that were dropped, the bill is a monument to the GOP's raw power controlling the White House and Congress.

Even Bush's initiatives were not immune to cuts as the bill's GOP chief authors heeded his demands to control spending. His request for development of new nuclear weapons was rejected; his budget for the AmeriCorps volunteer program was sliced 12 percent, and the $2.5 billion he wanted to aid countries adopting democratic practices was slashed by $1 billion.

Passage would crown the lame-duck session of Congress, which began Tuesday. Lawmakers hoped to leave town for the year Saturday night, but Senate delays on the spending bill and the collapse of bargaining over a measure reorganizing U.S. intelligence agencies left timing in doubt.

Also enacted during the post-election session was an $800 billion increase in the government's borrowing limit. The measure was yet another testament to record annual deficits, which reached $413 billion last year and are expected to climb indefinitely.

Congress made it a little easier for hospitals, insurers and other to refuse to provide or cover abortions. A provision in the bill would block any of the measure's money from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide abortions, make abortion referrals or cover them.

Still some home-district pork

While the spending bill was one of the most austere in years, it had something for virtually every lawmaker, including mountains of home-district projects. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a bipartisan group favoring less federal spending, said it found 11,772 projects worth $15.8 billion. Those projects included:

*$335,000 to protect North Dakota sunflowers from birds.

*$60 million for a new courthouse in Las Cruces, N.M.

*$225,000 to study catfish genomes at Alabama's Auburn University.

*A potential boon for Bush, $2 million for the government to try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8 million and are distressed by the provision.

Dems go along

Despite complaints the bill was too stingy, most Democrats supported it. They helped write it and included many projects for themselves. They knew the alternative -- holding spending to last year's levels -- would be $4 billion tighter.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) said the bill ''falls so far from meeting our investment obligations for the future that it could only be brought to the floor by the majority party after the election.''

The measure was a compendium of nine bills that Republicans found too contentious to complete before the Nov. 2 elections. The legislation covers almost every domestic agency and department, plus foreign aid.

The FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASA got healthy increases. But education grew by less than 2 percent. The Environmental Protection Agency grew by 3.5 percent.

AP

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

NH’s conflicting history on ethics, briberyBy ROGER TALBOT , Sunday News Staff The Unionleader.com

Thirty-one years ago, when Manchester lawyer David L. Nixon was president of the N.H. Senate, he and colleague Leigh Bosse crafted a proposal to set “standards of legislative ethics.”

Under their zero-tolerance plan, a lawmaker would have been prohibited from “accepting any compensation or things of value from private sources in connection with his official duties,” and a seven-member commission would have investigated complaints.

The bill carried clout: Legislators would have been required to report their “financial interests,” and the commission would have been empowered to suspend “the party charged” from legislative activities and “recommend” prosecution by the Attorney General’s Office.

If prosecution led to conviction, the crime of accepting a gift under “circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was made to influence him in the performance of his official duties” could have resulted in a prison sentenced as a class B felony.

“It was referred to a special joint committee and that’s the last I heard of it,” Nixon said, leafing a dog-eared file folder to find a copy of Senate Bill 14, 1973 session.

“Nobody was interested in ethics in those days, or now,” he said. Outlawed since 1784

It’s not that state law is devoid of ethical controls.

Under one wording or another, bribery in political and official matters has been outlawed since the New Hampshire Constitution was enacted in 1784.

Lobbyists must report the contributions and gifts they dole out; political candidates file financial disclosure forms and report campaign income and expenses; and, as of the mid-

1980s, state and county elected officials have been required to disclose “any money or thing of value received in excess of $50 . . . when the receipt of such income is attributable to the office held by the official.”

The reports can bulge with detail, but collating is time consuming and the difficulty has always come in trying to match a politician’s sources of financial support to votes on key issues. Corn roast questions

As the Legislature readies for its 2005 session, the ethical spotlight — which hasn’t burned this bright in more than a decade — is on House Speaker Gene Chandler.

He faces questions on his failure to report, under the gifts and testimonial law, proceeds of the annual “Corn Roast Gala” sponsored by the Friends of Gene Chandler Committee, a fund-raiser that lobbyists, corporations and others with a stake in legislative matters buy tickets to.

In September, after questions were raised, Chandler amended his previously blank annual filings to identify contributors to the corn roasts that raised about $64,000 over the past four years. The money was used to defray his personal expenses.

Chandler received a vote of confidence Thursday when Republican House members caucused. Of 239 votes cast, 178 supported his bid for a third term. Ethics meeting tomorrow

Tomorrow, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee is scheduled to meet in its continuing inquiry of the speaker’s admittedly delinquent gift-reporting practices and the amounts he has received. The committee operates under guidelines that limit a legislator to a maximum of “$250 in aggregate from any single source during any calendar year” for awards, prizes, money or anything else of value.

On a parallel track, the Attorney General’s Office, acting on a complaint from a Chandler foe, Rep. Anthony R. DiFruscia, R-Windham, has for the past two months been reviewing Chandler’s failure to disclose gifts annually. Conviction for “knowingly” failing to comply with the elected officials reporting law or filing a false statement is a misdemeanor crime. Time for a review?

DiFruscia believes it’s time for a general review of legislative ethics. He has filed a legislative service request to draft a bill for next year’s session that would address “gifts and contributions” received by elected officials. He contends there is a need to reconcile gift reporting requirements with the laws that punish perjury and define bribery as “any pecuniary benefit” given to influence a public servant.

“I think there are enough people who do not want the perception that they are only making $100 a year (in the Legislature), but then getting additional funds on the side.

Maybe the whole system has to be looked at in a Constitutional Convention,” DiFruscia said. The Blaisdell case

Chandler is not the first lawmaker to prompt questions about legislative ethics.

Flashback about 14 years to when attorney Nixon was counsel to a senator from Keene, Clesson “Junie” Blaisdell, then the subject of a lengthy investigation brought by the Attorney General’s Office under the corrupt practices law.

Nixon recalled the investigation — and the cloud of suspicion it placed over Blaisdell for more than a year — evolved from “a very simple political contribution that was made and listed and accounted for. There wasn’t any question of not having an accounting. The question was whether it was made to influence and there was no proof of that.”

Eventually, Blaisdell, a feisty veteran legislator who at the time chaired the Senate Finance Committee, was called before a grand jury and exonerated when the jury refused to indict. The Palumbo case

It was also in the early 1990s that the Legislature faced the disgrace that befell House Majority Leader Vincent J. Palumbo.

Palumbo was a four-term Republican from Kingston who appeared destined for the House speaker’s job before he pleaded guilty in March 1991 to seven counts of bank fraud and three counts of income tax evasion. He was sentenced to 15 months in a federal prison.

“When the majority leader gets hauled away to jail, you have to do something about it,” said Donna Sytek of Salem, who served 23 years in the House, retiring as speaker in 2000.

“We never saw the need for ethics guidelines until Vinny Palumbo was in trouble. It was the silver lining to a black cloud,” she said. Conflicting laws

In August 1991, a new Joint Legislative Ethics Committee — authorized to recommend that a state lawmaker be reprimanded, censured or expelled — was organized under the chairmanship of Sen. Charles F. Bass of Peterborough. Within a year, using its power to interpret state law as it applies to the Legislature, the committee began to develop a set of guidelines that has continued to evolve.

For one thing, the committee decided on the $250-a-year limit for gifts to legislators from “any single source.”

At the time, Bass admitted the $250 limit was “in conflict” with the law that requires elected officials to report gifts in excess of $100 — since changed to $50 — and the bribery statute that forbids all “public servants” from accepting anything of value given to influence their official actions. Cutting some slack

“We knew there was a law that said you can’t accept a dime, but we knew that was not realistic,” Bass, now a congressman, said in a telephone interview last week.

Bass recalled the committee decided to “give legislators some slack” because it was customary for the leadership of the all-volunteer Legislature to have annual fundraising-type dances, dinners and picnics.

The testimonial question surfaced in April 1992 when George Bruno, a Manchester lawyer who was then a state Democratic Party official, asked the Attorney General’s Office to rule on a party being planned by the five Republican members of the Executive Council.

Bruno complained that the council’s business involved people invited to the event. He charged that the reception, “comes close to, if not crosses the line, of soliciting money in return for the exercise of political favors.” The Ciolfi opinion

Assistant Attorney General Monica Ciolfi disagreed.

“There is no indication of any transactions that are unlawful, of any bribery, of any expectation on either the contributor or the council member’s part of taking any sort of official action. It is simply a gift. . . . The only regulation the state has provided is disclosure,” Ciolfi said, in an opinion that cleared the way for the council’s party.

The next year, the legislative ethics committee added to its guidelines by approving testimonials held for legislators. It determined that the $250 limit applied, but that, “for purposes of the limit, the cost of staging the testimonial may be deducted from the total price of tickets or charge for attendance.” Taking and disclosing

Said Sytek, in summarizing how the ethics guidelines developed in the 1990s, “It’s not unethical to take it (a gift of less than $250), but you’ve got to report it. . . .

“There was an emphasis on disclosure. There would be no secrets. As long as there is transparency, the voters can judge for themselves whether they want to reelect you,” she said.

In 1998, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen extended disclosure to the executive branch by requiring top agency officials and board and commission members to report their income sources. The McLaughlin opinion

That led to then Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin issuing an opinion on the term “pecuniary benefit” as used in the corrupt practices law. That law specifically prohibits a public servant — the term includes judges, legislators, consultants, jurors, anyone performing a governmental function — from accepting “any” benefit from “a person who is or is likely to become subject to or interested in any matter or action” pending before the official or his agency.

The law appears to conflict with the newer statute that dates from the 1980s and allows elected officials to receive gifts at dinners, dances and other testimonial events, as long as they disclose the amounts and contributors.

McLaughlin concluded there was no conflict for legislators and other state and county elected officials. “The later-enacted statute . . . controls,” he said in his 1998 ruling.

“Thus, while (the corrupt practices law) would prohibit gifts of any pecuniary benefit from a certain class of persons to such officials, (the elected officials reporting law) allows gifts to such officials to $50 in value and allows acceptance of gifts in excess of $50 in value with disclosure in accordance with the statute.” Quid pro quo

In an interview, McLaughlin drew a bright line between corrupt practices and the requirement to report gifts.

“Bribery is a quid pro quo: I’ll give you this and you do that,” the former attorney general said.

With regard to gifts, the bribery statute prohibits the “public servant” from soliciting or accepting “any pecuniary benefit from a person who is or is likely to become subject to or interested in any matter or action pending” before the official.

As to the separate law that requires elected officials to disclose gifts, McLaughlin said, “I think the ordinary citizen believes that, if you run for office, you have to report what you get. If the law says report, people ought to report. . . . I don’t think the law was designed to create exceptions.” Resolving inconsistencies

But ethics committee Chairman Shawn N. Jasper, R-Hudson, believes there are inconsistencies that need to be ironed out between the law that bars public servants from accepting “any pecuniary benefit” and the one that allows lobbyists and others to give gifts to elected officials.

“I clearly believe that no one should ever take cash for personal use, but people will look for loopholes. For example, you’ll get a gift certificate.

“I don’t have a problem with tickets to a baseball game or the race track. There is no material benefit there. You just have a good time. . . .

“I do have a problem with people getting things that materially benefit them. Maybe we should word it that no one should accept anything that can be construed as a material benefit to the recipient,” Jasper said.

10/31/2004

'Pay to play' referendum Tuesday

Aims to cut campaign contributions from contractorsBy: Tom JennemannReporter staff writer group of residents seeking to limit local campaign donations will face their moment of truth Tuesday when Hoboken voters head to the polls to vote on a sweeping "pay to play" reform referendum.

The legislation hopes to end "pay to play," the practice of awarding professional services contracts to campaign contributors. Such practices can result in politicians approving overly expensive or unnecessary projects in exchange for campaign support.

It is illegal to give out a government contract or permit just because someone donated money, but it can often be hard to prove a correlation. Thus, the referendum aims to cut down the amount that present and future contractors can donate to a candidate.

The state recently approved a weaker version of the law that curtails some campaign donations, but there are several loopholes.

For the past couple of months, a local good-government group called the People for Open Government (POG) in Hoboken collected more than 1,000 signatures on a petition that would put tougher limits on political contributions here.

The City Council could have adopted the ordinance, but at a City Council meeting in September, by a vote of 5-3, the administration-backed council members voted it down. By state law it must now go on the ballot of the next general election, for the people to decide.

The polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. statewide Tuesday.

A 'yes' vote would mean...

There are currently 15 municipalities in the state that have passed stricter public contracting reform legislation. Towns with local pay-to-play bans include Asbury Park, Bradley Beach, Freehold Township, Holmdel, Manalapan and Marlboro.

If you vote yes, the measure will:

* Apply to all professional service contracts without exception.* Apply to contracts awarded within two years of the donation.* Limit contractors' contributions to city officials to $400.* Limits contractors' contributions to county parties to $500.* Include an aggregate donation limit of $2,500 of all local elections.

* Make no exception for emergency bids (the state law allows for exception).* Apply to all 10-percent owners and partners or officers of a company.

A look at the system

To see how such a law might affect campaign fundraising in Hoboken, one wouldn't have to look any further than the fundraising documentation from the current or past administrations. Raising money from contractors is common and is not illegal. But in some cases, it gives the appearance that top donors can get contracts. It may also simply show that certain contractors like the direction in which an administration is going.

Donations from city contractors and developers have been a source of campaign income for Mayor David Roberts, former Mayor Anthony Russo, and former mayors Pat Pasculli and Tom Vezetti. It's also common in other municipalities and counties.

Fundraising for the ruling administration traditionally starts with the Hoboken Democratic Party, which for the past couple of decades has contributed heavily to incumbent mayors. During Russo's administration, the party was chaired by Russo's wife, Michele. In the April 27, 2001 campaign fundraising report before the 2001 mayoral election, Russo had a war chest of $534,078, with the Hoboken Democratic Party being by far the biggest contributor. The party contributed more than $132,000.

Many of the contributors to the party had contracts with, were employed by, or were developers with large projects pending before the city's boards.

Since 2001, Roberts, though various organizations, has raised approximately $1.4 million for his election campaigns, according to state election commission reports. Most of this money has come from companies doing business with the city, such as developers, engineers, planners and lawyers, bond brokers and financial advisors.

Ann Graham, the chair of the People for Open Government, said last week, "Our research shows a clear and convincing correlation from businesses who receive lucrative no-bid contracts from the city directly to the coffers of the current administration."

She added that pay-to-play is a hidden tax and the level of services the city provides is jeopardized by the practice. She said that in general, "By limiting the amount businesses can give elected officials and political candidates, we hope to create an accountable, transparent government in Hoboken."

She added, "Reform will return the business of city government to the citizens rather than the interests of large contractors. Citizens will have a voice in city policy decisions."

Roberts, council support referendum

While maintaining his distance from the pay-to-play controversy, Roberts said supports and will abide by the voters' decision on political contributions. "While I believe honesty and integrity cannot be legislated, this measure has my full support," said Roberts in a recent statement.

Some local activists said that Roberts has waited too long and should have supported the referendum much earlier. If he did, they said, the council could have approved the reforms in the first place, and the citizens could have avoided a time consuming and costly campaign.

At the last City Council meeting, the City Council, by a 9-0 vote, approved a non-binding resolution that encourages voters to support POG's pay-to-play referendum. Even the five members that originally voted it down in September now say they support POG's resolution and encourage Hoboken residents to vote for

the resolution. Councilman Ruben Ramos, a supporter of the administration, echoed the statements of Roberts by saying that this will not be the cure-all.

"It's really an issue of personal integrity," said Ramos.

Just like Roberts, the administration-supported council members have also taken heat for not supporting this reform quickly enough.

Former Mayor Anthony Russo, who served from 1993 through 2001, was indicted last year for having accepted payments from a local accounting firm that had done millions of dollars of work for the city. He pleaded guilty and has not yet been sentenced. No one in the current administration, which has only been in office for three years, has been accused of any related matter - but members of the POG say that even the appearance or possibility of givebacks happening is important to prevent.

Most of the money has paid for TV ads that have been magnified by millions more from campaign committees from both parties and by EMILY's List, a group that helps Democratic women such as Castor who support abortion rights. EMILY's List helped Castor find a new campaign manager, assigned staffers to assist with publicity, finance and opposition research and, most importantly, it bundled money from donors all across the United States.

Minnesota's swing-state status should be no surprise. It is the result of a generation-long pro-Republican trend in state politics. Republicans' most difficult decade in Minnesota politics was the 1970s, when they averaged only 36 percent of seats in the Minnesota House. The 1978 elections, in which they won two U.S. Senate seats and increased their numbers in the Minnesota House to produce a tie, presaged a quarter-century trend in their direction. In the 1980s and 1990s, Republicans averaged 45 percent of state House seats and then bumped that up to 56 percent over the last two elections. When the statewide votes for president, U.S. Senate, and governor are averaged by decade, the Democrats' share of the vote fell from 53 percent in the 1960s and 52 percent in the 1970s to under 45 percent in the 1990s (47 percent if we drop the last two three-way gubernatorial races).What political forces underlie this trend?We must first observe that the common assumption Minnesotans make about our politics -- that our state is a unique and special place -- exaggerates the facts. Nationwide over the past 30 years, Republicans have virtually eliminated their 20 percent deficit with the Democrats in the number of adults identifying with their party. In Minnesota, the proportion of Republicans has grown as well. The Minnesota Poll shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5 to 10 percent in recent years, compared with 10 to 15 percent a couple of decades ago. Meanwhile, the number of independents, who are less predisposed than partisans to either party, has increased from less than a third of Minnesota's electorate to nearly half over the last three decades. The same factors that explain Republican success nationwide also explain most of the Minnesota trend.

As elsewhere, a problem for Democrats in Minnesota is that one of the most reliably Democratic segments of the population -- voters over 65 -- are dying and are being replaced with voters less reliably Democratic. Roger Moe, Democratic candidate for governor in 2002, scored best with voters over 65, but many of them will not be around for the next gubernatorial election in 2006. Tim Pawlenty, in contrast, scored particularly well with voters under 65 and those possessing a bachelor's degree or higher. These are disproportionately the voters of Minnesota's future.Republicans have successfully constructed coalitions of economic and cultural conservatives, allowing them to dominate the vast suburban "doughnut" surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul, and to attain new, higher levels of support from socially conservative voters outside of the Twin Cities region. It is no coincidence that George W. and Laura Bush have both attended Minnesota rallies outside of the metro area this year. They are doing the same thing in most states they visit.The Republican message? Most of it is vintage Reaganism -- identifying government as the barrier to economic progress and advocating tax relief and regulatory reductions. The culture gap is real and growing. Widespread unease about eroding moral standards in American life has fed the flow of voters to Republican candidates. Successful GOP candidates from Reagan to George W. Bush wrap these concerns in an optimistic message touting American exceptionalism and the likelihood of a sunny future under GOP rule. After three decades, Democrats have been unable to design a similar formula for success.As elsewhere, party activists who dominate the process of selecting party nominees for high office have forced candidates in both parties to the extremes. The public expresses frustration with the polarized choices, but, on balance, the Republicans have benefited from the resulting comparison.Nationwide, they have done so because of their sunny message, more aggressive efforts to recruit attractive candidates, and proficiency at electoral mechanics. Dipping even into nominally nonpartisan city and county elections throughout the country, Republicans have generated a larger pool of potential candidates for higher office. In Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman have shown that conservatism-with-a-smile can work. They put an inviting face on an agenda that could be viewed as harsh and insensitive. Democrats have been unable to make such a charge stick, at least with middle-class voters. Astute candidate recruitment contributed mightily to the sweeping GOP successes in the 2002 state House elections. John Kline and Mark Kennedy, backed by considerable party fundraising, have proven able candidates in congressional districts in the growing Republican areas of the state.One unique trend in Minnesota involved the appearance of an extraordinary generation of political leaders -- Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Orville Freeman and Wendell Anderson -- who promoted the state's era of Democratic dominance.

The emergence of such a group is highly unusual in the history of any state and is unlikely to recur soon. That generation has been replaced by more prosaic Democratic politicians.So when the national media ask us what is going on in Democratic Minnesota, we have to explain that they are operating from an outdated stereotype. Minnesota in 2004 is very much a battleground state, and is likely to remain one for the foreseeable future.Steven S. Smith of Washington University and Steven E. Schier of Carleton College are political scientists who comment regularly on Minnesota politics for newspapers, radio and television.

American Journalism Review Article From AJR,   October/November 2004  issue

December 2004/January 2005 Preview:Lesson Learned   A behind-the-scenes look at election night coverage

By Rachel Smolkin Rachel Smolkin is an AJR senior writer.     

CBS anchor Dan Rather, who had experienced a rough few months, set the tone for election night coverage at 8:22 p.m. with a memorable offering from his stable of trademark axioms. "Beware of certitude," Rather warned viewers.

Early and misleading exit polls had seeped onto Web sites such as the Drudge Report and Slate and ricocheted through the blogosphere. Left-leaning bloggers were dishing merrily about Kerry's early leads in the pivotal states of Florida and Ohio. Journalists privately pored over those numbers. But the networks, memories of the 2000 election night meltdown all too vivid, avoided them.

"We never reported any of those exit polls here on CNN," anchor Wolf Blitzer piously told President Bush's senior adviser Karen Hughes after midnight, then asked her about the mood at the White House when officials saw the early numbers.

The campaign season had been punctuated by major media missteps (the CBS National Guard story), by reckless replays (the Dean Scream) and by disproportionate attention to unproven allegations (the cable networks' handling of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). During the summer, the media fixated relentlessly and depressingly on the candidates' military records from three decades past.

But the media also provided serious issues coverage, careful fact-checking and meticulous investigations throughout the campaign (see "Campaign Trail Veterans for Truth"). The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and other publications helped debunk the Swift Boaters' claims. The Baltimore Sun's Susan Baer wrote a prescient page-one article in October about same-sex marriage as the "new front in culture wars." The L.A. Times' Ronald Brownstein contributed a late- October story about the Kerry campaign, in a "virtually unprecedented move for a Democrat," all but surrendering the South.

On election night, the media mostly veered toward these loftier instincts. The networks turned suddenly solemn, their coverage restrained. In contrast to the vertigo-inducing debacle of four years ago--when the networks first awarded Florida to Vice President Al Gore, then to George W. Bush, then retracted it again--TV journalists in 2004 heeded Rather's warning. The usual race to scoop competitors became an unlikely contest in most ostentatious show of responsibility.

Such sober coverage doesn't make for riveting television. On November 2, "caution" was the shibboleth of election night analysis. Networks awarded key states to candidates very, very slowly.

New York Times writer Alessandra Stanley characterized their strained efforts to avoid the 2000 blunders as "almost painful," adding it "was the wise, responsible thing to do (quite literally, politically correct), but it left the anchors without much to say."

"Unfortunately," the San Francisco Chronicle's Tim Goodman complained in a column, "what we witnessed was a night packed with eggshell walking, overwhelming caution and relatively good manners. Exciting and fun? No. Informative. Not really. A humongous time killer? Check."

While television coverage was unusually tentative throughout the evening, political analysts and media critics give the networks solid marks for their performance.

"They did a good job of holding back," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, senior scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California, who spent election night on the set of KNBC, the NBC-owned station in Los Angeles. She praises NBC and CNN for their "quite deliberative and quite cautious" coverage and notes the afternoon drumbeat of early exit poll leaks signaled a momentum--the coveted Big Mo--for Kerry that proved false. "People weren't hyperventilating all over the place too early," she says. "They didn't buy in too deeply to the 'Faux Mo.' "

William Powers, a National Journal columnist who covers media and politics, concedes that "from a purely entertainment point of view, there was less drama," but he doesn't think entertainment should be the "primary function of what these mass outlets do on Election Day." Powers senses an awareness among the networks that "they're competing to get as close to the truth as they can because otherwise there's going to be a price to pay

in reputation." The networks once again would be held up for popular-culture pillory through vehicles such as Michael Moore's films.

Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California, admits "a lot of us political junkies would have enjoyed quicker calls, but it's hard to see how the Republic would have been served by a call at 1 a.m. instead of 2 a.m." Given scars from 2000, the 2002 collapse of the Voter News Service exit-polling system and the "underestimation of the Republican vote in 2004," Pitney thinks the networks were "appropriately careful."

But he would have enjoyed a bit more variety. "They could have talked about some of the individual races for Congress and the Senate," Pitney says. "After awhile, you learn all you need to learn about provisional ballots in the state of Ohio. What would have been more edifying for viewers is a discussion of how redistricting in Texas" led to GOP gains in the House of Representatives.

The National Election Pool--a media-owned consortium that replaced Voter News Service and is composed of the principal TV networks and the Associated Press--sent the first wave of exit-poll data to subscribers around 2 p.m. on November 2. Other media subscribers also pay to see the results, and participants pledge not to publicize or leak the early numbers.

But leak they did. The figures were whizzing through cyberspace by mid-afternoon. Jack Shafer, Slate's media critic and editor at large, explained in his Web post that "Slate believes its readers should know as much about the unfolding election as the anchors and other journalists, so given the proviso that the early numbers are no more conclusive than the midpoint score of a baseball game, we're publishing the exit-poll numbers as we receive them."

The surveys, which created a false impression that Kerry was rolling toward victory, had the "biggest partisan skew since at least 1988," said a November 5 article in the New York Times, which had obtained a copy of a report by the system's creators exploring why the exit polls were misleading.

Although those early numbers did not predict final results, Shafer stands by his decision to post them. "The networks were every bit as remiss this year in telegraphing what was in these confidential exit polls that they're not supposed to reveal as in previous years," Shafer says. "They need to be demystified. It's better for my readers to know why a television broadcaster seems to be so up on Kerry at 5 o'clock."

Political bloggers quickly seized on the numbers. In a hip "Marketplace" graphic on November 4, the Wall Street Journal interspersed updates from bloggers and network television throughout the afternoon and evening. "PA and Ohio margins widening for Kerry, Florida, Wisconsin tie in early returns," the blog Wonkette.com reported at 9:10 p.m.

As the Journal article noted, WSJ.com, the newspaper's Web site, posted a mid-afternoon article saying exit-poll data "purported to give Mr. Kerry an early lead in several key states" and linked to a blog with the numbers. The Journal's Web site also questioned their validity.

"I know there'll be a lot of gnashing of incisors tomorrow about blogs leaking leaked exit polls," said a November 2 post by Jeff Jarvis, the blogger behind buzzmachine.com, who also runs online services for Newhouse Newspapers. "To hell with the gnashing. We're all big boys and girls. We can decide whether to (a) believe it and (b) vote on our own. Let information be free. Let us know what big media and big politics know. Transparency, man, transparency."

Jarvis, a former Sunday editor for New York's Daily News and former TV critic for People and TV Guide, argues blogs "were saying what they knew and the journalists were not saying what they knew." He says "big media" should "tell us what they know: 'The exit polls look like Kerry, but boy, they were wrong last time.' "

But Kevin Drum, who blogs for Washington Monthly, a small but influential politics and policy magazine, thinks the networks rightly avoided exit polls and the bloggers rightly published them. "To me, it's just data," says Drum, who shared early exit-poll data in one post. "If you're interested in looking at it, go ahead and look at it." But the networks are watched by millions of people, and if you're among those viewers, "you're sort of forced to see it."

Jonathan Dube, the managing producer for MSNBC.com and publisher of CyberJournalist.net, notes that Slate and Drudge also published exit polls in 2000. "It's more of a phenomenon that was created by the Internet, and Weblogs are just one way the information is being distributed," Dube says.

But he thought blogs' coverage on election night "got very skewed based on exit polling they were publishing early on." While one of the virtues of bloggers "is that they are independent and will publish what they want, when they want, certain bloggers did a good job of putting certain caveats" on the numbers, Dube says, and "others didn't do quite as good a job."

Network election coverage began at 7 p.m., with each unveiling special sets notable for glitz and excess. NBC coined the silliest set name, dubbing its sky booths outside Rockefeller Center "Democracy Plaza," a phrase which recalled--hopefully inadvertently--administration platitudes such as the "coalition of the willing," "they hate our freedom," and Bush's favorite: "Democracy is on the march."

CNN's set was the most distracting. Not only were video wall graphics and precinct numbers often difficult to see, but the rented Nasdaq site in Times Square looked so much like a running track that it seemed to beckon an earnest Blitzer to relax and take a lap. A "Today" show-style glass window behind the anchors allowed anxious viewers at home to see vapid viewers outside the studio waving to the watchers.

Fox News Channel provided the clearest and most helpful graphics for election night returns with its "Election Ticker," which continuously displayed raw vote numbers, percent of the vote for each candidate and percent of precincts reporting.

Michael Barone, a Fox News contributor and senior writer for U.S. News & World Report, analyzed the tabulated vote in swing states such as Florida and Ohio county by county to explain where votes counted so far had originated, why that appeared to benefit Bush and how Kerry still might be able to prevail. Anchor Brit Hume handled questions deftly, keeping Barone's discussion of the numbers accessible to viewers who lack his intimate knowledge of the political landscape.

As Shafer argues, early network coverage did indeed allude obliquely to preliminary exit polls that favored Kerry. Fox News commentators initially looked "stunned and somber as they hinted that early voter surveys showed Mr. Kerry doing better than expected," the New York Times' Stanley wrote the next day.

On CNN, "Crossfire" pundits downplayed Bush's chances in Ohio. Conservative cohost Robert Novak announced Republicans in the state were "very pessimistic." They're "looking at the returns; they think it's going to be very tough for Bush" to carry the state, Novak said.

On MSNBC's "Hardball," reporter Lisa Myers enigmatically informed viewers in the 8 o'clock hour that Bush's campaign was finding "that the exit-poll data is significantly underrepresenting the Republican vote."

Despite these veiled hints, the networks held back on risky calls. Linda Mason, the CBS News executive in charge of its "decision desk," characterizes her network's approach as "cautiously aggressive." CBS was the first to call states including South Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota.

CNN Political Director Tom Hannon says he was not monitoring "call sheets" that night tracking what time other networks projected winners. "When the other networks called [a state] was not a factor in decision making," Hannon says.

As midnight neared, the networks offered markedly different approaches to projecting winners in pivotal states.

At 11:39 p.m., ABC called Florida for Bush, followed by CBS. CNN waited until 12:10 a.m., Fox until 12:22. "The race there was very tight," says Mason, who wrote a report for CBS on the 2000 election fiasco. "Of course, Florida holds a certain symbolism for us, so we wanted to be super careful."

Marty Ryan, Fox's executive producer of political programs, says "certainly it was in the back of our mind what happened in 2000," when his network was the first to call Florida for Bush. Ryan says the four-person decision team at Fox wanted to be particularly

careful because Florida had extensive early voting. "There was no early gauge to assess how early voting went," he says, and the exit polls became "problematic."

At 12:41 a.m., Fox was the first to call Ohio for Bush, followed by NBC and MSNBC around 1 a.m.

Fox News Senior Vice President John Moody consulted with a pollster and two statisticians hired by the network and decided Bush's more than 100,000-vote lead in Ohio gave him an almost insurmountable edge over Kerry, who would need a huge majority of the as-yet uncounted provisional ballots to triumph. (Provisional ballots are cast by registered voters who have moved but not updated their registration or believe themselves to be eligible but do not appear on the rolls.) "It became a little bit of a math problem" to see how Kerry could prevail, Ryan says.

But ABC, CNN and CBS declined to call Ohio for Bush. At CNN, the decision team was hearing conflicting reports about the number of provisional ballots, with Ohio's secretary of state estimating about 170,000 and Democrats projecting some 250,000. "There was a clear possibility that there could be a dispute over the number of ballots," CNN's Hannon says. "Had we known exactly how many provisional ballots there were with certainty, I think we would have made a call."

CBS declined to call Ohio because Mason and her team believed as many as 250,000 provisional ballots could be outstanding. "In addition to that, there were all those lawyers in Ohio ready to sue on various other counts," Mason says. "It looked like this could be [a repeat of] Florida and be in turmoil for weeks. It would be silly for us not to take all this into account."

But CBS did call Nevada at 3:45 a.m. Before the announcement, Mason told CBS News President Andrew Heyward that her team planned to call Nevada for Bush, and she expected NBC and Fox to follow suit. On those networks, the Nevada call would push Bush over 270 votes in the Electoral College, securing his reelection. Because CBS had not projected a winner in Ohio, it would not be in a position to announce Bush's victory. Does that bother you? she asked Heyward. No, he replied.

ABC called Nevada for Bush about 10 minutes later. Mason expectantly watched NBC and Fox, but neither called Nevada.

"Everybody has a little better knowledge or confidence in different states they look at and concentrate on different things," Fox's Ryan says. The Fox team felt New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada each had "different issues" that precluded projecting a winner. In Nevada, the team was concerned about where the votes were coming from and how that might impact the overall margin.

At about 2:30 a.m., Moody and Ryan went to the studio to explain the situation to Brit Hume and to tell him that unless something occurred to resolve their concerns in the next half hour, they would hold off until morning.

Bush's Electoral College margin on Fox, NBC and MSNBC hovered the rest of the night at 269 votes--a number that would have allowed Kerry to tie, at best, and thrown the election into the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. No network awarded Bush the full 270 votes.

Major newspapers, too, avoided making definitive declarations in their headlines. "Bush nears victory but Ohio count is in dispute," said USA Today. "Bush Holds Lead/Kerry Refuses to Concede Tight Race," said the New York Times.

Papers around the country echoed those themes. "Down to Ohio" declared the Akron Beacon Journal. "WE WAIT/ Bush close to victory, Kerry clings to Ohio," said the Arizona Republic. "SQUEAKER!" announced the Charlotte Observer.

Like their TV counterparts, many newspaper reporters saw early exit polls, and some crafted preliminary stories relying on those numbers.

Jack Torry, a Washington reporter for Ohio's Columbus Dispatch, helped write two different analysis stories on election night. The first, never published, was based on late afternoon exit polls and explored how Kerry won the election, a "referendum on President Bush."

"The more I kept checking with Republican sources who I really do trust, the more I began to wonder: Could those exit polls be right?" Torry says. He and his colleagues scrapped the first piece around 9:30 p.m. Their second analysis, which actually appeared in the paper, examined why the race was so tight.

But not all early misfires based on exit polling stayed out of print. The November 5 story by the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg referred to a Times snafu. "The New York Times removed an analytical piece about the vote based in part on the Election Day survey from its later editions," Rutenberg wrote.

That story, by R.W. Apple and Janet Elder, also appeared in the International Herald Tribune. Bush's "bid for re-election was weakened by his failure to compete on even terms with Senator John Kerry among the millions of new voters who cast ballots on Tuesday, preliminary data from exit polling indicated," said the Herald Tribune version. The article said "Kerry clung to narrow exit-poll leads" nationally and in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. It did not explain that these early surveys might be skewed or misleading.

New York Times Washington Editor Richard L. Berke, who oversaw his paper's election coverage, says the story, which also contained many voter interviews, aimed to give readers a sense of the demographics and voting patterns. "Traditionally, those sorts of things are more reliable in exit polls even if you don't know the outcome," Berke says.

But as the evening progressed, actual vote counts contrasted jarringly with exit-poll results. "It made us nervous, so we pulled the whole story," Berke says. "I wanted to

reshape the story to focus on all the [voter] interviews, but we ran out of time, so we pulled the whole thing."

Although Berke "felt OK at the time about using the exit polls for demographic information and not using it to call states or the outcome," he wants to review how they're used on election night in the future. "I'd be lying if I said it didn't affect our thinking and our planning for what the outcome could be," he says. "We have to give second thought to how and if and whether we use the exit polls at all."

The close of an election inevitably, and rightly, ushers in a period of self-examination for political journalists--after they catch up on some much-needed sleep.

"Across the campaign, I thought there was a lot of very good coverage that demonstrated that newspapers and broadcast networks do learn more each cycle about how to cover campaigns," says Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. "You got a lot, I thought, of quite impressive coverage on phenomena like fundraising and the use of television commercials, and quite sophisticated demographic analysis by my colleague Ron Brownstein and others."

The media correctly portrayed the race as tight in the campaign's final days. "People were describing Ohio as a critical swing state; they were describing the race as a competition to get out the base vote on each side," McManus says. "In retrospect, all of that looks remarkably accurate."

McManus also credits newspapers with giving "quite full, detailed and sophisticated coverage to all the major issues," despite the usual carping from critics that journalists ignored issues in favor of the horse race. But "we need to find more ways to direct our readers to places on the Internet or elsewhere," McManus says, "so we can escape the trap of having written about Issue X in early September when our readers didn't get interested [until] early October."

Of course, McManus adds, the media did fall "prey to the temptation to chase rabbits," to fixate on what he calls "ephemeral controversies" such as the Swift Boat saga and the missing explosives in Iraq. "But each of those ephemeral controversies was a metaphor for a larger issue," he says. "They weren't trivial, just ephemeral."

Not everyone gives the media such high marks for their performance. National Journal's Powers faults the usual "herd thinking" for chilling more creative political journalism--and he's not talking about the sort of creativity displayed by CBS during the National Guard document fiasco.

Powers says coverage was "way, way too poll driven" and blasts polls as an "addiction" for the media. "It's very hard to come up with something new every day. And these numbers provide newness," Powers says. "It zaps a lot of resources and energy and reduces the campaign to numbers in a way that is not helpful to democracy."

Another Powers peeve: "Every four years, we have this story line about the youth vote--'The youth vote is going to be gigantic.' The story never pans out, but we kind of go through these ridiculous rituals."

And don't get him started on the media's "gigantic obsession" with red and blue states. "The red-blue theme is so overdone and also really reductive," Powers says. "We have this red-blue motif because we have a two-party system in which we go into the booth and are supposed to choose between two parties," not because everyone falls neatly into a red or blue category. "Yet we play this story up because it's sexy; it's easy; it's simple. It was easy to have that map after the 2000 election, but it portrays the country far too simplistically and does a disservice to the public."

The media also would better serve the public--and the English language--by bucking the prevailing clichés of each election season. In 2004, candidates "barnstormed" the country, appealing to one-time "soccer moms" who metamorphosed into "security moms" after the terrorist attacks. Pollsters combed those "red and blue states" to gauge the preferences of a "polarized" and "closely divided" electorate, wondering whether the "youth vote" could tip the election but flummoxed by the "cell-phone generation." In the end, as pollsters and journalists foretold, it all came down to the "ground game" in Ohio, "the Florida of 2004." Sort of.

Fundraising prowess fueled media attention, in some cases leading to sophisticated reporting, such as the Washington Post's two-day series in May exploring links between fundraising and access to the administration (see "Follow the Money," August/September), but often producing a mind-numbing array of horse-race, money-chase dailies.

During the political conventions, the broadcast networks abdicated their civic responsibilities in search of higher ratings from sexier reality shows. The cable networks galloped into the void, but too often padded downtime with shouting heads and insipid spin from party officials.

There was rampant media speculation throughout the campaign: When would a whipped Kerry admit defeat and drop out of the primaries? Whom would a triumphant Kerry tap as his running mate? ("KERRY'S CHOICE: Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate," blared the New York Post in one of the season's more entertaining media meltdowns.) Might Bush drop Dick Cheney from the ticket? When would Kerry sideline Bob Shrum, the famed Democratic adviser and perennial presidential campaign loser? Did a home loss by the Washington Redskins the Sunday before the election presage victory for Kerry?

But the networks pulled themselves together for election night--at least for a few hours.

By 1:26 a.m. on November 3, hours before a victor had been officially declared in the 2004 presidential race, anchors and pundits, perhaps reeling from their night of restraint, already were speculating about Democratic candidates in 2008. On NBC, Washington

Bureau Chief and "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert predicted a battle for the "soul of the Democratic Party."

After all, the next presidential election was only 1,462 days away.

November 23, 2004

Once Again, Incumbents Are the Big Winners

by Patrick Basham and John Samples

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Democracy at the Cato Institute. Patrick Basham is a senior fellow in the Center.

Election Day 2004 showed the power of incumbency in American politics. For the fourth time in row, incumbents in the House of Representatives won over 98 percent of their races. And not only are they winning consistently, but they're doing so by increasingly wider margins; incumbency now adds about 11 percent to the vote share of the average officeholder. The past three elections constituted the least competitive elections (with one exception) since 1946.

Some observers might argue that the overwhelming success of incumbents should not worry Americans. Voters, they say, are satisfied with their representatives. Perhaps that's true, but we suspect something else is at work: Incumbents have given themselves too many advantages in the electoral game.

The congressional franking privilege allows incumbents to flood their districts with mail that often is little more than taxpayer-funded campaign literature. Large administrative and political staffs on Capitol Hill and in district offices attend to the needs of voters, all the while stressing the qualities of their bosses. Incumbents also receive taxpayer-subsidized travel, easy access to the media and, most recently, Web sites to communicate with the electorate. And they have the power to deliver pork barrel spending to their districts. The limits on all of those advantages are set by their beneficiaries -- the Congress members themselves.

Against those advantages, it is difficult for a challenger to oust an incumbent without spending at least as much as, and probably more than, the incumbent. Only by spending large sums on television advertising, direct mail solicitations and grassroots organization can a challenger develop the levels of name recognition, issue identification and voter mobilization to catch up with the years (and frequently decades) of subsidized campaigning and pork barrel spending that so characterize an incumbent's term in office.

And the incumbents' advantages are growing. Thirty years ago, in the wake of Watergate, Congress imposed restrictions on campaign contributions. The more recent McCain-Feingold legislation has set that limit at $2,000 for a congressional candidate. Under the rhetorical guise of warding off unspecified corruption, an incumbent is happy to cap contributions at $2,000 per contributor if his challenger must operate under the same limit. Certainly, an incumbent may detest the phone calls he has to make to potential donors and the fundraising breakfasts, lunches and dinners he has to attend. But at night he sleeps well in the knowledge that his challenger back home must do the same (more, if the challenger is serious about winning) without, in most cases, a comparable network of contacts, donors and lobbyists whose longstanding collective investment in the incumbent's career ensures continuing financial commitment.

The difficulties of raising money have made it harder for challengers to beat incumbents. They have also discouraged qualified, successful people from putting themselves forward as candidates in the first place, thereby reducing the quality of the pool of potential challengers. So it should not surprise us that in this era of increased restrictions on campaign finance, there is also increasing electoral success for incumbents.

Political gerrymandering has also helped incumbents. More and more House districts have become safe for Democrats or Republicans thanks to redistricting by state legislatures. In nearly a third of this year's House races, the winning candidate (i.e., the incumbent) was either unopposed or faced an opponent without campaign funds.

The public understands the electoral game is fixed. A Rasmussen poll found 72 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that, "In American elections,members of Congress have unfair advantages over people who want to run against them."

American elections do have competition between the political parties. After all, the Democrats could win back the House and Senate in 2006. What we lack is competition between insiders and outsiders. No one can seriously believe even 10 percent of incumbents will lose in 2006. This lack of competitive congressional elections is a direct consequence of public subsidy.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that the House of Representatives was a "numerous and changeable body" that would most directly reflect the shifting popular will. These days, changes in the House are the rare exception rather than the democratic rule. Representative democracy works best when voters have choices and competition for office. Americans have too little of both now.

This article appeared on FOXNews.com, November 21, 2004.

article from the Concord Monitor at http://www.concordmonitor.com.

Article published Nov 23, 2004Official told group Chandler should file gift reports Supporter says he misunderstood letter

By DANIEL BARRICK, Monitor staff

ix years ago, when some of House Speaker Gene Chandler's friends wanted to throw a party to raise money for his personal expenses, the secretary of state told them it

was fine - Chandler just had to report how much money he collected.

"Enclosed is a copy of . . . the form that needs to be filed once a year by an individual who gets the net proceeds from an event like you have explained," wrote Secretary of State Bill Gardner, in a letter dated July 31, 1998.

But speaking before a legislative ethics panel yesterday, Henry Mock, a state representative and co-founder of the Friends of Gene Chandler committee, said he never believed Chandler had to make any public record of his personal fundraising.

"Maybe this is a poor reading, but I truthfully did not believe he needed to file," Mock said.

Mock, a longtime friend of Chandler's and the outgoing chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, answered questions yesterday from members of the legislative ethics committee, which is investigating whether Chandler broke the state ethics code by failing to report $64,000 he raised from lobbyists, corporations and friends over the years.

Ned Gordon, the committee's acting chairman, said the committee would meet again Monday to vote whether to file a formal charge against Chandler, a Bartlett Republican. Chandler was renominated by House Republicans last week to a third term as speaker of the House. On Dec. 1, two days after the ethics committee's vote, the full House will decide whether to keep Chandler in the speaker's seat.

Chandler has not appeared before the ethics committee. His lawyer, Ovide Lamontagne, said that's because the attorney general's office is conducting a separate criminal investigation to see whether Chandler broke any state campaign finance laws. Lamontagne did provide the committee with two year's worth of financial records from Chandler's committee, including cancelled checks and bank statements.

While committee members asked Mock why Chandler failed to report thousands of dollars in personal gifts, they focused the bulk of their questions on finding out who was giving Chandler the money at his annual Old Fashioned Corn Roast Galas and how those donors were solicited for cash.

Gordon wondered if Mock or any other members of Chandler's fundraising committee were concerned when lobbyists - many of them with interest in legislation before the House - were writing checks for hundreds of dollars. Mock said he's confident that Chandler never let the contributions sway his decisions as House speaker.

Mock added that despite the high-priced sponsorships offered and the out-of-state lobbyists who contributed, Chandler's corn roasts never lost their local color.

S

"There was never a secret,"Mock said. "The whole valley knew we were raising the money and it goes to Gene Chandler to offset personal expenses. You could buy tickets at the town hall."

Mock was listed as the committees fiscal agent or treasurer on several

Though Gardner's letter makes clear that Chandler had to file annual tallies of the money his corn roasts brought in, Chandler made just one such filing, in August 1999. That report did not include a list of the individuals who gave him money, just the total amount of money raised.

In that same letter, which was addressed to Mock, Gardner said the committee itself would not have to register as a political action group, since it wasn't seeking to influence the outcome of an election. Mock said he interpreted Gardner's instructions to mean that Chandler himself did not have to file any financial reports, because he was also a member of the committee.

Mock said the Friends of Gene Chandler committee was formed in 1998 to help Chandler offset the costs of working as a state representative. Mock said Chandler, who has been in the State House since 1983, was considering retiring from politics at that time because the time commitment didn't allow him to hold a full-time job. But several of Chandler's friends and neighbors were determined to help him remain in the State House, Mock said.

"We asked him, 'If we could raise a few thousand dollars, could that keep you going, would you consider running?'" Mock recalled yesterday. "(Chandler) didn't like the idea, but he knew he had to do it if he wanted to continue to serve."

Mock and others then invited Chandler's neighbors to the first corn roast dinner, in September 1998. They also got a list of registered lobbyists from the secretary of state's office and invited them.

When asked why lobbyists were invited to the local gathering, Mock said, "The best answer I can give is, that's the culture of this Legislature."

Sen. Joseph Foster, another member of the ethics committee, asked why the gala invitations listed legislative issues that Chandler would preside over that year, such as medical malpractice reform and education funding.

"Was it meant to be sort of an incentive?" Foster asked.

Mock said the issues were listed simply to provide information for potential contributors.

The Chandler investigation has focused an unusual light on State House fundraising practices since news reports that Chandler had failed for years to account for his contributions. Chandler has acknowledged that he erred in not reporting the money, but

he said he was not clear on the law at the time. Lawmakers are required to file a disclosure form each year listing the sources of their income and any major gifts.

The ethics committee's chairman, Rep. Shawn Jasper, has recused himself from all Chandler-related hearings because he believes that the evidence clearly merits Chandler's resignation. Since taking that stance last month, Jasper petitioned his fellow lawmakers to vote against Chandler's bid for a third speaker term. Despite that effort, Chandler won the overwhelming support of House Republicans last week, who nominated him by a 3-to-1 vote Thursday.

The ethics committee will meet Monday to decide whether to file formal ethics charges against Chandler. Gordon, the acting chairman of the committee, said he decided to postpone that decision to next week because one of the committee members was absent and because the committee had not yet read all the financial records provided by Chandler's lawyer. Chandler was asked to provide that information before the start of yesterday's meeting, but it arrived in the middle of the meeting.

A list of checks written off Chandler's "Friends" account in 2003 and 2004 shows frequent payments for hotel stays at the Comfort Inn and expenditures at Patch's Market, a general store near Chandler's home. Others appear to be for credit card payments, clothes, a car payment and car repairs.

(Daniel Barrick can be reached at 224-5301, ext. 322, or by e-mail at dbarrick@cmonitor.com.)

Md. Land Sell-Off Proposals Resisted Lawmakers Oppose Ehrlich Team's Plan

By Matthew MoskWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, November 23, 2004; Page A01

Key Maryland lawmakers said yesterday that they will try to amend the state constitution to curtail the governor's ability to sell off state-owned properties -- especially land bought with the intention of preserving it.

The proposal is a direct response to recent efforts by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s administration to market large tracts of parkland to developers, including a failed bid to sell 836 acres of St. Mary's County woodland to a construction company owner.

"We don't want Ehrlich dealing away our heritage to close our budget gap or satisfy some developer," said Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), a sponsor of the amendment.

Discussion of a constitutional change, which will be debated when the General Assembly convenes in January, carries weight in part because of Frosh's stature as a Senate committee chairman. The effort comes as new details are emerging that show the broad scope of Ehrlich's plan to sell state land.

Ehrlich (R) is considering creation of a centralized real estate office to handle all state land transactions. His agency heads have submitted inventories of every parcel of land under their control. And this summer, Ehrlich's administration hired a real estate consulting firm owned by football great Roger Staubach to prepare a central database that, among other things, would help officials identify state properties that could be sold to developers.

The $500,000 project, which is still underway, was promoted as a tool for the state to become more efficient and could help the state raise as much as $15 million, said General Services Secretary Boyd K. Rutherford.

Ehrlich considers this "a basic exercise in good government," press secretary Henry Fawell said yesterday. "When the governor came into office, he asked a very simple question: 'What property does the state own?' Remarkably, nobody could answer that question."

Selling off state land, Fawell said, can raise money, eliminate maintenance costs and add land to the tax rolls.

Some lawmakers, though, are concerned that such efforts are motivated less by a quest for government efficiency than by an interest in rewarding political friends. Staubach, for instance, headlined a $4,000-a-person fundraiser for Ehrlich at the Davidsonville home of developer Geaton DeCesaris in October while his contract was underway.

Rutherford said he did not know about the fundraiser but wasn't immediately concerned because the Staubach contract does not permit the firm to reveal its findings to anyone other than state officials.

"I don't dispute the fact that the developer community is very interested in what they are doing," Rutherford said. "I don't doubt that they are interested. But I don't think having Staubach . . . at a fundraiser is a problem."

Further inflaming concerns about possible political motives behind the land sale initiative has been the central role of Ehrlich's fundraising chief, Richard E. Hug.

Hug oversaw research into the idea of selling surplus state property while serving on Ehrlich's transition team for the Department of General Services. He then brought the idea to the University System of Maryland Board of Regents. To the board, he aggressively advocated the sale of a university-owned, 840-acre environmental study center in Cambridge to a developer who hoped to build a golf course and condominiums.

Asked yesterday whether politics ever factored into his decision to promote the sale of state land, Hug said, "Absolutely not."

"It's true there are developers that are interested in excess property," he said. "That's the business they are in. Some of these developers contributed to Ehrlich, some to [Democratic candidates]. . . . But a $1,000 or $4,000 contribution, it's minuscule in the scheme of things."

Moreover, he said, each sale first must be approved by the Board of Public Works, so the governor -- one vote on the three-member panel -- has limited control over the outcome.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said politics must have been a consideration when the governor's aides were pushing to sell acreage in St. Mary's County. State officials had identified a buyer for the property, drawn up a draft contract, set the price and essentially negotiated its sale before the state even purchased the land.

"The idea that they would go out and pick an individual to get this land, even if that individual is Mother Teresa of the environment, the state should not ever be in that position," Busch said. "The state should not do business in this manner. This is how elected officials in the past have found themselves in jail."

Busch said he believes some restriction on land sales will clear the General Assembly, whether it's a constitutional amendment, legislation or wording in the budget.

The St. Mary's deal has prompted one senator to call on the state attorney general to investigate. Del. Peter Franchot (D-Montgomery) said he believes an amendment is another appropriate step.

The amendment, as proposed by Frosh and Franchot, would require the governor to seek legislative approval before selling off state-owned acreage bought through the state's preservation programs. To be successful, the amendment would require support from three-fifths of each legislative chamber and then would be placed on the ballot in November 2006 -- at the same time Ehrlich stands for reelection.

One of his possible Democratic opponents, Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D), expressed strong support for the measure yesterday. "The governor's policy of selling off open space is a bad one," Duncan said. "I would expect this [proposal] to be very popular across the state of Maryland."

The governor has not said whether he will oppose the amendment, but Fawell said yesterday that it's a safe bet.

"We are seeing a general effort to chip away at the prerogatives of the governor now that there's a Republican in the office," Fawell said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

article from the Concord Monitor at http://www.concordmonitor.com Article published Oct 29, 2004Legislator: Chandler should go Ethics chairman recuses self from House speaker inquiry By MEG HECKMAN

t's still unclear if House Speaker Gene Chandler will be punished for accepting cash from lobbyists, but the chairman of the legislative ethics committee believes Chandler should resign as speaker.

Rep. Shawn Jasper, a Hudson Republican, removed himself from the investigation yesterday, saying he felt too strongly about Chandler's actions to stay objective. Meanwhile, the remaining committee members decided they didn't have enough information to determine Chandler's fate, and they asked his lawyer for checking-account details and a list of other lawmakers who may have accepted similar donations.

The committee hopes to reach a decision in a few weeks, but several factors could complicate the investigation. The state attorney general's office wants to determinewhether Chandler broke any laws by not disclosing the gifts, which could result in civil or criminal charges, according to Chandler's attorney. Chandler is also consulting with accountants to see if he owes back taxes on the roughly $64,000 he's collected over the last six years from Phillip Morris, Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AT&T and various lobbyists.

Jasper said he doubted Chandler meant to do anything wrong, but he said his actions and the ensuing investigations reflect badly on the Legislature.

"One person cannot put himself above the institution," he said. "While speakers will come and go, the House is an institution that has been here for centuries and no doubt will continue to be here for centuries. We should not proceed with this cloud of the attorney general's investigation, the ethics committee charges. None of that is going to be completed before the House chooses a new speaker."

The timing of the investigation is rather tricky. Chandler, Jasper and the state senators on the committee are all up for re-election on Tuesday. Their tenure on the committee wraps up Dec. 1, and a new board - appointed by the House speaker - will take over.

Chandler plans wants to continue as speaker, although he's facing an aggressive challenge from Rep. Tony DiFruscia, a Windham Republican. But Jasper doesn't support DiFruscia, and he said he'd try to find a third House member willing to run.

When the ethics committee meets again next month, members will have three options: dismiss the complaint, continue investigating or hold a full-scale hearing with witnesses

and sworn testimony. Jasper hopes the committee chooses a hearing, something that has been convened only five times before.

"I expect there will be a full hearing," he said.

Yesterday's committee meeting offered a preview of what such a hearing might include. There are many questions about money Chandler collected through an organization called Friends of Gene Chandler, but the ethics committee is concerned only with 28 donations that were more than $250 each.

The money was collected over the last six years, mostly through an annual corn roast fundraiser. Last year's invitation asked visitors to give $300 to $1,000 in exchange for boiled corn, chowder, sweets and drinks. Chandler has said he used the money for work-related expenses like car repairs and travel expenses.

Committee members and Chandler's attorney, Ovide Lamontagne, debated the nuances of political fundraising, but most of the discussion centered on Chandler's state of mind when he took the cash.

Lamontagne argued that the committee must prove Chandler knew the gifts were for the purpose of influencing his leadership and that the givers had business before the House at the time.

"Was the money received in exchange for a favor?" Lamontagne asked the committee. He said state law is vague about accepting and reporting gifts for personal use, and Chandler was apologetic and confused.

"If anything, it was naiveté, misinformation and inconsistency in the laws," he said. "I like to think of this an opportunity . . . to use this as an example of how we can improve our system of accountability."

The two representatives who filed complaints against Chandler disagreed. Republican Rep. Kenneth Weyler and Democratic Rep. Charles Weed said that Chandler wielded too much power in the House to take such large gifts. Although he doesn't usually vote, the Speaker lobbied members on a number of bills that impacted some of his largest contributors, Weed said.

"He ran a tight ship," Weed said.

Weyler, a close friend of DiFruscia, said Chandler suffered the "arrogance of power" and should be setting an example for other House members.

"The public holds up to a higher standard, and we should hold our leader to an even higher standard,"he said.

Committee members seemed most troubled by two things. The first was that Chandler reported his income from the corn roast once in 1999 but stopped releasing that information once he became speaker. The second was Lamontagne's assertions that accepting gifts was part of State House culture.

"I take exception to that,"Jasper said before he removed himself from deliberations. "Until this complaint, I had no idea. . . . As far as this long-serving member of the House is concerned, I had no idea this was going on. I've certainly had my eyes opened."

1. Cures: We need drug companies to keep finding cures for major diseases. Look at all the cures they've found so far like... well... okay, they haven't actually found any cures yet. But maybe they can at least cure all the bogus diseases they made up like "social anxiety disorder" and "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder."

2. National Security: U.S. drug companies are crucial for protecting our national security by banning prescription drugs from untrustworthy countries like Canada -- which we all know is just a rabble of war-mongering nitwits who invade third world countries for sport (and then lie about why they did).

3. The Economy: never mind that most pharmaceutical companies sell useless products at ridiculous prices. All that money changing hands is great for the economy. You may be diseased, but think on the bright side: your Big Pharma stocks are soaring! (With all that money, you might even be able to afford health insurance...)

4. Doctors: Without the pharmaceutical companies, what would all the doctors do for work? After all, most so-called "medicine" involves little more than scribbling out a prescription for the latest mass-advertised drug. Without drugs, doctors might actually have to TALK to patients. Horrors!

5. Ethics: With Enron gone, we need a new, national example of strong ethics that properly communicate the essence of American corporate greed. Pharmaceutical companies could make Enron look like the Girl Scouts.

6. Political Fundraising: We need drug companies to support the re-election efforts of honest national leaders like President Bush who, as we all know, is crucial for protecting our civil liberties.

7. Publishers: Without drug company advertising, who would support all the newspaper and magazine publishers in this country? After all, many print publications are now little more than pro-drug infomercial rags dressed up to look like credible news magazines.

8. Patient Responsibility: Without drug companies shifting health responsibility away from patients, the people would actually have to think for themselves and take control of their own health. That's simply too much to ask from a dumbed-down population where no child was left behind (except for the ones who were).

9. The Environment: Drug companies set an excellent example of fair and balanced environmental policy, which is why antidepressant drugs are now showing up in the water supply. Their new environmental slogan? "You take it, you flush it, we fuggedaboutit!"

10. The Elderly: Everybody agrees we need honest U.S. businesses to look out for the interests of our elders. Pharmaceutical companies handle this with finesse by taking responsibility for the full monthly incomes of most retired folks. It's a genuine public service.

I'll Vote Yours, You Vote Mine Why vote swapping failed in two elections. And why it might work in 2008. By Scott Duke Harris ON THE MORNING after Election Day, the first email I opened began with these words. "I am depressed." The message came from Carnet Williams, volunteer coordinator of a scrappy online political operation called VotePair.org that waged a novel campaign aimed at defeating President Bush. His sentiments, it seems safe to say, were shared by 49 percent of the American electorate.

A couple days later, my own funk deepened. Surfing the website of the Los Angeles Times, my professional home for two decades, I stumbled upon a headline: "Jones Is Cut Out for Public Service, Not Politics." Could it be that Jones?

The fluff piece was by Capitol Journal columnist George Skelton, a much-respected Sacramento-based political writer I know only in passing. It was, I suppose, a nice gesture—a big wet sloppy kiss for Bill Jones, the Republican Senate nominee everybody knew was about to be clobbered by Barbara Boxer. As California's secretary of state, Jones was an excellent public servant and, Skelton wrote, a great argument against term limits.

Then Skelton wrote words that deepened my own sense of failure: "Jones conducted the office in a nonpartisan manner, attempting to increase voter participation regardless of party. Nobody questioned his integrity. He was on the cutting edge of technology."

Perhaps Skelton missed my story a year earlier, in Los Angeles Times Magazine, recounting a forgotten dark episode of the 2000 election, featuring Bill Jones as the heavy. Jones threatened Internet-based activists with imprisonment, intimidating them into shutting down websites. Jones was accused of using his office to trample on the First Amendment for partisan advantage. The activists' crime? They had devised a novel Internet-based political movement aimed at defeating George W. Bush. I assume Skelton must have missed the entire episode while researching his piece. After all, the mainstream media had botched the story.

Almost unthinkable before the Internet, the activists advocated "vote trading" across state lines. Progressives in bastions of conservatism—Utah, for example—could promise to vote for Ralph Nader if progressives in swing states like Florida or Ohio would promise to vote for Al Gore in 2000. This cured the headache caused by the mantra "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

Websites like NaderTrader.org and VoteExchange.org sprouted, urging Nader supporters in swing states to "trade votes" with Democrats in partisan strongholds. Assuming that trust is established, the dilemma-breaking strategy would rebalance the Electoral College to help Gore beat Bush without diminishing the votes for Nader.

Having bonded through a heady, harsh education during the 2000 presidential campaign, Carnet Williams and his cohorts—about 20 in all, scattered across the country, launched the VotePair.org site with a trinity of goals: Defeat George Bush. Support third parties. Build a progressive majority.

The vote trading movement represented a radical shift in online organizing. The trailblazing MoveOn.org operation shrewdly applied a new technology to old political tricks—petitions, polemics and fundraising. Vote trading was bolder. I admired their idealism and commitment, and I became convinced they'd gotten a royal screwing in 2000—by political hacks and a media that largely botched the story.

So I embarked on my own campaign, determined to chronicle the VotePair.org effort. It was a long shot, I knew, but maybe, just maybe, VotePair would make a difference. From my computer in my San Jose home, I blitzed the alternative press in relevant states across America with emails carrying subject lines like "Will Vote Swappers Decide Iowa?" or "Will Kiffmeyer Kill Vote Trading?" With luck, I figured, there might even be a book contract at the end of the journey.

Instead, there is this article you are reading.

Complicated Conscience I've encountered many otherwise well-informed people who have never heard of vote trading. Among those with some familiarity, many harbor the false belief that the practice is illegal. Others simply remember it as a failed concept, when the best evidence suggests that it merely fell short.

The movement ignited on Oct. 25, 2000, when Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University in Washington, D.C., published a vote trading manifesto in the online magazine Slate. Even Raskin had no idea that the kind of websites he envisioned were already up and that more sophisticated ones were in the works. Within days of his article, a dozen new sites appeared, registering thousands of prospective participants.

The sites also attracted scorn from all directions. Among the Greens, Raskin says, "one guy denounced me as a Democratic Party operative trying to get my résumé in early for the Gore administration," Raskin told me. "The thing that blows me away is that a lot of Greens were saying it was immoral, and Democrats were saying it wouldn't work. And the people who got the point were the Republicans who were cracking down on the websites."

Bill Jones led the charge. On the day before Halloween, Jones' office sent Voteswap2000.com an email accusing its two founders of engaging in criminal activity, warning that each brokered vote constituted a felony carrying "a maximum penalty of three years in state prison. Jones' office cited a section of the election code that criminalized "any money, gift, loan or other valuable consideration" for inducing "any other person to ... vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or measure."

The activists were so stunned they shut down the site. "I guess that would be three years each for 2,500 violations," Voteswap2000 creator Jim Cody told me glumly. He envisioned state police seizing his computer, the means of his livelihood. "It wasn't a comfortable evening, I'll put it that way," he says.

Alan Porter and Anand Ranganathan, then based in Silicon Valley, shuttered a similar site when they heard about Jones' threats. The ACLU would later represent Porter in a lawsuit against Jones, but the political damage was done. Raskin and others accused Jones of trampling on the First Amendment for partisan advantage. The vote trading movement limped forward under a cloud of suspicion.

My gut told me Jones was wrong. Don't free speech and the right to assemble apply to the Internet? I also knew that Jones had reason to get back in the Bush administration's good graces. During the Republican primary, he had switched allegiances from Bush to John McCain, a betrayal that cost him dearly. Still, I dutifully tried to understand Jones' rationale that vote trading violated California's "vote buying" laws when nothing of tangible value changed hands. Every state has laws against vote buying; election chiefs in only four other states followed Jones' lead. Of the four, only one was a Democrat—and he reversed his position after further study. The pattern, to me, was clearly partisan.

But where was the media coverage? Buried inside, mostly, and largely dancing to Jones' tune. I don't recall a single editorial or commentary taking Jones to task. The watchdog was acting like a lapdog.

Yes, vote trading was new, different and provocative. It raised ethical concerns, often summed up in the statement that "people should vote their conscience." But as Raskin put it, "What if your conscience is more complicated?"

It really did seem ludicrous when one of Jones' aides explained to me that California law is so strict that spouses who pair votes—I'll vote for the school bond, honey, if you vote against the transit tax—are, essentially, outlaws conspiring to commit election fraud. Besides, the terms "vote trading" or the sexier "vote swapping" are misnomers; what are exchanged are promises, not ballots. That's one reason why the activists of 2004 preferred "vote pairing," a more benign and technically accurate description of an alliance, not a mere quid pro quo.

Despite efforts to intimidate the movement, evidence indicates it had some impact on the 2000 election. A postelection survey found that more than 15,000 partnerships had been forged, though nobody knows how much pairing occurred among family and friends. Vote trading advocates make a plausible case that, without their efforts, Gore would not have recorded his 366-vote victory in New Mexico. In Florida, where Bush's victory was certified at 537 votes, some 1,400 Naderites had agreed to pair up, while 97,000 Floridians cast ballots for Nader.

Who knows how far it would have gone had it not been for Bill Jones. Not long after the 2000 election, I got a sense of how well his crackdown had worked during an interview with Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, the Berkeley residents who founded MoveOn.org .

Boyd and Blades are well-informed, outspoken, sophisticated and liberal. They are passionate about the First Amendment and its application to the Internet. And even they thought vote trading was illegal.

Rendezvous With Destiny I placed articles in seven publications, including Florida's Orlando Weekly and Iowa's Des Moines Point Blank. Rejection was the rule, however, and I was shut out in every large swing state except Florida. Unlike 2000, Republican hacks in this year's election opted to smear the vote swapping strategy rather than attempt legal action. A crackdown would have caused press coverage and a court fight. VotePair had its legal guns lined up. If VotePair was doing something illegal, then election chiefs were derelict in not challenging the practice. It makes the Jones crackdown look even more politically motivated.

Looking back, it's easier to understand why so many editors passed on the story, given the dynamics of a race that had so polarized the nation. The press didn't botch it the way they did in 2000. In the final analysis, VotePair.org was a noble effort, but this time, unlike 2000, it really was just a blip on the screen. Even more than Bush, the two-party system was a big winner in 2004, generating a huge turnout that pushed alternative parties to the margins. Early on, VotePair folks speculated 50,000 users could be enough to tip the election. In the end, VotePair registered 21,992 people—more than one-third from Utah, where Salt Lake City's Democratic mayor was among those 7,972 people who signed up. I like to think he was inspired by my piece in the Salt Lake City Weekly. But only 2,659 pairs were formed, because VotePair had trouble mustering interest in swing states.

But the dynamics change with every election. The Electoral College, alas, seems utterly resistant to reform, and the Internet seems likely to become only more important. For those reasons, I suspect that the vote pairing strategy will someday have its rendezvous with destiny. Many years from now, somebody might put it all in a book, and I hope they find my old clips.

Send a letter to the editor about this story to letters@metronews.com. November 24-30, 2004 issue of Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper.

Oct 14, 04 Op Ed of tech & culture www.kuro5hin.com

I was sitting in a bar listening to the presidential "debate", thinking the same thought I always do when listening to politicians.  Why must I choose between two people that I don't like?  Since I live in New York, where Democrats usually win the electorate, should I even bother voting?  Are my votes even counted?

It's always easy to blame the current President for the nation's current problems, and I'll admit that I'm often tempted to blame Bush.  But the reality is that he is not to blame.  The blame can be placed squarely on us, the citizens, and on our unwillingness to reform an outdated voting system.

Only 51.3% of the eligible voters bothered to show up at the polls in the 2000 election.  Clearly American voters are not inspired by their candidates.

So this brings us to the first problem: Why must we choose between two?

Suppose someone likes a Libertarian or Green party candidate more than the "Republicrat" choices.  They well know that if they were to vote for a minority group, their vote would be wasted unless it's for a candidate in a district where that party is polling better than 25%.  Many voters assume that this problem is an inherent fact of democracy, but it is not.  The flaw rests squarely on the U.S.'s archaic election system.

Instead of selecting just one candidate, our voting machines should allow voters to answer "yes or no" to each of the candidates.  The candidate with the most support would then win.  This would safely allow someone to vote for a Libertarian candidate, as well as a Republicrat, without any chance of wasting votes or spoiling an election. Such a system allows for any number of candidates, and has even been shown to increase voter turnout by as much as 50%.

For example:

*Plurality ballot*Directions: Vote for one candidate.

( ) Harry Browne (Libertarian)( ) Pat Buchanan (Reform)( ) George W. Bush (Republican)( ) Al Gore (Democrat)( ) Ralph Nader (Green)( ) Howard Phillips (Constitution)

*Approval ballot*Directions: Vote for any number of candidates.[ ] Harry Browne (Libertarian)[ ] Pat Buchanan (Reform)[ ] George W. Bush (Republican)[ ] Al Gore (Democrat)[ ] Ralph Nader (Green)[ ] Howard Phillips (Constitution)

This simple system is known as Approval Voting and used by the American Society of Statisticians, the United Nations and is promoted by many respected political and

economic scientists.  It's also just plain obvious why it works better.  For more information on Approval Voting, visit http://www.approvalvoting.org/

This brings us to the second question:  Since I live in New York, should I even bother voting?

An interesting fact of living in the U.S. is that its citizens do not have the right to vote.  Let me repeat this for emphasis: The citizens of the United States do not, yet, have a Constitutional right to vote.  In fact for 30 years our President was chosen by the state legislature.  Section 1, Article II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" ... It then goes on to describe how the electors, not the citizens, vote for President.  

The result of this system is that your Presidential vote doesn't carry nearly as much weight as do your state and local votes.  The "electoral college" allows state legislatures to divide up and allocate votes as they see fit.

In fact, nowhere in the Constitution are the citizens of this country given a right to vote and to have their vote counted.  In 1989 an amendment to do away with the Electoral College passed the House of Representatives with 83% of the vote, 338-70. Predictably, that amendment failed in the Senate.

Until we have this right in place, grassroots campaigning and local elections are far, far more important than national elections.

And finally: Are my votes even counted?

The answer is "maybe".

This country has had a long history of voting fraud, about which whole novels can be written, but here are some examples:

When precinct workers in the 1974 Dade County elections discovered that the voting machines they were using were rigged, they walked off the job and refused to certify the election process. Police and fire fighters took over the polling duties. The next day, the Miami Herald reported the walk out, but not the reason. When the precinct workers went to the media to report the election rigging, the media ignored them. So did the local attorney general. So did the FBI. Citizens who tried to observe the next election were arrested for disturbing the peace.

In 1997, the respected Washington, DC publication, The Hill (thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx), confirmed that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was the head, and continues to own part of, ES&S - the company that has installed and programmed nearly half the voting machines used in the United States.

In 2002, Diebold systems supplied the state of Georgia with electronic voting machines.  In that election, the incumbent Democratic Governor Ray Barnes was defeated, giving the Republicans their first victory there in 134 years. The poll results showed a miraculous 12-point shift in the last 48 hours.  Diebold was subsequently sued for applying a last-minute code patch to the machines that was never reviewed and was also, coincidentally, deleted just after the election.  

In April, 2004 California's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, by an 8-0 vote, recommended that California cease the use of certain Diebold machines.  

30% of all votes in the 2004 elections will be tabulated by electronic machines that don't have vote-verification systems.

It would be trivial to develop public, open-source devices that use military-grade encryption, and employ modern vote-verification technologies.  Australia already uses such a system, and many local elections use these systems.  (It's important to use open-source code so that the machine's operation and security can be scrutinized by the public for possible flaws and biases.  It also saves taxpayers money.)  

Why are our voting machines owned and operated by private companies?  Perhaps it's because the people in charge got there using an old, corruptible system and they have no interest in changing to a new fair and open system.  Or perhaps it's simply because there's a lack of public interest and support for reform.

Nevertheless, when a voting system is so severely broken in all these ways, it's hard to blame the leaders who got promoted by it.

How do we, as a people, get out of this vicious cycle before the U.S. crumbles into some sort of delusional feudal empire?  We start at the bottom and work our way up. We can use Approval Voting in school elections, on web polls, and in our daily lives. We can teach kids how to use simple hand counts, and how to use voting to make group decisions.  We can petition local election boards to move to open, secure, verifiable, and certified voting machines.  As the people grow in confidence with these technologies, more and more educators and local politicians will begin to support vote reform, and the system will begin to shift gears.

Contacting the following groups can help you become a respected "voting rights activist" in your own community:

Citizens for Approval Voting: http://www.approvalvoting.org/The Center for Voting and Democracy : http://www.fairvote.org/A technical analysis of various election systems: http://www.electionmethods.org/Open voting software, used in real elections: http://www.open-vote.org/, http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/Latest news on the Constitutional Right to Vote Amendment: http://www.fairvote.org/righttovote/

Kay Daly. A blond, 38-year-old Virginia woman who describes herself, with disingenuous self-deprecation, as a "stay-at-home mom," Daly heads a four-year-old conservative group called Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. The organization’s goal is to boost judicial candidates she deems worthy, which coincide rather overwhelmingly with the ones Bush deems worthy. During Bush’s first term, her dogged advocacy for the president’s judicial picks largely passed under the radar of the biggest mainstream media outlets, but her zeal won applause from the conservative establishment. American Conservative Union President David Keene recently described her as "the next Phyllis Schlafly."

Now Daly is poised to rise ever higher in the conservative firmament. While GOP strategists see upcoming judicial battles as key to expanding their electoral majority, hardcore conservatives see these struggles in stark ideological terms -- particularly the inevitable fights over nominations to the Supreme Court. Flush from Election Day gains, these activists see the courts as unconquered territory: the last redoubt of the left, the final frontier in their Holy War on liberalism. Making headway on that front is now mission No. 1 among right-wingers, and Daly’s activities will be central to their hopes for success.

Daly is already sounding the conservatives’ post-election battle cry -- and, in the process, she’s offering an early glimpse of the GOP’s plan to use judicial issues as a wedge in the run-up to the midterms. Her pitch is based on a standard-issue set of distortions and coded-references to East and West Coast elites: Democratic senators who oppose Bush’s nominations are merely doing the bidding of liberal groups, like People for the American Way, who are funded by a shadowy consortium of trial lawyers, unions, and Hollywood celebrities. This alliance of Dems and liberal organizations, well aware that they’re getting clobbered in the electoral arena, are using the courts to block GOP advances on moral issues like abortion and gay rights. What’s more, Daly warns, Democrats continue doing the bidding of these groups at their peril.

This line may not be wholly original, but Daly is fast becoming its most vocal proponent in the mainstream media -- particularly now that it’s become clear that judicial issues helped the GOP make gains on Election Day. On November 4 -- barely 24 hours after Bush’s victory and former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s defeat -- CNBC’s "Capital Report" invited her on the show to offer the right’s interpretation of the Democratic debacle. Daly immediately blamed Daschle’s defeat on his "obstruction" of Bush’s judicial picks. His loss, she said, was "a warning to those who are out there who are following in Senator Daschle’s footsteps." She added a vaguely menacing coda: "I think there are going to be a lot of nervous senators who are up in 2006."

What enables Daly to issue such "Sopranos"-esque refrains? Does she command a mob of grassroots volunteers, ready to spring into action the moment she fingers an offending senator? Or is she a one-woman operation, a political operative who, simply by getting gullible reporters to quote her as president of a formidable-sounding "coalition," creates an illusion of grassroots support for Bush’s nominees?

In interviews and on the coalition’s website, www.fairjudiciary.com, Daly describes the group as comprising "more than 75 grassroots organizations dedicated to supporting qualified, capable federal judicial nominees." In an e-mail, Daly told me that the groups include Americans for Tax Reform, the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, and a number of others. Asked to name the group’s top dozen donors, she said the organization hadn’t focused on fundraising in the past but hoped to raise between $500,000 and $1 million in the coming year, mainly from small donors.

Ms. Daly also concedes that her group's staff now consists of "just me." And as is true with so many other "grassroots" groups on the right, it's impossible to know just how much clout the "coalition" she presides over actually wields.

The right has done something incredibly smart in recent years: They’ve recognized that by merely making a group sound powerful, they can eventually make it become powerful. That’s why these organizations lend their name to Daly’s coalition: It allows her to describe herself as the head of an impressive-sounding coalition of "75 groups." That designation enables her to get quoted in mainstream media outlets (she’s graced CNN, "The Washington Post"," The Hill", and many others, often described exactly as she describes herself); that, in turn, inflates the organization’s importance to the point at which Democratic senators in red-hued districts quake at the sound of her voice. Or, at least, such is the goal. What the right understands better than the left is that power flows from the mere perception of power.

After all, Daly doesn’t appear to have any particular qualifications to speak as an expert on legal affairs. She is not a lawyer; she is a political consultant with an extensive background in marketing. She’s worked a variety of corporate communications jobs, most recently with the Signature Agency, a Raleigh-based firm that develops marketing strategies for Fortune 500 companies.

Daly is at bottom a Republican operative. She has held a range of communications and policy positions for GOPers, like former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and former Representative Fred Heineman of North Carolina. In the mid-1990s, Daly married Jack Daly, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Labor. The Dalys represent a picture-perfect Republican union -- their second son’s middle name is "Reagan" -- and are fierce partisan warriors who are not afraid to get their hands dirty on behalf of client or party. Jack Daly threw waffles at candidate Bill Clinton during a campaign stop in Winston-Salem in 1992. And last spring, in the midst of a nasty Republican congressional primary in North Carolina, the Dalys were accused of sending out fictitious e-mails to Christian voters about a rival of Kay Daly’s candidate, in which a character named "Pastor Randy" falsely alluded to a variety of lurid criminal charges against the rival. Kay Daly has denied involvement.

Kay Daly’s star began rising on judicial issues just after the 2000 election, when she orchestrated a

communications team for what she called "an ad hoc coalition of groups" (sound familiar?) that lobbied for the confirmation of Attorney General John Ashcroft. After he was confirmed, Daly organized that group into a 501C4 and dubbed it the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

Daly’s stock soared in 2003, when her group played a murky role in the bruising fight over Manuel Miranda, a once-obscure GOP Senate staffer who became a right-wing folk hero after he mysteriously obtained confidential Democratic strategy memos about judicial affairs. Just after excerpts of the memos were leaked to the media, Daly’s website was among the first to post them in their entirety, leading liberal groups to allege that she was acting in cahoots with Miranda. That charge, of course, only made Daly more popular on the right.

The explosive controversy surrounding the scandal carried an important lesson for Daly and other conservatives. It showed that the battles over judicial nominations -- and the perception on the right that Dems were colluding with left-wing interest groups to block GOP judge picks -- could play neatly into a broader GOP electoral strategy by inflaming the party’s evangelical base. For her part, Daly was very explicit about hewing to that strategy. In late 2003, she implemented an electoral pledge, asking Democratic Senate candidates in the coming 2004 elections if they would support a straight, filibuster-less "up or down" vote on the president’s nominees. Those who didn’t, she remarked cheerfully at the time, would be "labeled enemies of the constitution."

Daly is best understood as a marketing specialist who is hawking a singular product: outrage over "liberals" who won’t simply rubber-stamp whatever judicial nominee Bush puts forth. Her customer base is comprised of right-wing Christians who readily, indeed eagerly, lap up her pitch. And recent history shows that the strategy works -- both for Daly’s reputation on the right and for the GOP at large (which enjoyed pumped-up evangelical turnout on November 2, thanks in part to the judicial wars of the last few years).

The strategy, of course, will only grow more pronounced as the judicial battles heat up in anticipation of 2006. Just look at a fundraising appeal she e-mailed to supporters just before Election Day: "Even after this election ... Supreme Court vacancies loom ominously in the not-do-distant future. ... Please give your most generous contribution so that we can continue to take on the well-funded forces on the Left, educate the public in states with critical Senate races and go into the Supreme Court battle armed (not with spitballs, as Senator Zell Miller so aptly quipped) with a howitzer of information, action items and pro-active communications tools." The checks, no doubt, have already started flowing.

Greg Sargent is a contributing editor at "New York" magazine.

By Greg SargentReprinted with permission from The American Prospect, 5 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02109. All rights reserved. found in The American Prospect is America's leading liberal magazine of politics, a blend of essay, criticism, investigation,commentary, and in-depth analysis.

In Battle of 527 Groups, Conservatives Do More With LessBy John CarlisleCNSNews.com Commentary November 24, 2004

Much has been made of the unprecedented sum of money spent by the presidential campaigns and political advocacy groups on the 2004 presidential election. But as liberals 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 an amalgam of 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 campaign committees raised more money than Democrat party groups - $558 million vs. $452 million - the liberal 527 committees more than leveled the fundraising playing field. Of the $464 million raised by 527s, the overwhelming majority went to Democratic-leaning groups.

The top three groups - the 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 other liberal 527s, giving the Democrats a near-monopoly on the 527 market.

By contrast, the conservative 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 under-funded Republican-leaning 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 "Wolves," a 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 showed President Bush locked in a tearful embrace with Ashley Faulkner, an Ohio teenager whose mother was killed in the September 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."

Meanwhile, liberal 527s were content to spend their money on aggressive ads that may have pleased the Democratic base but did little to move swing voters.

In late October, the Media Fund released a radio ad falsely claiming that the Bush White House, at the behest of the Saudi royal family, allowed members of the bin Laden family

to fly out of the country right after the 9/11 attack when most commercial air traffic was grounded.

The ad charged that because of this alleged conspiracy between Bush and the Saudis, U.S. intelligence may have been robbed of a golden opportunity to detain the bin Laden family and "find Osama bin Laden." The nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center called this anti-Bush radio ad "among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign."

Ultimately, the Saudi ad may well have turned-off more swing voters than it turned-on. 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 one thing. But if it is not spent wisely, it can do more harm than good.

John Carlisle is Director of Policy at the National Legal and Policy Center.

Nye will speak at Cary 'Meet Your Neighbor' programWednesday, November 24, 2004 Joseph S. Nye Jr., a longtime Lexington resident, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, chairman of the National Intelligence Council and assistant secretary of defense to President Bill Clinton, will read from his new book, "The Power Game: A Washington Novel," as the Cary Memorial Library Foundation's "Meet your Neighbor" program gets underway at 7:30 p.m., Monday evening, Nov. 29.

     The event will take place in the Library's meeting room. Nye will present excerpts from his first novel and lead his Lexington neighbors in a discussion of moral choices and foreign policy crises.

     In the inner circle of Washington politics, ambition often reigns over intellect, and power is everything.

     Peter Cutler is a respected Princeton professor living a quiet academic life. Then one afternoon, an old college friend makes him an offer he can't refuse: The position of foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Wayne Kent. Despite the fact that it will mean living apart from his wife and family, Cutler takes the job and jumps into the political fray. But he soon finds out that the power politics of Washington are a far cry from the comforts of university life.

     After Kent wins the election and Cutler becomes Under Secretary of State, he realizes that in order to survive, he must participate in a ruthless game of tug-of-war in which everyone struggles to promote his own agenda. As Cutler becomes increasingly absorbed in the underhanded tactics of bureaucratic survival, his marriage suffers and his initial foreign policy goals recede into the background. Ultimately, the allure and hypocrisy of political life cause him to alienate everyone he cares about - and to make one life-altering political miscalculation.

     Nye spent years behind the scenes in Washington politics, serving as a political adviser for the Pentagon, State Department and CIA. In this suspenseful debut novel, he

gives the reader an inside view of high-stakes contemporary politics, exposing Washington's power struggles, temptations, and deceptions.

     Nye served from December 1995 through June 2004 as dean of the Kennedy School, where he succeeded fellow Lexington residents Robert Putnam and Al Carnesale. Nye is the author of nonfiction books, including "Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics," "The Paradox of American Power" and "Bound to Lead."

     Nye's hobbies include fly fishing, hiking, squash, skiing, gardening, and working on his tree farm in New Hampshire. He is married to Molly Harding Nye, an art consultant and potter. They have three grown sons.

     The Cary Memorial Library Foundation serves to manage promotional and fundraising activities for the benefit of Cary Memorial Library and the citizens of Lexington. Following on the success of the Cary Library Building Campaign, the Foundation is focused on ensuring that the Library can meet the patrons' demands for materials, programs, and services that enrich their lives and the lives of those around them.      "Meet your Neighbor" features notable, prominent, or simply interesting Lexingtonians engaging the community on subjects of broad and timely interest to the general public. For more information, contact the Foundation at 781-862-6288, ext. 322 or cmlfoundation@carylibrary.org.

Ehrlich Defends Land Sale Initiatives Parks, Forests Safe, Md. Governor Says

By Matthew MoskWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, November 24, 2004; Page B01

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. released a lengthy public statement yesterday defending his administration's attempts to sell off state-owned properties, and playing down criticism of his efforts as the work of "a few political opportunists."

"My political opponents claim this is a plan to turn parklands into condominiums. Nothing could be further from the truth," Ehrlich (R) wrote in the letter, which was distributed to the media by his press office and to political donors and allies by his campaign finance director.

"Our beautiful parks and public forests never were and never will be for sale," he wrote.

Ehrlich's letter comes as Democratic leaders and environmental groups are coalescing behind plans to enact legislation restricting the governor's power to sell state-owned property without legislative approval.

That effort is part of a growing backlash to recent attempts by top Ehrlich aides to market large tracts of environmentally sensitive land to developers. In one deal, the Ehrlich

administration tried to sell 836 acres of woodlands in St. Mary's County to a Baltimore builder, despite strong resistance from experts in the state's land preservation unit.

In another, Ehrlich's allies on the University System of Maryland Board of Regents were advocating a plan to sell off portions of an 840-acre environmental research lab on the Choptank River in Cambridge.

"He seems to be trying to rewrite history," said Maryland Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery). "It's as if all this stuff is a figment of our imaginations."

Frosh said he believes the governor's letter is an attempt to wash away weeks of bad publicity about the administration's real estate ambitions that are only now being fully understood.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Ehrlich is considering creation of a centralized real estate office to handle all state land transactions. His agency heads have submitted inventories of every parcel of land under their control. And this summer, his administration hired a real estate consulting firm owned by football great Roger Staubach to prepare a central database that, among other things, would help officials identify state properties that could be sold.

The $500,000 project, which is still underway, was promoted as a tool for the state to become more efficient.

The governor echoed that idea in his public statement yesterday, saying the land sales initiative was "emblematic of my efforts to restore fiscal discipline in Annapolis after years of 'tax and spend' government."

"Make no mistake," he said, "our work is not done. We will continue scrutinizing state-owned property to determine whether it is worth the high cost taxpayers shoulder to maintain it."

In the statement, Ehrlich said his administration has "enjoyed great success in disposing of questionable state property." He mentioned his decisions to auction off the state yacht for $250,000 and sell a state-owned airplane for $470,000.

Critics of the governor said they are more concerned about 3,000 acres of state parkland that the Department of Natural Resources placed on a list of surplus property. Those are parcels that environmental advocates said should not fall into the hands of developers for any price.

"We are being inundated with calls and e-mails from people who are really, really concerned about this," said Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of the environmental advocacy group 1000 Friends of Maryland. "We all thought this land was supposed to be protected forever."

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said one major concern about the governor's policy is that it was being conducted largely in secret. Another is the possibility of political motivation, he said, noting that a central figure in the initiatives has been Ehrlich's fundraising chief, Richard E. Hug.

Hug oversaw research into the idea of selling surplus state property while serving on Ehrlich's transition team.

But Ehrlich said there is only one motive for considering the sale of state properties: "efficient management of taxpayer dollars."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Why are so many countries still apparently unable to meet their own needs? Why the continual demand for foreign aid? What has happened to all the money given in the past? Did it reach the people who needed it, or was most of it swallowed up in administration expenses? If the money did get through, why do the appeals keep coming? Has it served merely to foster a climate of dependency in developing countries - a habit of relying on foreign handouts to solve problems? If so, then further aid may do as much harm as good, by putting off the day when developing countries take responsibility for their own needs.

Or is the problem that the humanitarian crises that hit the headlines stem from local political and economic causes - from corruption, mismanagement and oppression? If so, then is it our responsibility to intervene? Again, there is the risk that doing so might be counter-productive, for any aid we give might be used by corrupt leaders to further entrench their grip on power and put off vital reform.

These are serious concerns; even those sympathetic to aid agencies should, I think, admit there is some truth in them. Foreign aid can foster dependency and serve to entrench corrupt, undemocratic regimes. Many aid agencies do give a misleading impression of what proportion of their funds go direct to the field. The business of aid is far more complex and expensive than the fundraising literature of aid agencies tends to imply.

So would it be better not to respond to the latest appeal? Perhaps, but we should also consider the counter-arguments. As a start, we should acknowledge the root causes of world poverty, although assuredly political and economic, are hardly confined to developing countries. Developed countries have also played a part. Consider the way governments of developed countries have used their influence over global institutions like the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. Such institutions play an ever-greater role in determining the wealth and poverty of nations. And our governments have used their power to ensure that such institutions serve our interests over those of people in developing countries, with little regard to considerations of equity or justice, or to the suffering that results.

If global institutions and practices are unjust, no doubt we should campaign to change them. But still, if corruption and mismanagement at the local level were serious enough, it might still be foolish to give aid; doing so might merely serve to entrench corrupt, undemocratic regimes.

However, although serious problems of governance persist in many developing countries, considerable improvements have been made in recent years. Since 1980, for example, 33 military regimes worldwide have been replaced by civilian governments,140 of the world’s 200 or so countries now hold multi-party elections, and 82 of them - home to 57 per cent of the world’s population - are considered full democracies.

What of those countries which are still very badly run? Should we at least avoid giving aid to them? Perhaps in certain cases, but sometimes useful work can be done even in such countries. Legal aid can be provided, for example, for the victims of such regimes. Organisations which represent marginalised or oppressed communities can be funded. In a variety of ways, democratic forces can be supported. And sometimes, as a last resort, emergency relief must be supplied, if millions of people are not to die.

Similarly, when it comes to fostering dependency, the danger is real and serious mistakes have been made, but the risks can be reduced through alternative forms of aid. Instead of merely handing over food, money can be spent on supporting agricultural production and on strengthening the position of groups most vulnerable to hunger. Money appropriately targeted to health and education is more likely to enhance people’s capacities to control their own lives than to render them forever dependent on foreign aid. Much of the work of the better voluntary aid agencies is focused on such long-term development,

although it is always emergency relief that gets the attention.

And what of concerns about aid money being swallowed up in administration? Yes, some aid agencies do give a misleading impression of this and deserve criticism for it. However, money must be spent on training staff and evaluating projects, if costly mistakes are not to be repeated. Money must be spent on lobbying and advocacy if the economic and political conditions that cause poverty are to be changed.

So what conclusions can be drawn - should we give to Band Aid? The key point is that we should give these matters more urgent and careful attention than we tend to. Many people appear to dismiss the idea of giving to aid agencies at the merest suggestion of the kind of criticisms listed above. But none of these criticisms touches on the basic factor that gives this issue its discomforting force: the utter madness of a world in which millions live in comfort and luxury, while millions of others still endure extreme poverty.

Band Aid is surely not the solution, but if it prompts further reflection on these awkward facts, it may help to bring a solution that bit closer.

• Keith Horton is a research fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia. His book, Should We Give to Aid Agencies?, is to be published by Edinburgh University Press.

11-25-2004

School decision to send Portsmouth Band to Bush rally unpopular By Seacoast Online dot com Readers Yesterday we posted the following question on Seacaost Online:

The Portsmouth High School band will be playing for the President at a campaign rally at Pease on Friday. Do you think that this is an appropriate event for the band to play at?

More than 70% of our readers said that having the band participate at a particant rally was inappropriate. Below are the comments we received:

It's not appropriate

1. It is under no circumstances appropriate for the PHS band to play at a political partisan event; even more so since the event is not open to the general public.

Laurie

2. No, I do not think that it is appropriate for the Portsmouth High School Band to play at a Bush campaign event held at the Pease International Tradeport given the Bush Administration’s history with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and its closure. How dare Bush come and speak in Portsmouth when he wants to put the 4,500 people who work at the shipyard out of a job, many of whom are parents of students at the high school and in the band. This is a very inappropriate venue for the band to play at and Bush campaign should have chosen another venue to respect the soon-to-be unemployed in Portsmouth.

Emily

3. Public institutions should remain politically neutral. I'd say it's fine for the band to play for him if he's acting in a presidential capacity. It's out of line to play for him if he's acting as a candidate and the public is not welcome except for Republicans. An exception could be if the band's services are for hire, is getting paid, and is not acting in a capacity that represents a public institution.

Who is paying for the band? If it's voluntary, then the resources of the school are being inappropriately used to support a candidate, the same way it's inappropriate to use tax dollars for Air Force One for fund-raising trips.

Bob

4. Unless the Portsmouth HS Band is playing “So long, it’s been good to know you” the members would be better off in class.

George

5. Hi,

In response to your question as to whether or not the members of the Portsmouth Band should be playing at a rally for President Bush....

I think it is wonderful anytime you can get the younger generation interested and involved in our government, however, given the rules surrounding recent rallies of the current President, I think it is unfortunate that parents of the band members that happen to be Kerry supporters will not be let in. I wonder what would happen if a student happened to be wearing a "Kerry for President" button?

Ellen

6. No, the high school band should not be playing at a private campaign rally. Absolutely outrageous.

Maureen

7. I don’t think that the Portsmouth High School band should play for President Bush at a private rally for him and Republicans. It shows partisanship!!!

Melanie

8. The Portsmouth High School band should not be playing at a private campaign event during school hours. That serves as an endorsement of one presidential candidate over another, which is not appropriate for a public high school. There are undoubtedly kids in the band who do not support Bush, and are playing only because they have no choice. This kind of subtle coercion is not a good message to send our kids.

Donna

9. I think it is poor judgement to have the Portsmouth High School band play for President Bush at Pease. He is coming for a partisan event in the middle of an election campaign. Many of the supporters of the band (myself included) do not think this is appropriate at all.

Best wishes, Ellen

10. Hello,

I am currently writing from Budapest, Hungary as a exchange student and its great to be able to read about home on your website. Thanks for doing a great job with it!

11. As for the Portsmouth High School band playing for President Bush, well I have mixed reviews on the matter.See, if the band was playing for the solo purpose of presidential matter and not a campaign event then I see it as a respectful and excellent thing to do, but if its for President Bush's campaign then I feel it might be unfair to those students who do not support Bush. Eventhough some of the students are not old enough they still are allowed to hold political views and have the right to express them. I know if I was a band member for the Portsmouth high school and was asked to play for President Bush's campaign event in Portsmouth, I would turn it down even if it meant facing some form of punishment. I personally feel that by having the band play it could imply that my high school endorses Bush, and being a member of the band playing it could mean I as an individual endorses Bush, which is not fair to my political freedoms.

Lawrence

12. Ordinarily I would say it would be an honor to play for a President however this not an appropriate time. The President is running a political campaign and I do not think it is a good thing for our children to be used. No, No!!

Helen

13. If the rally is not open to the general public, meaning if it is a ticketed event that everyone cannot freely attend, it would seem inappropriate.

Pat

14. I do not think it is appropriate for the Portsmouth High School band to play at a political event.

Judy

15. Definitely not appropriate.

Collier

16. Although Bush is a sitting president, it is an unwise thing for the PHS administration to patronize or court the major candidate from any political party by putting fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen year olds in the awkward position of appearing to be in support of one party over another, a mere few days before a national election. The good news is that a lot of these kids are smart enough to know that!

Charlie

17. I think it should be an all volunteer band; let the members decide whether or not it is something they would like to participate in. Band members ought not be obliged to participate. My daughter's fourth grade class was "invited" to go on a field trip to the same event. I told her that she could consider it a day off from school and do something fun instead (picket, perhaps?). The trip is not happening for them (no bus available to take them), but I felt that it was way to partisan a 'field trip.' George Bush is not here visiting as the president--it's a campaign stop, pure and simple. The band members deserve a choice.

18. Thanks, Tracey

19. It is my understanding that the event at Pease is not an official Presidential event nor a public event, but rather an "invitation only" political campaign event. While I think we should all take pride in the fine musicianship of the Portsmouth High band, I think it is inappropriate for them to perform for a private, partisan, political event.

M K

20. It would be one thing if it were a presidential, governmental event. But this is entirely a political event and as such is wrong. What if students don't support Bush?

Burt

21. A public high school band should not be playing at a partisan event!

Barbara

22. Absolutely not. While playing for the President of the United States would under other circumstances be considered an honor, the fact that this is a campaign event places the students in the position of appearing to endorse a candidate which they may or may not support. This is both inappropriate, and unfair to those students who may prefer other candidates.

Elaine

23. ABSOLUTELY NOT APPROPRIATE!!! WHAT IS THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION THINKING? OR ARE THEY THINKING AT ALL? IT WOULD APPEAR NOT!!!! TEACHING OUR YOUTH HOW TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES IS NOT PERPETUATED BY PARTISAN DECISIONS SUCH AS THIS. THIS IS WAY OVER THE TOP OF ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING!

JUDI

24. Totally inappropriate. For shame!!!

Anne

25. Thanks for taking responses. My son attends PHS. He asked many of the kids today if they wanted to play for Bush. The overwhelming response was NO!!!!!!!!!!! They all wanted Kerry. I think it is a disgrace to pull a public school system into the foray of the campaigning process. He has lots of money--let him hire his own band!!!!!!!!!!!

Diane

26. I don’t think that it’s appropriate for students to play at a campaign rally for Bush. If this was an event for the President that was not political, i.e. the president was here to dedicate something or visit the shipyard or even if the president was landing at Pease to visit his Dad in Kennebunkport, it would certainly be appropriate for the band to play. As Eric Gagnon noted, having the school band perform for a sitting president is exciting stuff. However, for students to miss school to play at a political rally is not appropriate.

Ellen

27. It is not appropriate for the high school band to play at what is essentially a campaign rally, and not an official visit, from the president. It sends the message that the city endorses this candidate, and I don't believe the municipality should show favoritism to either.

Eric

28. As a parent of someone in the band, I DO have a big problem with them performing for the President at Pease. First of all, the President is coming here NOT as President, but as a CANDIDATE for President. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the band performing at a Kerry rally either. My son only wants another chance to perform and now he and the other band members have been put in the middle of a major political battle. This is also an "invitation only" event, so I can't even go and watch my son perform. This is wrong!

29. I will address this with the school administration and the school board about forming a policy that does not allow any school funded programs to engage in any form of political endorsement.

Nancy

30. Should the PHS band play at a campaign event for Bush? No, not appropriate. This is clearly a political event and these young musicians shouldn't be exploited for political purposes, by any candidate.

Sincerely, Jackie

31. This is an inappropriate use of public money for a partisan event!

Kelsey

32. While it may be a blast for the kids to play for the President of the United States, remember, this is for his election campaign. This is not a merely a nice visit from the President to Portsmouth. Instead, it is the President advertising himself to gain votes. Is this what school administration had in mind while allowing the band to perform at such a function during school hours?

John and Doreen

33. It is inappropriate for the Portsmouth High School Band to play for a political rally.

It would be different if this were a state visit pertaining to the office of the presidency, but this is nothing other than a political rally, and our public school resources are being contributed to stir up enthusiasm and a show of support for it.

More importantly, we place our children in an awkward position. My daughter wants to make music, wants to support her director and her band, but is distraught to tears over giving the impression that by playing for this event, she, or the band, or the high school would be seen as tacitly supporting this candidate.

If she refuses to play, she loses the chance to perform, risks letting down her director and fellow musicians, and undercuts the fundraising effort the band will benefit from by selling baked goods at this event. Yet in her core she cannot support this candidate, and resents terribly being put in a position where she has to choose between the two.

This is grossly unfair. Not all who play tomorrow will do so enthusiastically.

John

34. If the band is playing for a grand farewell, get the hell out of here,send-off back to Texas for Bush, play away. Hell, I'd even chip in a little money for gas. (Oh yeah, the Saudis have him covered on that.)

Carol

35. IT'S BAD ENOUGH WHEN THE STUDENTS HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE CANDIDATES WHEN THEY VISIT THE SCHOOL I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PIMP FOR PRESIDENT BUSH. AS WELL.

George

36. No, I don’t think it is appropriate.

School age, (any age) children should not be used like that for political reasons…I am sure it will be a thrill for them, and that’s nice, but who’s paying for the fuel for the buses? Us as tax payers right….it’s wrong.

Toni

37. It is completely wrong for for a school group to be functioning at a partisan event.

Liebowitz

38. It is absolutely inappropriate for the Portsmouth High School band to play for Bush at a campaign rally. Are we supposed to believe that all these young people, and their parents, support Bush for president? That's the impression the Republicans surely want to create. Any thinking person knows better.

Mary

39. Using the Ports. High School band for a partisan political event is a terrible idea.

Lew

40. He's here in Portsmouth as a candidate, not as the president. The HS band shoud NOT be playing for a candidate.

Jenny

41. My beliefs hold with those taught to us as a former Clipper band member '76. Avoid the appearance of being partisan by not performing at those events. Represent the City and State like the City's unofficial ambassadors, as the band has always done admirably . Have band members been given the option not to participate if supporting this (or any other) candidate is contrary to their political beliefs? Some seniors may be able to vote in this election. School faculty and officials should view their actions with great caution. What City official, political party or cause will demand equal treatment? The Clipper Band stirs great pride and affection within Portsmouth

and former band members. The exceptional talents and accomplishments of the band members should not be used as political pawns for or by anyone.

Patty

It's appropriate

1. Let the kids enjoy the event. Playing is not necessarily an endorsement or a partisan action. An opportunity to enjoy a beautiful afternoon in New England and being part of a major event in the political process will be remembered all their lives.

Gail

2. I think it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to attend an event where a sitting President is also in attendance. How many chances does one have to actually see such an important figure in our government? Besides, if the student's parents are opposed, it is for them to decide not to allow their child(ren) to attend. Personally, I think it is a great honor...any number of bands could have been asked to play, and it is a memory they will always have. Play on kids and soak in the moment!

Rachel

3. Absolutely!

It is an honor to be able to play for the President, regardless of your political affiliation. We may not agree with his policies but he is the President.

We should be proud that our kids have this honor. We have one child in the band and are very proud.

Ginny

4. An appropriate event to play? There is no higher honor. I'm not even sure this question makes sense. Unless your part of Communists for Kerry crowd.

Rob

5. It is always an honor to play for the President of the United States - even if you don't like him.

Bob

6. By golly, what a great event for the band! Back in the 60's the Clipper Band was the toast of New England. While I was a 3 sport player, I know the great pride the band kids had in strutting their stuff. Forget the politics: what is wrong with playing fine music, even hail to the chief, as a lively presidential election winds down.

Let's cheer the band as they play a musical salute to one of the two principle candidates for our nation's highest office!

Jim

7. Whether or not you are republican or democrat, you have to respect the office of the president. I think it is an extreme honor for the kids to play for the president and something they will be able to look back upon with great pride. I think that this teacher should think of the benefits for the children and not just his political views. How many times in a lifetime will your child be able to say...I performed for the president?

Unsigned

8. Yes i do, even if it were for kerry, edwards i would think no different.

Greg

9. What could be more appropriate? Or maybe you are afraid that if Kerry gets elected (God Forbid) he will look unfavorably on You...Get some guts and stand up for the right thing...It should be considered an honor for Portsmouth HS Band to be so included...Wake Up!

Unsigned

10. Of course it is appropriate! The school is funded by taxes, taxes are controlled by the government, therefore it is absolutely appropriate that the tax funded band play for the leader of our country. I couldn't think of a more appropriate audience for the band to play for than the president of our great country.

Jenifer

11. I am a Democrat and mom to one of the band members. I feel that this will be an experience for my daughter, into the political campaigning process , that she can form her own opinions on. She is excited about playing for the President, as a once in a lifetime occurance, even though she tells me she doesn't "like" him much. If Kerry's campaign asked them to play, in an ideal and equal-time world, that would be great, too. I am looking forward to her impressions and what she gets out of this experience.

Jeannie

12. Any opportunity for a high school band to play in public is worth the outing. More people need to know what wonderful things a band student can do

Unsigned

13. Let the kids play. Not for a democrat or a republican, but for the president of these united states. Whether you love the man or hate him, he currently leads the greatest nation the world has ever known. Who ever leads that country, from whatever party he is from, deserves a little repect. It would be exciting and a memorable experience for the kids.

Donald

14. Absolutely the band should be allowed to play! The Portsmouth school system has done a tremendous job with the music program and in particular the high school band. The band has resurrected itself from virtual non-existence to a top notch program. I do not see this opportunity for them to participate as a political endorsement, but more of a reward for hard work and an opportunity to perform for the President of the United States.

Scott

Neither appropriate or inappriate

1. Could this be an insidious plan on the part of the Bush campaign to indoctrinate Portsmouth High School students thereby influencing their parents vote on November 2nd? Is it a paradoxical ploy by the Kerry team to create dissent among the populous of Portsmouth thereby influencing the vote in his favor? Perhaps Michael Moore will make a movie about it one day but in the mean time I take issue with the question itself. It implies that it is inappropriate, thereby creating an issue for debate......as if it has anything what soever to do with the campaign or the election. If this is the most pertinent question to be "debated" five days before the election then we're all in trouble.

Michael

2. He is the President. How many times do teenage kids get to participate with an event with the President?

Unsigned

3. Ask the IRS; if the school can illustrate a record of availability to candidates of both parties over a period of time, then it’s legal. This close to Election Day, however, might be a problem in the court of (some) public opinion since any association with a candidate days before an election might be construed by some undecided voters as an implied endorsement - and campaigns know this; the opposition simply does not have the time to correct the misinterpretation.

It won’t be the last band we see a marching band with either of these candidates. The campaign will need to reimburse the school for extra expenses (overtime, extra staff, etc.); having said that, let every candidate fire up their supporters with bands and placards!

City Council candidates are receiving a boost not only from individual donors, but from special interest groups that range from tenants and hotel owners to police officers and trash haulers and the half dozen interest groups vying to shape the City's governing body make a last push to influence voters.

Leading all fundraisers by an astounding margin is Bobby Shriver, who had amassed $162,000 in individual donations as of October 15, according to campaign finance disclosure statements filed with the City Clerk this week.

Shriver's warchest is so large, in fact, that it surpasses what Santa Monica for Renters' Rights (SMRR) -- the tenant group that has controlled City government for the better part of a quarter century -- had raised by nearly $40,000.

The SMRR candidates also received $2,750 each from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 11, which provided precinct walkers.

The Police Officers Association, which has raised $63,000, spent some $15,000 to send mailers on behalf of the four candidates it endorsed -- Shriver, Bloom, Genser and Hoffman.

The police union has been a major player in local politics for the past three decades, backing candidates and, in some instances, actively opposing incumbents. (see related story)

From news coverage to fundraising, political satire to smear campaigns, pep rallies to polling, blogs to email, the rules of Presidential campaigning have been rewritten on and by the web.

It is easy to forget that the Dean campaign got this internet party started, raising more than $6m online. And although the campaign ultimately imploded, the viral power of the web was revealed to even the most techno-phobic politico. MoveOn.org, which was closely associated with Dean's rise to the national stage, also emerged from relative obscurity to become a virtual rallying place for over two million "online activists". Feeling much like the Populist movement of the 1890s, MoveOn.org gave a voice to many who felt previously unheard, spreading the word from one friend to another rallying millions to chat, solicit, appear and ultimately, be heard.

The Republicans have not ignored the viral potential of the web. The now infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first gained attention online using their website to attract interest and gain a semblance of legitimacy. Starting an avalanche of negative attention on John Kerry's war record, the buzz about the Swift Vets grew to a level generally reserved for car giveaways on Oprah, resulting in massive TV coverage and an instant Amazon best seller. Rebukes to this latest incarnation of smear tactics also started on the web with Salon.com and others linking Texas Republican fundraisers and friends of Bush to the Swift Vets insurgency.

Political humour also found a grand new home on the web, revealing the foibles of both candidates faster and more comically than a political cartoonist ever dreamed.

The Flash movie 'This Land is Your Land' created by Evan and Gregg Spiridelli, has been downloaded from JibJab.com a reported 25m times and shown on national and local TV reaching many millions more, making it perhaps the most viewed political parody of all time. Featuring Kerry and Bush singing at each other with jabs like "you can't say nuclear and that really scares me" and "you've got more waffles than a house of pancakes", this equal-opportunity lampooner rewrote the book on political satire.

Political database building for email also became a significant factor during this campaign. Candidate websites solicited registrations on the home page, using email address capture as the beginning of an extended dialogue. And when John Kerry used email to announce his running mate, he not only made history being the first to do so in this manner, he also gave fresh credence to the importance and desirability of being part of political databases. Though we will never know the exact number of emails being sent on behalf of both candidates, it no doubt ranges into the billions, totals that could never be matched with direct mail.

The internet has also played a dominant role as both news breaker and watchdog of other news providers as bloggers earned a seat at the information table. Political blogs are now averaging an astounding 4m page views per month, a 13-fold increase in just two years.

One of the reasons blogs have become so popular is that they have also become more credible, breaking stories sooner, challenging positions, exposing inaccuracies and generally wreaking havoc on the traditional press. For the first time, bloggers had space in the press boxes at both political conventions and were issuing stories or challenging others faster than James Earl Jones can say "this is CNN".

Historians may refer to 2004 as the first internet election and rightly so. Ignoring the fact that TV ad spending reached historic levels in much the same way consumers have learned to tune out TV ads, historians instead will look to the multi-headed marketing monster known as the internet to dissect what happened.

They will marvel at the ingenuity of the online smear campaigns like the Swift Boat Veterans that ignited an offline firestorm and made some pundits long for the simpler days of Nixon's dirty tricks. They will note with irony that while online ad spending was negligible for either candidate, the avalanche of email, the extensive reach of blogs and plethora of pro/con sites more than made up for it.

Chronicling how the web was used by both candidates to inform, misinform, fundraise and marshal troops, history will be unkind to the loser, praising the winner for being "internetic" (the online evolution of telegenic) and redefining how campaigns are to be executed in the 21st century.

Who Pays? The News-Times review of the November Campaign Finance filings by the candidates for state Senate and House.

By Joel Gallob Of the News-Times

Editor's Note: The two articles in this issue describing who has financed the election campaigns of State Representative Alan Brown and his Democratic challenger Jean Cowan represent Part I of a Two-part series. Part two, looking at the campaign finance information for the two candidates for the state Senate seat from the district that includes Lincoln County - State Rep. Joanne Verger and veteran and tree farmer Al Pearn - will appear in the next issue.

Brown's reelection campaign financed by beverage, forestry, agriculture and aggregate industries

Republican State Rep. Alan Brown, in his race for re-election has, as of his most recent campaign finance disclosure filings with the Oregon Secretary of State, has received $193,942 from supporters, putting him somewhat ahead of his challenger's fundraising.

The single biggest contributor to Rep. Brown's campaign for re-election has been, at $25,077, the Portland-based Oregon Beverage Political Action Committee. Unlike many political action committees involved in the current elections, this PAC does not maintain a website. (However, followthemoney.org, a webpage maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics, found the PAC has been giving money to political candidates in Oregon since late in 2000, favoring Republicans over Democrats nearly two-to-one.)

Another $2,000 came from another similar PAC, the Oregon Soft Drinks PAC.

After that pair, the next highest contributor, at $12,000, is the Oregon Forest Industries Political Action Committee (PAC). Add in the $8,000 given, over a series of contributions, by the Georgia-Pacific Shared Services Corporation, and the forest products industry emerges as the top industry supporting Brown after the soft drinks industry. Weyerhauser added $500, and Longview Fibre Company, $400.

Brown's contributions from forestry and from agricultural PACs overlapped. Ag-Pac with several contributions, gave a total of $8,000 for Brown's re-election effort. According to its website, it represents the interests of agriculture, forestry and other natural-resource based industries in Oregon. The Oregon Nurserymen's PAC, which represents businesses in horticulture, gave Brown $2,000.

The Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association PAC gave Brown $10,000. Its members have been concerned about access to rocks and gravel needed for construction.

Tied with the Concrete & Aggregate Producers was the Political Actions Committee for AOL - America Online - which also gave $10,000.

The political action committee of the lodging industry - Lodge PAC - donated a total of $8,682 to Brown's re-election effort.

The Oregon Restaurant Association PAC gave Brown $6,000; the Auto Dealers Association PAC, $4,000; the Grocery Industry Association, $3,250.

Three different insurance industry entities (the Professional Insurance Agents of Oregon/Idaho, the Oregon Mutual Insurance Company and the Property Casualty Insurers Association) each gave $1,000. The Oregon Insurance PAC gave another $500, as did Northwest Mutual Physicians for a total of $4,000 from the insurance industry.

The Oregon Business Association, which seeks a bipartisan approach to the state's long-term problems, gave $3,000. Its members include Northwest Natural, Nike, PGE, Wells Fargo Bank, Standard Insurance, U.S. Bank, Liberty Northwest, Les Schwab, and the Bank of America, according to its website.

The Auto Dealers Association of Oregon gave $4,000, the Association of Oregon Industries gave $5,000, and Oregonians for Affordable Housing, a developer PAC, $3,000.

Brown got some help from a few unions, as well. Beside the time and labor donated by employees of the Georgia-Pacific mill, Brown also received $500 each from three unions - the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades, and the Iron Workers District Council of the Pacific Northwest. The Amalgamated Transit Union gave Brown $1,000, and The Heat & Frost Insulators Local 36 PAC added $300 to his campaign.

Brown received a few campaign contributions from local notables in politics, business, and society. Don Barth gave $150, Jack Joyce (owner of the Rogue Brewery) gave $100, Peggy Preisz (Mo's general manager in Lincoln City) gave $200, Dean Philstrom gave $200, and Gracie Strom, $100. The Chalet Restaurant in Newport donated $150.

Brown received money from the petroleum industry, too. The Oregon Petroleum Marketers Association PAC donated $1,000. ConocoPhillips, in Sacramento, gave $250, and Chevron/Texaco gave $500.

He also received a little help from entities on the green side of the environmental debate. The group Oregon Anglers gave $500, and the Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association, the same amount.

Brown benefited from the support of other members in the state House of Representatives. Wayne Scott's election committee donated $6,095. Scott is the House of Representatives Majority Leader for the upcoming legislative session. The Committee to Elect Tom Butler, the Republican Representative from Eastern Oregon's District 60 centered in Ontario, added $3,000. And the Friends of Jerry Krummel, a Republican state Representative from Wilsonville's District 26, gave $1,000.

Brown received only a smaller level of support from some sources that might have been expected to provide more. The National Rifle Association PAC gave $250 to his campaign. The Oregon Gun Owners Political Victory Fund, though, donated another $750, and the Oregon Sportsman's Political Victory Fund contributed $200. But the Oregon Right to Life PAC donated just $45 to Brown's campaign - the lowest figure of any in Brown's campaign finance disclosure list.

Above located in http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/news14.prt

Consortiumnews.com is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web publication. Where this article was located . Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek, has written a new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq. More details on Kerry's Contra-Cocaine investigation can also be found in Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth,' both can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com.

In December 1985, when Brian Barger and I wrote a groundbreaking story for the Associated Press about Nicaraguan Contra rebels smuggling cocaine into the United States, one U.S. senator put his political career on the line to follow up on our disturbing findings. His name was John Kerry. Yet, over the past year, even as Kerry's heroism as a young Navy officer in Vietnam has become a point of controversy, this act of political courage by a freshman senator has gone virtually unmentioned, even though -- or perhaps because -- it marked Kerry's first challenge to the Bush family.

In early 1986, the 42-year-old Massachusetts Democrat stood almost alone in the U.S. Senate demanding answers about the emerging evidence that CIA-backed Contras were filling their coffers by collaborating with drug traffickers then flooding U.S. borders with cocaine from South America.

Kerry assigned members of his personal Senate staff to pursue the allegations. He also persuaded the Republican majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to request information from the Reagan-Bush administration about the alleged Contra drug traffickers.

Challenging Reagan

In taking on the inquiry, Kerry challenged President Ronald Reagan at the height of his power, at a time he was calling the Contras the "moral equals of the Founding Fathers." Kerry's questions represented a particular embarrassment to Vice President George H.W. Bush, whose responsibilities included overseeing U.S. drug-interdiction policies.

Kerry took on the investigation though he didn't have much support within his own party. By 1986, congressional Democrats had little stomach left for challenging the Reagan-Bush Contra war. Not only had Reagan won a historic landslide in 1984, amassing a record 54 million votes, but his conservative allies were targeting individual Democrats viewed as critical of the Contras fighting to oust Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. Most Washington journalists were backing off, too, for fear of getting labeled "Sandinista apologists" or worse.

Kerry's probe infuriated Reagan's White House, which was pushing Congress to restore military funding for the Contras. Some in the administration also saw Kerry's investigation as a threat to the secrecy surrounding the Contra supply operation, which was being run illegally by White House aide Oliver North and members of Bush's vice presidential staff.

Through most of 1986, Kerry's staff inquiry advanced against withering political fire. His investigators interviewed witnesses in Washington, contacted Contra sources in Miami and Costa Rica, and tried to make sense of sometimes convoluted stories of intrigue from the shadowy worlds of covert warfare and the drug trade.

Kerry's chief Senate staff investigators were Ron Rosenblith, Jonathan Winer and Dick McCall. Rosenblith, a Massachusetts political strategist from Kerry's victorious 1984 campaign, braved both political and personal risks as he traveled to Central America for face-to-face meetings with witnesses. Winer, a lawyer also from Massachusetts, charted the inquiry's legal framework and mastered its complex details. McCall, an experienced congressional staffer, brought Capitol Hill savvy to the investigation.

Behind it all was Kerry, who combined a prosecutor's sense for sniffing out criminality and a politician's instinct for pushing the limits. The Kerry whom I met during this period was a complex man who balanced a rebellious idealism with a determination not to burn his bridges to the political establishment.

Battling Kerry

The Reagan administration did everything it could to thwart Kerry's investigation, including attempting to discredit witnesses, stonewalling the Senate when it requested evidence and assigning the CIA to monitor Kerry's probe. But it couldn't stop Kerry and his investigators from discovering the explosive truth: that the Contra war was permeated with drug traffickers who gave the Contras money, weapons and equipment in exchange for help in smuggling cocaine into the United States. Even more damningly, Kerry found that U.S. government agencies knew about the Contra-drug connection, but turned a blind eye to the evidence in order to avoid undermining a top Reagan-Bush foreign policy initiative.

The Reagan administration's tolerance and protection of this dark underbelly of the Contra war represented one of the most sordid scandals in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Yet when Kerry's bombshell findings were released in 1989, they were greeted by

the mainstream press with disdain and disinterest. The New York Times, which had long denigrated the Contra-drug allegations, buried the story of Kerry's report on its inside pages, as did the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. For his tireless efforts, Kerry earned a reputation as a reckless investigator. Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom Watch dubbed Kerry a "randy conspiracy buff."

But almost a decade later, in 1998, Kerry's trailblazing investigation was vindicated by the CIA's own inspector general, who found that scores of Contra operatives were implicated in the cocaine trade and that U.S. agencies had looked the other way rather than reveal information that could have embarrassed the Reagan-Bush administration.

Even after the CIA's admissions, the national press corps never fully corrected its earlier dismissive treatment. That would have meant the New York Times and other leading publications admitting they had bungled their coverage of one of the worst scandals of the Reagan-Bush era.

The warm and fuzzy glow that surrounded Ronald Reagan after he left office also discouraged clarification of the historical record. Taking a clear-eyed look at crimes inside Reagan's Central American policies would have required a tough reassessment of the 40th president, which to this day the media has been unwilling to do. So this formative period of Kerry's political evolution has remained nearly unknown to the American electorate.

Endangered Harlingen

Two decades later, it's hard to recall the intensity of the administration's support for the Contras. They were hailed as courageous front-line fighters, like the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, defending the free world from the Soviet empire. Reagan famously warned that Nicaragua was only "two days' driving time from Harlingen, Texas."

Yet, for years, Contra units had gone on bloody rampages through Nicaraguan border towns, raping women, torturing captives and executing civilian officials of the Sandinista government. In private, Reagan referred to the Contras as "vandals," according to Duane Clarridge, the CIA officer in charge of the operation, in his memoir, "A Spy for All Seasons." But in public, the Reagan administration attacked anyone who pointed out the Contras' corruption and brutality.

The Contras also proved militarily inept, causing the CIA to intervene directly and engage in warlike acts, such as mining Nicaragua's harbors. In 1984, these controversies caused the Congress to forbid U.S. military assistance to the Contras -- the Boland Amendment -- forcing the rebels to search for new funding sources.

Drug money became the easiest way to fill the depleted Contra coffers. The documentary evidence is now irrefutable that a number of Contra units both in Costa Rica and Honduras opened or deepened ties to Colombian cartels and other regional drug traffickers. The White House also scrambled to find other ways to keep the Contras

afloat, turning to third countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and eventually to profits from clandestine arms sales to Iran.

The secrets began to seep out in the mid-1980s. In June 1985, as a reporter for the Associated Press, I wrote the first story mentioning Oliver North's secret Contra supply operation. By that fall, my AP colleague Brian Barger and I stumbled onto evidence that some of the Contras were supplementing their income by helping traffickers transship cocaine through Central America. As we dug deeper, it became clear that the drug connection implicated nearly all the major Contra organizations.

The AP published our story about the Contra-cocaine evidence on Dec. 20, 1985, describing Contra units "engaged in cocaine smuggling, using some of the profits to finance their war against Nicaragua's leftist government." The story provoked little coverage elsewhere in the U.S. national press corps. But it pricked the interest of a newly elected U.S. senator, John Kerry. A former prosecutor, Kerry also heard about Contra law violations from a Miami-based federal public defender named John Mattes, who had been assigned a case that touched on Contra gunrunning. Mattes' sister had worked for Kerry in Massachusetts.

By spring 1986, Kerry had begun a limited investigation deploying some of his personal staff in Washington. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry managed to gain some cooperation from the panel's Republican leadership, partly because the "war on drugs" was then a major political issue. Besides looking into Contra drug trafficking, Kerry launched the first investigation into the allegations of weapons smuggling and misappropriation of U.S. government funds that were later exposed as part of North's illegal operation to supply the Contras.

Kerry's staff soon took an interest in a federal probe in Miami headed by assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Feldman. Talking to some of the same Contra supporters whom we had interviewed for the AP's Contra-cocaine story, Feldman had pieced together the outlines of North's secret network.

Warning to Ollie

In a panicked memo dated April 7, 1986, one of North's Costa Rican-based private operatives, Robert Owen, warned North that prosecutor Feldman had shown Ambassador Lewis Tambs "a diagram with your name underneath and John [Hull]'s underneath mine, then a line connecting the various resistance groups in C.R. [Costa Rica]. Feldman stated they were looking at the 'big picture' and not only looking at possible violations of the Neutrality Act, but a possible unauthorized use of government funds." (For details, see my "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press and 'Project Truth.'")

John Hull was an American farmer with a ranch in Costa Rica near the Nicaraguan border. According to witnesses, Contras had used Hull's property for cocaine transshipments. (Hull was later accused of drug trafficking by Costa Rican authorities, but fled the country before facing trial. He returned to the United States.)

On April 10, 1986, Barger and I reported on the AP wire that the U.S. Attorney's office in Miami was examining allegations of Contra gunrunning and drug trafficking. The AP story rattled nerves inside the Reagan administration. On an unrelated trip to Miami, Attorney General Edwin Meese pulled U.S. Attorney Leon Kellner aside and asked about the existence of this Contra probe.

Back in Washington, other major news organizations began to sniff around the Contra-cocaine story but mostly went off in wrong directions. On May 6, 1986, the New York Times relied for a story on information from Meese's spokesman Patrick Korten, who claimed "various bits of information got referred to us. We ran them all down and didn't find anything. It comes to nothing."

But that wasn't the truth. In Miami, Feldman and FBI agents were corroborating many of the allegations. On May 14, 1986, Feldman recommended to his superiors that the evidence of Contra crimes was strong enough to justify taking the case to a grand jury. U.S. Attorney Kellner agreed, scribbling on Feldman's memo, "I concur that we have sufficient evidence to ask for a grand jury investigation."

But on May 20, less than a week later, Kellner reversed that recommendation. Without telling Feldman, Kellner rewrote the memo to state that "a grand jury investigation at this point would represent a fishing expedition with little prospect that it would bear fruit." Kellner signed Feldman's name to the mixed-metaphor memo and sent it to Washington on June 3.

The revised "Feldman" memo was then circulated to congressional Republicans and leaked to conservative media, which used it to discredit Kerry's investigation. The right-wing Washington Times denounced the probe as a wasteful political "witch hunt" in a June 12, 1986, article. "Kerry's anti-Contra efforts extensive, expensive, in vain," screamed the headline of a Washington Times article on Aug. 13, 1986.

Back in Miami, Kellner reassigned Feldman to unrelated far-flung investigations, including one to Thailand.

The altered memo was instrumental in steering Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., away from holding hearings, Kerry's later Contra-drug report, "Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy," stated. "Material provided to the Committee by the Justice Department and distributed to members following an Executive Session June 26, 1986, wrongly suggested that the allegations that had been made were false," the Kerry report said.

Feldman later testified to the Senate that he was told in 1986 that representatives of the Justice Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI had met "to discuss how Senator Kerry's efforts to get Lugar to hold hearings on the case could be undermined."

Kerry's Risks

Mattes, the federal public defender in Miami, watched as the administration ratcheted up pressure on Kerry's investigation. "From a political point of view in May of '86, Kerry had every reason to shut down his staff investigation," Mattes said. "There was no upside for him doing it. We all felt under the gun to back off."

The Kerry that Mattes witnessed at the time was the ex-prosecutor determined to get to the bottom of serious criminal allegations even if they implicated senior government officials. "As an investigator, he had a sense it was there," said Mattes, who is now an investigative reporter for Fox News in San Diego. "Kerry was a crusader. He was the consummate outsider, doing what you expect people to do. ... At no point did he flinch."

Years later, in the National Archives, I discovered a document showing that the Central Intelligence Agency also was keeping tabs on Kerry's investigation. Alan Fiers Jr., who served as the CIA's Central American Task Force chief, told independent counsel Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra investigators that the AP and Feldman's investigations had attracted the hostility of the Reagan-Bush administration. Fiers said he "was also getting a dump on the Senator Kerry investigation about mercenary activity in Central America from the CIA's legislative affairs people who were monitoring it."

Negative publicity about the Contras was particularly unwelcome to the Reagan-Bush administration throughout the spring and summer 1986 as the White House battled to restore U.S. government funding to the Contras. In the politically heated atmosphere, the administration sought to smear anti-Contra witnesses cooperating with Kerry's investigation.

In a July 28 memo, initialed as read by President Reagan, North labeled onetime Contra mercenary Jack Terrell as a "terrorist threat" because of his "anti-Contra and anti-U.S. activities." North said Terrell had been cooperating "with various congressional staffs in preparing for hearings and inquiries regarding the role of U.S. government officials in illegally supporting the Nicaraguan resistance."

In August 1986, FBI and Secret Service agents hauled Terrell in for two days of polygraph examinations on suspicion that Terrell intended to assassinate President Reagan, an allegation that proved baseless. But Terrell told me later that the investigation had chilled his readiness to testify about the Contras. "It burned me up," he said. "The pressure was always there."

Beyond intimidating some witnesses, the Reagan administration systematically worked to frustrate Kerry's investigation. Years later, one of Kerry's investigators, Jack Blum, complained publicly that the Justice Department had actively obstructed the congressional probe. Blum said William Weld, who took over as assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division in September 1986, was an "absolute stonewall" blocking the Senate's access to evidence on Contra-cocaine smuggling. "Weld put a very serious block on any effort we made to get information," Blum told the Senate Intelligence Committee a decade after the events. "There were stalls. There were refusals to talk to us, refusals to turn over data."

Weld, who later became Massachusetts governor and lost to Kerry in the 1996 Senate race, denied that he had obstructed Kerry's Contra probe. But it was clear that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was encountering delays in getting information that had been requested by Chairman Lugar, a Republican, and Rhode Island Sen. Claiborne Pell, the ranking Democrat. At Kerry's suggestion, they had sought files on more than two dozen people linked to the Contra operations and suspected of drug trafficking.

Inside the Justice Department, senior career investigators grew concerned about the administration's failure to turn over the requested information. "I was concerned that we were not responding to what was obviously a legitimate congressional request," Mark Richard, one of Weld's top deputies, testified in a deposition. "We were not refusing to respond in giving explanations or justifications for it. We were seemingly just stonewalling what was a continuing barrage of requests for information. That concerned me no end."

Cartel Witness

On Sept. 26, 1986, Kerry tried to spur action by presenting Weld with an 11-page "proffer" statement from a 31-year-old FBI informant who had worked with the Medellin cartel and had become a witness on cartel activities. The woman, Wanda Palacio, had approached Kerry with an account about Colombian cocaine kingpin Jorge Ochoa bragging about payments he had made to the Nicaraguan Contras.

As part of this Contra connection, Palacio said pilots for a CIA-connected airline, Southern Air Transport, were flying cocaine out of Barranquilla, Colombia. She said she had witnessed two such flights, one in 1983 and the other in October 1985, and quoted Ochoa saying the flights were part of an arrangement to exchange "drugs for guns."

According to contemporaneous notes of this "proffer" meeting between Weld and Kerry, Weld chuckled that he was not surprised at allegations about corrupt dealings by "bum agents, former and current CIA agents." He promised to give serious consideration to Palacio's allegations.

After Kerry left Weld's office, however, the Justice Department seemed to concentrate on poking holes in Palacio's account, not trying to corroborate it. Though Palacio had been considered credible in her earlier testimony to the FBI, she was judged to lack credibility when she made accusations about the Contras and the CIA.

On Oct. 3, 1986, Weld's office told Kerry that it was rejecting Palacio as a witness on the grounds that there were some contradictions in her testimony. The discrepancies apparently related to such minor points as which month she had first talked with the FBI.

Two days after Weld rejected Palacio's Contra-cocaine testimony, other secrets about the White House's covert Contra support operations suddenly crashed --literally -- into view.

Plane Down

On Oct. 5, a quiet Sunday morning, an aging C-123 cargo plane rumbled over the skies of Nicaragua preparing to drop AK-47 rifles and other equipment to Contra units in the jungle below. Since the Reagan administration had recently won congressional approval for renewed CIA military aid to the Contras, the flight was to be one of the last by Oliver North's ragtag air force.

The plane, however, attracted the attention of a teenage Sandinista soldier armed with a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile. He aimed, pulled the trigger and watched as the Soviet-made missile made a direct hit on the aircraft. Inside, cargo handler Eugene Hasenfus, an American mercenary working with the Contras, was knocked to the floor, but managed to crawl to an open door, push himself through, and parachute to the ground, where he was captured by Sandinista forces. The pilot and other crew members died in the crash.

As word spread about the plane crash, Barger -- who had left the AP and was working for a CBS News show -- persuaded me to join him on a trip to Nicaragua with the goal of getting an interview with Hasenfus, who turned out to be an unemployed Wisconsin construction worker and onetime CIA cargo handler. Hasenfus told a press conference in Managua that the Contra supply operation was run by CIA officers working with the office of Vice President George Bush. Administration officials, including Bush, denied any involvement with the downed plane.

Our hopes for an interview with Hasenfus didn't work out, but Sandinista officials did let us examine the flight records and other documents they had recovered from the plane. As Barger talked with a senior Nicaraguan officer, I hastily copied down the entries from copilot Wallace "Buzz" Sawyer's flight logs. The logs listed hundreds of flights with the airports identified only by their four-letter international codes and the planes designated by tail numbers.

Upon returning to Washington, I began deciphering Wallace's travels and matching the tail numbers with their registered owners. Though Wallace's flights included trips to Africa and landings at U.S. military bases in the West, most of his entries were for flights in Central and South America.

Meanwhile, in Kerry's Senate office, witness Wanda Palacio was waiting for a meeting when she noticed Sawyer's photo flashing on a TV screen. Palacio began insisting that Sawyer was one of the pilots whom she had witnessed loading cocaine onto a Southern Air Transport plane in Barranquilla, Colombia, in early October 1985. Her identification of Sawyer struck some of Kerry's aides as a bit too convenient, causing them to have their own doubts about her credibility.

Though I was unaware of Palacio's claims at the time, I pressed ahead with the AP story on Sawyer's travels. In the last paragraph of the article, I noted that Sawyer's logs revealed that he had piloted a Southern Air Transport plane on three flights to Barranquilla on Oct. 2, 4, and 6, 1985. The story ran on Oct. 17, 1986.

Shortly after the article moved on the AP wires, I received a phone call from Rosenblith at Kerry's office. Sounding shocked, the Kerry investigator asked for more details about the last paragraph of the story, but he wouldn't say why he wanted to know. Only months later did I discover that the AP story on Sawyer's logs had provided unintentional corroboration for Palacio's Contra-drug allegations.

Palacio also passed a polygraph exam on her statements. But Weld and the Justice Department still refused to accept her testimony as credible. (Even a decade later, when I asked the then-Massachusetts governor about Palacio, Weld likened her credibility to "a wagon load of diseased blankets.")

Stonewall

In fall 1986, Weld's criminal division continued to withhold Contra-drug information requested by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to Justice Department records, Lugar and Pell -- two of the Senate's most gentlemanly members -- wrote on Oct. 14 that they had been waiting more than two months for information that the Justice Department had promised "in an expeditious manner."

"To date, no information has been received and the investigation of allegations by the committee, therefore, has not moved very far," Lugar and Pell wrote in a joint letter. "We're disappointed that the Department has not responded in a timely fashion and indeed has not provided any materials."

On Nov. 25, 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal was officially born when Attorney General Edwin Meese announced that profits from secret U.S. arms sales to Iran had been diverted to help fund the Nicaraguan Contras.

The Washington press corps scrambled to get a handle on the dramatic story of clandestine operations, but still resisted the allegations that the administration's zeal had spilled over into sanctioning or tolerating Contra-connected drug trafficking.

Though John Kerry's early warnings about White House-aided Contra gunrunning had proved out, his accusations about Contra drug smuggling would continue to be rejected by much of the press corps as going too far.

On Jan. 21, 1987, the conservative Washington Times attacked Kerry's Contra-drug investigation again; his alleged offense this time was obstructing justice because his probe was supposedly interfering with the Reagan administration's determination to get at the truth. "Kerry's staffers damaged FBI probe," the Times headline read.

"Congressional investigators for Sen. John Kerry severely damaged a federal drug investigation last summer by interfering with a witness while pursuing allegations of drug smuggling by the Nicaraguan resistance, federal law enforcement officials said," according to the Times article.

Negative Press

The mainstream press continued to publish stories that denigrated Kerry's investigation. On Feb. 24, 1987, a New York Times article by reporter Keith Schneider quoted "law enforcement officials" saying that the Contra allegations "have come from a small group of convicted drug traffickers in South Florida who never mentioned Contras or the White House until the Iran-Contra affair broke in November."

The drift of the article made Kerry out to be something of a dupe. His Contra-cocaine witnesses were depicted as simply convicts trying to get lighter prison sentences by embroidering false allegations onto the Iran-Contra scandal. But the information in the Times story was patently untrue. The AP Contra-cocaine story had run in December 1985, almost a year before the Iran-Contra story broke.

When New York Times reporters conducted their own interview with Palacio, she immediately sensed their hostility. In her Senate deposition, Palacio described her experience at the Times office in Miami. She said Schneider and a "Cuban man" rudely questioned her story and bullied her about specific evidence for each of her statements. The Cuban man "was talking to me kind of nasty," Palacio recalled. "I got up and left, and this man got all pissed off, Keith Schneider."

The parameters for a "responsible" Iran-Contra investigation were being set. On July 16, 1987, the New York Times published another story that seemed to discredit the Contra-drug charges. It reported that except for a few convicted drug smugglers from Miami, the Contra-cocaine "charges have not been verified by any other people and have been vigorously denied by several government agencies."

Four days later, the Times added that "investigators, including reporters from major news outlets, have tried without success to find proof of ... allegations that military supplies may have been paid for with profits from drug smuggling." (The Times was inaccurate again. The original AP story had cited a CIA report describing the Contras buying a helicopter with drug money.)

'Ask About the Cocaine'

The joint Senate-House Iran-Contra committee averted its eyes from the Contra-cocaine allegations. The only time the issue was raised publicly was when a demonstrator interrupted one hearing by shouting, "Ask about the cocaine." Kerry was excluded from the investigation.

On July 27, 1987, behind the scenes, committee staff investigator Robert A. Bermingham echoed the New York Times. "Hundreds of persons" had been questioned, he said, and vast numbers of government files reviewed, but no "corroboration of media-exploited allegations of U.S. government-condoned drug trafficking by Contra leaders or Contra organizations" was found. The report, however, listed no names of any interview subjects nor any details about the files examined.

Bermingham's conclusions conflicted with closed-door Iran-Contra testimony from administration insiders. In a classified deposition to the congressional Iran-Contra committees, senior CIA officer Alan Fiers said, "with respect to [drug trafficking by] the Resistance Forces [the Contras] it is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people."

Despite official denials and press hostility, Kerry and his investigators pressed ahead. In 1987, with the arrival of a Democratic majority in the Senate, Kerry also became chairman of the Senate subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics and international operations. He used that position to pry loose the facts proving that the official denials were wrong and that Contra units were involved in the drug trade.

Kerry's report was issued two years later, on April 13, 1989. Its stunning conclusion: "On the basis of the evidence, it is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter."

The report discovered that drug traffickers gave the Contras "cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials." Moreover, the U.S. State Department had paid some drug traffickers as part of a program to fly non-lethal assistance to the Contras. Some payments occurred "after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."

Although Kerry's findings represented the first time a congressional report explicitly accused federal agencies of willful collaboration with drug traffickers, the major news organizations chose to bury the startling findings. Instead of front-page treatment, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all wrote brief accounts and stuck them deep inside their papers. The New York Times article, only 850 words long, landed on Page 8. The Post placed its story on A20. The Los Angeles Times found space on Page 11.

Mocking Kerry

One of the best-read political reference books, the Almanac of American Politics, gave this account of Kerry's investigation in its 1992 edition: "In search of right-wing villains and complicit Americans, [Kerry] tried to link Nicaraguan Contras to the drug trade, without turning up much credible evidence."

Thus, Kerry's reward for his strenuous and successful efforts to get to the bottom of a difficult case of high-level government corruption was to be largely ignored by the mainstream press and even have his reputation besmirched.

But the Contra-cocaine story didn't entirely go away. In 1991, in the trial of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega for drug trafficking, federal prosecutors called as a witness Medellin cartel kingpin Carlos Lehder, who testified that the Medellin cartel had given $10 million to the Contras, a claim that one of Kerry's witnesses had made years earlier. "The Kerry hearings didn't get the attention they deserved at the time," a Washington Post editorial on Nov. 27, 1991 acknowledged. "The Noriega trial brings this sordid aspect of the Nicaraguan engagement to fresh public attention."

Kerry's vindication in the Contra drug case did not come until 1998, when inspectors general at the CIA and Justice Department reviewed their files in connection with allegations published by the San Jose Mercury News that the Contra-cocaine pipeline had contributed to the crack epidemic that ravaged inner-city neighborhoods in the 1980s. (Ironically, the major national newspapers only saw fit to put the Contra-cocaine story on their front pages in criticizing the Mercury News and its reporter Gary Webb for taking the allegations too far.)

On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page story, with two more pages inside, that was critical of the Mercury News. But while accusing the Mercury News of exaggerating, the Post noted that Contra-connected drug smugglers had brought tons of cocaine into the United States. "Even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported.

A Post editorial on Oct. 9, 1996, reprised the newspaper's assessment that the Mercury News had overreached, but added that for "CIA-connected characters to have played even a trivial role in introducing Americans to crack would indicate an unconscionable breach by the CIA."

In the months that followed, the major newspapers -- including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- joined the Post in criticizing the Mercury News while downplaying their own inattention to the crimes that Kerry had illuminated a decade earlier. The Los Angeles Times actually used Kerry's report to dismiss the Mercury News series as old news because the Contra cocaine trafficking "has been well documented for years."

CIA Confession

While the major newspapers gloated when reporter Gary Webb was forced to resign from the Mercury News, the internal government investigations, which Webb's series had sparked, moved forward. The government's decade-long Contra cocaine cover-up began to crumble when CIA inspector general Frederick Hitz published the first of two volumes of his Contra cocaine investigation on Jan. 29, 1998, followed by a Justice Department report and Hitz's second volume in October 1998.

The CIA inspector general and Justice Department reports confirmed that the Reagan administration knew from almost the outset of the Contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the CIA-backed army but the administration did next to nothing to expose or

stop these criminals. The reports revealed example after example of leads not followed, witnesses disparaged and official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged. The evidence indicated that Contra-connected smugglers included the Medellin cartel, the Panamanian government of Manuel Noriega, the Honduran military, the Honduran-Mexican smuggling ring of Ramon Matta Ballesteros, and Miami-based anti-Castro Cubans.

Reviewing evidence that existed in the 1980s, CIA inspector general Hitz found that some Contra-connected drug traffickers worked directly for Reagan's National Security Council staff and the CIA. In 1987, Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veteran Moises Nunez told CIA investigators that "it was difficult to answer questions relating to his involvement in narcotics trafficking because of the specific tasks he had performed at the direction of the NSC."

CIA task force chief Fiers said the Nunez-NSC drug lead was not pursued then "because of the NSC connection and the possibility that this could be somehow connected to the Private Benefactor program [Oliver North's fundraising]. A decision was made not to pursue this matter."

Another Cuban-American who had attracted Kerry's interest was Felipe Vidal, who had a criminal record as a narcotics trafficker in the 1970s. But the CIA still hired him to serve as a logistics officer for the Contras and covered up for him when the agency learned that he was collaborating with known traffickers to raise money for the Contras, the Hitz report showed. Fiers had briefed Kerry about Vidal on Oct. 15, 1986, without mentioning Vidal's drug arrests and conviction in the 1970s.

Hitz found that a chief reason for the CIA's protective handling of Contra-drug evidence was Langley's "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the Contra program."

According to Hitz's report, one CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

'Something So Dark'

This pattern of obstruction occurred while Vice President Bush was in charge of stanching the flow of drugs to the United States. Kerry made himself a pest by demanding answers to troubling questions.

"He wanted to get to the bottom of something so dark," former public defender Mattes told me. "Nobody could imagine it was so dark."

In the end, investigations by government inspectors general corroborated Kerry's 1989 findings and vindicated his effort. But the muted conclusion of the Contra-cocaine controversy 12 years after Kerry began his investigation explains why this chapter is an

overlooked -- though important -- episode in Kerry's Senate career. It's a classic case of why, in Washington, there's little honor in being right too soon. Yet it's also a story about a senator who had the personal honor to do the right thing.

On Forbes.com this politics article called In December 1985, when Brian Barger and I wrote a groundbreaking story for the Associated Press about Nicaraguan Contra rebels smuggling cocaine into the United States, one U.S. senator put his political career on the line to follow up on our disturbing findings. His name was John Kerry. Yet, over the past year, even as Kerry's heroism as a young Navy officer in Vietnam has become a point of controversy, this act of political courage by a freshman senator has gone virtually unmentioned, even though -- or perhaps because -- it marked Kerry's first challenge to the Bush family.

In early 1986, the 42-year-old Massachusetts Democrat stood almost alone in the U.S. Senate demanding answers about the emerging evidence that CIA-backed Contras were filling their coffers by collaborating with drug traffickers then flooding U.S. borders with cocaine from South America.

Kerry assigned members of his personal Senate staff to pursue the allegations. He also persuaded the Republican majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to request information from the Reagan-Bush administration about the alleged Contra drug traffickers.

Challenging Reagan

In taking on the inquiry, Kerry challenged President Ronald Reagan at the height of his power, at a time he was calling the Contras the "moral equals of the Founding Fathers." Kerry's questions represented a particular embarrassment to Vice President George H.W. Bush, whose responsibilities included overseeing U.S. drug-interdiction policies.

Kerry took on the investigation though he didn't have much support within his own party. By 1986, congressional Democrats had little stomach left for challenging the Reagan-Bush Contra war. Not only had Reagan won a historic landslide in 1984, amassing a record 54 million votes, but his conservative allies were targeting individual Democrats viewed as critical of the Contras fighting to oust Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. Most Washington journalists were backing off, too, for fear of getting labeled "Sandinista apologists" or worse.

Kerry's probe infuriated Reagan's White House, which was pushing Congress to restore military funding for the Contras. Some in the administration also saw Kerry's investigation as a threat to the secrecy surrounding the Contra supply operation, which was being run illegally by White House aide Oliver North and members of Bush's vice presidential staff.

Through most of 1986, Kerry's staff inquiry advanced against withering political fire. His investigators interviewed witnesses in Washington, contacted Contra sources in Miami and Costa Rica, and tried to make sense of sometimes convoluted stories of intrigue from the shadowy worlds of covert warfare and the drug trade.

Kerry's chief Senate staff investigators were Ron Rosenblith, Jonathan Winer and Dick McCall. Rosenblith, a Massachusetts political strategist from Kerry's victorious 1984 campaign, braved both political and personal risks as he traveled to Central America for face-to-face meetings with witnesses. Winer, a lawyer also from Massachusetts, charted the inquiry's legal framework and mastered its complex details. McCall, an experienced congressional staffer, brought Capitol Hill savvy to the investigation.

Behind it all was Kerry, who combined a prosecutor's sense for sniffing out criminality and a politician's instinct for pushing the limits. The Kerry whom I met during this period was a complex man who balanced a rebellious idealism with a determination not to burn his bridges to the political establishment.

Battling Kerry

The Reagan administration did everything it could to thwart Kerry's investigation, including attempting to discredit witnesses, stonewalling the Senate when it requested evidence and assigning the CIA to monitor Kerry's probe. But it couldn't stop Kerry and his investigators from discovering the explosive truth: that the Contra war was permeated with drug traffickers who gave the Contras money, weapons and equipment in exchange for help in smuggling cocaine into the United States. Even more damningly, Kerry found that U.S. government agencies knew about the Contra-drug connection, but turned a blind eye to the evidence in order to avoid undermining a top Reagan-Bush foreign policy initiative.

The Reagan administration's tolerance and protection of this dark underbelly of the Contra war represented one of the most sordid scandals in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Yet when Kerry's bombshell findings were released in 1989, they were greeted by the mainstream press with disdain and disinterest. The New York Times, which had long denigrated the Contra-drug allegations, buried the story of Kerry's report on its inside pages, as did the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. For his tireless efforts, Kerry earned a reputation as a reckless investigator. Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom Watch dubbed Kerry a "randy conspiracy buff."

But almost a decade later, in 1998, Kerry's trailblazing investigation was vindicated by the CIA's own inspector general, who found that scores of Contra operatives were

implicated in the cocaine trade and that U.S. agencies had looked the other way rather than reveal information that could have embarrassed the Reagan-Bush administration.

Even after the CIA's admissions, the national press corps never fully corrected its earlier dismissive treatment. That would have meant the New York Times and other leading publications admitting they had bungled their coverage of one of the worst scandals of the Reagan-Bush era.

The warm and fuzzy glow that surrounded Ronald Reagan after he left office also discouraged clarification of the historical record. Taking a clear-eyed look at crimes inside Reagan's Central American policies would have required a tough reassessment of the 40th president, which to this day the media has been unwilling to do. So this formative period of Kerry's political evolution has remained nearly unknown to the American electorate.

Endangered Harlingen

Two decades later, it's hard to recall the intensity of the administration's support for the Contras. They were hailed as courageous front-line fighters, like the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, defending the free world from the Soviet empire. Reagan famously warned that Nicaragua was only "two days' driving time from Harlingen, Texas."

Yet, for years, Contra units had gone on bloody rampages through Nicaraguan border towns, raping women, torturing captives and executing civilian officials of the Sandinista government. In private, Reagan referred to the Contras as "vandals," according to Duane Clarridge, the CIA officer in charge of the operation, in his memoir, "A Spy for All Seasons." But in public, the Reagan administration attacked anyone who pointed out the Contras' corruption and brutality.

The Contras also proved militarily inept, causing the CIA to intervene directly and engage in warlike acts, such as mining Nicaragua's harbors. In 1984, these controversies caused the Congress to forbid U.S. military assistance to the Contras -- the Boland Amendment -- forcing the rebels to search for new funding sources.

Drug money became the easiest way to fill the depleted Contra coffers. The documentary evidence is now irrefutable that a number of Contra units both in Costa Rica and Honduras opened or deepened ties to Colombian cartels and other regional drug traffickers. The White House also scrambled to find other ways to keep the Contras afloat, turning to third countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and eventually to profits from clandestine arms sales to Iran.

The secrets began to seep out in the mid-1980s. In June 1985, as a reporter for the Associated Press, I wrote the first story mentioning Oliver North's secret Contra supply operation. By that fall, my AP colleague Brian Barger and I stumbled onto evidence that some of the Contras were supplementing their income by helping traffickers transship

cocaine through Central America. As we dug deeper, it became clear that the drug connection implicated nearly all the major Contra organizations.

The AP published our story about the Contra-cocaine evidence on Dec. 20, 1985, describing Contra units "engaged in cocaine smuggling, using some of the profits to finance their war against Nicaragua's leftist government." The story provoked little coverage elsewhere in the U.S. national press corps. But it pricked the interest of a newly elected U.S. senator, John Kerry. A former prosecutor, Kerry also heard about Contra law violations from a Miami-based federal public defender named John Mattes, who had been assigned a case that touched on Contra gunrunning. Mattes' sister had worked for Kerry in Massachusetts.

By spring 1986, Kerry had begun a limited investigation deploying some of his personal staff in Washington. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry managed to gain some cooperation from the panel's Republican leadership, partly because the "war on drugs" was then a major political issue. Besides looking into Contra drug trafficking, Kerry launched the first investigation into the allegations of weapons smuggling and misappropriation of U.S. government funds that were later exposed as part of North's illegal operation to supply the Contras.

Kerry's staff soon took an interest in a federal probe in Miami headed by assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Feldman. Talking to some of the same Contra supporters whom we had interviewed for the AP's Contra-cocaine story, Feldman had pieced together the outlines of North's secret network.

Warning to Ollie

In a panicked memo dated April 7, 1986, one of North's Costa Rican-based private operatives, Robert Owen, warned North that prosecutor Feldman had shown Ambassador Lewis Tambs "a diagram with your name underneath and John [Hull]'s underneath mine, then a line connecting the various resistance groups in C.R. [Costa Rica]. Feldman stated they were looking at the 'big picture' and not only looking at possible violations of the Neutrality Act, but a possible unauthorized use of government funds." (For details, see my "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press and 'Project Truth.'")

John Hull was an American farmer with a ranch in Costa Rica near the Nicaraguan border. According to witnesses, Contras had used Hull's property for cocaine transshipments. (Hull was later accused of drug trafficking by Costa Rican authorities, but fled the country before facing trial. He returned to the United States.)

On April 10, 1986, Barger and I reported on the AP wire that the U.S. Attorney's office in Miami was examining allegations of Contra gunrunning and drug trafficking. The AP story rattled nerves inside the Reagan administration. On an unrelated trip to Miami, Attorney General Edwin Meese pulled U.S. Attorney Leon Kellner aside and asked about the existence of this Contra probe.

Back in Washington, other major news organizations began to sniff around the Contra-cocaine story but mostly went off in wrong directions. On May 6, 1986, the New York Times relied for a story on information from Meese's spokesman Patrick Korten, who claimed "various bits of information got referred to us. We ran them all down and didn't find anything. It comes to nothing."

But that wasn't the truth. In Miami, Feldman and FBI agents were corroborating many of the allegations. On May 14, 1986, Feldman recommended to his superiors that the evidence of Contra crimes was strong enough to justify taking the case to a grand jury. U.S. Attorney Kellner agreed, scribbling on Feldman's memo, "I concur that we have sufficient evidence to ask for a grand jury investigation."

But on May 20, less than a week later, Kellner reversed that recommendation. Without telling Feldman, Kellner rewrote the memo to state that "a grand jury investigation at this point would represent a fishing expedition with little prospect that it would bear fruit." Kellner signed Feldman's name to the mixed-metaphor memo and sent it to Washington on June 3.

The revised "Feldman" memo was then circulated to congressional Republicans and leaked to conservative media, which used it to discredit Kerry's investigation. The right-wing Washington Times denounced the probe as a wasteful political "witch hunt" in a June 12, 1986, article. "Kerry's anti-Contra efforts extensive, expensive, in vain," screamed the headline of a Washington Times article on Aug. 13, 1986.

Back in Miami, Kellner reassigned Feldman to unrelated far-flung investigations, including one to Thailand.

The altered memo was instrumental in steering Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., away from holding hearings, Kerry's later Contra-drug report, "Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy," stated. "Material provided to the Committee by the Justice Department and distributed to members following an Executive Session June 26, 1986, wrongly suggested that the allegations that had been made were false," the Kerry report said.

Feldman later testified to the Senate that he was told in 1986 that representatives of the Justice Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI had met "to discuss how Senator Kerry's efforts to get Lugar to hold hearings on the case could be undermined."

Kerry's Risks

Mattes, the federal public defender in Miami, watched as the administration ratcheted up pressure on Kerry's investigation. "From a political point of view in May of '86, Kerry had every reason to shut down his staff investigation," Mattes said. "There was no upside for him doing it. We all felt under the gun to back off."

The Kerry that Mattes witnessed at the time was the ex-prosecutor determined to get to the bottom of serious criminal allegations even if they implicated senior government officials. "As an investigator, he had a sense it was there," said Mattes, who is now an investigative reporter for Fox News in San Diego. "Kerry was a crusader. He was the consummate outsider, doing what you expect people to do. ... At no point did he flinch."

Years later, in the National Archives, I discovered a document showing that the Central Intelligence Agency also was keeping tabs on Kerry's investigation. Alan Fiers Jr., who served as the CIA's Central American Task Force chief, told independent counsel Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra investigators that the AP and Feldman's investigations had attracted the hostility of the Reagan-Bush administration. Fiers said he "was also getting a dump on the Senator Kerry investigation about mercenary activity in Central America from the CIA's legislative affairs people who were monitoring it."

Negative publicity about the Contras was particularly unwelcome to the Reagan-Bush administration throughout the spring and summer 1986 as the White House battled to restore U.S. government funding to the Contras. In the politically heated atmosphere, the administration sought to smear anti-Contra witnesses cooperating with Kerry's investigation.

In a July 28 memo, initialed as read by President Reagan, North labeled onetime Contra mercenary Jack Terrell as a "terrorist threat" because of his "anti-Contra and anti-U.S. activities." North said Terrell had been cooperating "with various congressional staffs in preparing for hearings and inquiries regarding the role of U.S. government officials in illegally supporting the Nicaraguan resistance."

In August 1986, FBI and Secret Service agents hauled Terrell in for two days of polygraph examinations on suspicion that Terrell intended to assassinate President Reagan, an allegation that proved baseless. But Terrell told me later that the investigation had chilled his readiness to testify about the Contras. "It burned me up," he said. "The pressure was always there."

Beyond intimidating some witnesses, the Reagan administration systematically worked to frustrate Kerry's investigation. Years later, one of Kerry's investigators, Jack Blum, complained publicly that the Justice Department had actively obstructed the congressional probe. Blum said William Weld, who took over as assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division in September 1986, was an "absolute stonewall" blocking the Senate's access to evidence on Contra-cocaine smuggling. "Weld put a very serious block on any effort we made to get information," Blum told the Senate Intelligence Committee a decade after the events. "There were stalls. There were refusals to talk to us, refusals to turn over data."

Weld, who later became Massachusetts governor and lost to Kerry in the 1996 Senate race, denied that he had obstructed Kerry's Contra probe. But it was clear that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was encountering delays in getting information that had been requested by Chairman Lugar, a Republican, and Rhode Island Sen. Claiborne Pell,

the ranking Democrat. At Kerry's suggestion, they had sought files on more than two dozen people linked to the Contra operations and suspected of drug trafficking.

Inside the Justice Department, senior career investigators grew concerned about the administration's failure to turn over the requested information. "I was concerned that we were not responding to what was obviously a legitimate congressional request," Mark Richard, one of Weld's top deputies, testified in a deposition. "We were not refusing to respond in giving explanations or justifications for it. We were seemingly just stonewalling what was a continuing barrage of requests for information. That concerned me no end."

Cartel Witness

On Sept. 26, 1986, Kerry tried to spur action by presenting Weld with an 11-page "proffer" statement from a 31-year-old FBI informant who had worked with the Medellin cartel and had become a witness on cartel activities. The woman, Wanda Palacio, had approached Kerry with an account about Colombian cocaine kingpin Jorge Ochoa bragging about payments he had made to the Nicaraguan Contras.

As part of this Contra connection, Palacio said pilots for a CIA-connected airline, Southern Air Transport, were flying cocaine out of Barranquilla, Colombia. She said she had witnessed two such flights, one in 1983 and the other in October 1985, and quoted Ochoa saying the flights were part of an arrangement to exchange "drugs for guns."

According to contemporaneous notes of this "proffer" meeting between Weld and Kerry, Weld chuckled that he was not surprised at allegations about corrupt dealings by "bum agents, former and current CIA agents." He promised to give serious consideration to Palacio's allegations.

After Kerry left Weld's office, however, the Justice Department seemed to concentrate on poking holes in Palacio's account, not trying to corroborate it. Though Palacio had been considered credible in her earlier testimony to the FBI, she was judged to lack credibility when she made accusations about the Contras and the CIA.

On Oct. 3, 1986, Weld's office told Kerry that it was rejecting Palacio as a witness on the grounds that there were some contradictions in her testimony. The discrepancies apparently related to such minor points as which month she had first talked with the FBI.

Two days after Weld rejected Palacio's Contra-cocaine testimony, other secrets about the White House's covert Contra support operations suddenly crashed --literally -- into view.

Plane Down

On Oct. 5, a quiet Sunday morning, an aging C-123 cargo plane rumbled over the skies of Nicaragua preparing to drop AK-47 rifles and other equipment to Contra units in the jungle below. Since the Reagan administration had recently won congressional approval

for renewed CIA military aid to the Contras, the flight was to be one of the last by Oliver North's ragtag air force.

The plane, however, attracted the attention of a teenage Sandinista soldier armed with a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile. He aimed, pulled the trigger and watched as the Soviet-made missile made a direct hit on the aircraft. Inside, cargo handler Eugene Hasenfus, an American mercenary working with the Contras, was knocked to the floor, but managed to crawl to an open door, push himself through, and parachute to the ground, where he was captured by Sandinista forces. The pilot and other crew members died in the crash.

As word spread about the plane crash, Barger -- who had left the AP and was working for a CBS News show -- persuaded me to join him on a trip to Nicaragua with the goal of getting an interview with Hasenfus, who turned out to be an unemployed Wisconsin construction worker and onetime CIA cargo handler. Hasenfus told a press conference in Managua that the Contra supply operation was run by CIA officers working with the office of Vice President George Bush. Administration officials, including Bush, denied any involvement with the downed plane.

Our hopes for an interview with Hasenfus didn't work out, but Sandinista officials did let us examine the flight records and other documents they had recovered from the plane. As Barger talked with a senior Nicaraguan officer, I hastily copied down the entries from copilot Wallace "Buzz" Sawyer's flight logs. The logs listed hundreds of flights with the airports identified only by their four-letter international codes and the planes designated by tail numbers.

Upon returning to Washington, I began deciphering Wallace's travels and matching the tail numbers with their registered owners. Though Wallace's flights included trips to Africa and landings at U.S. military bases in the West, most of his entries were for flights in Central and South America.

Meanwhile, in Kerry's Senate office, witness Wanda Palacio was waiting for a meeting when she noticed Sawyer's photo flashing on a TV screen. Palacio began insisting that Sawyer was one of the pilots whom she had witnessed loading cocaine onto a Southern Air Transport plane in Barranquilla, Colombia, in early October 1985. Her identification of Sawyer struck some of Kerry's aides as a bit too convenient, causing them to have their own doubts about her credibility.

Though I was unaware of Palacio's claims at the time, I pressed ahead with the AP story on Sawyer's travels. In the last paragraph of the article, I noted that Sawyer's logs revealed that he had piloted a Southern Air Transport plane on three flights to Barranquilla on Oct. 2, 4, and 6, 1985. The story ran on Oct. 17, 1986.

Shortly after the article moved on the AP wires, I received a phone call from Rosenblith at Kerry's office. Sounding shocked, the Kerry investigator asked for more details about the last paragraph of the story, but he wouldn't say why he wanted to know. Only months

later did I discover that the AP story on Sawyer's logs had provided unintentional corroboration for Palacio's Contra-drug allegations.

Palacio also passed a polygraph exam on her statements. But Weld and the Justice Department still refused to accept her testimony as credible. (Even a decade later, when I asked the then-Massachusetts governor about Palacio, Weld likened her credibility to "a wagon load of diseased blankets.")

Stonewall

In fall 1986, Weld's criminal division continued to withhold Contra-drug information requested by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to Justice Department records, Lugar and Pell -- two of the Senate's most gentlemanly members -- wrote on Oct. 14 that they had been waiting more than two months for information that the Justice Department had promised "in an expeditious manner."

"To date, no information has been received and the investigation of allegations by the committee, therefore, has not moved very far," Lugar and Pell wrote in a joint letter. "We're disappointed that the Department has not responded in a timely fashion and indeed has not provided any materials."

On Nov. 25, 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal was officially born when Attorney General Edwin Meese announced that profits from secret U.S. arms sales to Iran had been diverted to help fund the Nicaraguan Contras.

The Washington press corps scrambled to get a handle on the dramatic story of clandestine operations, but still resisted the allegations that the administration's zeal had spilled over into sanctioning or tolerating Contra-connected drug trafficking.

Though John Kerry's early warnings about White House-aided Contra gunrunning had proved out, his accusations about Contra drug smuggling would continue to be rejected by much of the press corps as going too far.

On Jan. 21, 1987, the conservative Washington Times attacked Kerry's Contra-drug investigation again; his alleged offense this time was obstructing justice because his probe was supposedly interfering with the Reagan administration's determination to get at the truth. "Kerry's staffers damaged FBI probe," the Times headline read.

"Congressional investigators for Sen. John Kerry severely damaged a federal drug investigation last summer by interfering with a witness while pursuing allegations of drug smuggling by the Nicaraguan resistance, federal law enforcement officials said," according to the Times article.

Negative Press

The mainstream press continued to publish stories that denigrated Kerry's investigation. On Feb. 24, 1987, a New York Times article by reporter Keith Schneider quoted "law enforcement officials" saying that the Contra allegations "have come from a small group of convicted drug traffickers in South Florida who never mentioned Contras or the White House until the Iran-Contra affair broke in November."

The drift of the article made Kerry out to be something of a dupe. His Contra-cocaine witnesses were depicted as simply convicts trying to get lighter prison sentences by embroidering false allegations onto the Iran-Contra scandal. But the information in the Times story was patently untrue. The AP Contra-cocaine story had run in December 1985, almost a year before the Iran-Contra story broke.

When New York Times reporters conducted their own interview with Palacio, she immediately sensed their hostility. In her Senate deposition, Palacio described her experience at the Times office in Miami. She said Schneider and a "Cuban man" rudely questioned her story and bullied her about specific evidence for each of her statements. The Cuban man "was talking to me kind of nasty," Palacio recalled. "I got up and left, and this man got all pissed off, Keith Schneider."

The parameters for a "responsible" Iran-Contra investigation were being set. On July 16, 1987, the New York Times published another story that seemed to discredit the Contra-drug charges. It reported that except for a few convicted drug smugglers from Miami, the Contra-cocaine "charges have not been verified by any other people and have been vigorously denied by several government agencies."

Four days later, the Times added that "investigators, including reporters from major news outlets, have tried without success to find proof of ... allegations that military supplies may have been paid for with profits from drug smuggling." (The Times was inaccurate again. The original AP story had cited a CIA report describing the Contras buying a helicopter with drug money.)

'Ask About the Cocaine'

The joint Senate-House Iran-Contra committee averted its eyes from the Contra-cocaine allegations. The only time the issue was raised publicly was when a demonstrator interrupted one hearing by shouting, "Ask about the cocaine." Kerry was excluded from the investigation.

On July 27, 1987, behind the scenes, committee staff investigator Robert A. Bermingham echoed the New York Times. "Hundreds of persons" had been questioned, he said, and vast numbers of government files reviewed, but no "corroboration of media-exploited allegations of U.S. government-condoned drug trafficking by Contra leaders or Contra organizations" was found. The report, however, listed no names of any interview subjects nor any details about the files examined.

Bermingham's conclusions conflicted with closed-door Iran-Contra testimony from administration insiders. In a classified deposition to the congressional Iran-Contra committees, senior CIA officer Alan Fiers said, "with respect to [drug trafficking by] the Resistance Forces [the Contras] it is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people."

Despite official denials and press hostility, Kerry and his investigators pressed ahead. In 1987, with the arrival of a Democratic majority in the Senate, Kerry also became chairman of the Senate subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics and international operations. He used that position to pry loose the facts proving that the official denials were wrong and that Contra units were involved in the drug trade.

Kerry's report was issued two years later, on April 13, 1989. Its stunning conclusion: "On the basis of the evidence, it is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter."

The report discovered that drug traffickers gave the Contras "cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials." Moreover, the U.S. State Department had paid some drug traffickers as part of a program to fly non-lethal assistance to the Contras. Some payments occurred "after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."

Although Kerry's findings represented the first time a congressional report explicitly accused federal agencies of willful collaboration with drug traffickers, the major news organizations chose to bury the startling findings. Instead of front-page treatment, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all wrote brief accounts and stuck them deep inside their papers. The New York Times article, only 850 words long, landed on Page 8. The Post placed its story on A20. The Los Angeles Times found space on Page 11.

Mocking Kerry

One of the best-read political reference books, the Almanac of American Politics, gave this account of Kerry's investigation in its 1992 edition: "In search of right-wing villains and complicit Americans, [Kerry] tried to link Nicaraguan Contras to the drug trade, without turning up much credible evidence."

Thus, Kerry's reward for his strenuous and successful efforts to get to the bottom of a difficult case of high-level government corruption was to be largely ignored by the mainstream press and even have his reputation besmirched.

But the Contra-cocaine story didn't entirely go away. In 1991, in the trial of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega for drug trafficking, federal prosecutors called as a witness Medellin cartel kingpin Carlos Lehder, who testified that the Medellin cartel had given $10 million to the Contras, a claim that one of Kerry's witnesses had made years earlier. "The Kerry hearings didn't get the attention they deserved at the time," a Washington Post editorial on Nov. 27, 1991 acknowledged. "The Noriega trial brings this sordid aspect of the Nicaraguan engagement to fresh public attention."

Kerry's vindication in the Contra drug case did not come until 1998, when inspectors general at the CIA and Justice Department reviewed their files in connection with allegations published by the San Jose Mercury News that the Contra-cocaine pipeline had contributed to the crack epidemic that ravaged inner-city neighborhoods in the 1980s. (Ironically, the major national newspapers only saw fit to put the Contra-cocaine story on their front pages in criticizing the Mercury News and its reporter Gary Webb for taking the allegations too far.)

On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page story, with two more pages inside, that was critical of the Mercury News. But while accusing the Mercury News of exaggerating, the Post noted that Contra-connected drug smugglers had brought tons of cocaine into the United States. "Even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported.

A Post editorial on Oct. 9, 1996, reprised the newspaper's assessment that the Mercury News had overreached, but added that for "CIA-connected characters to have played even a trivial role in introducing Americans to crack would indicate an unconscionable breach by the CIA."

In the months that followed, the major newspapers -- including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- joined the Post in criticizing the Mercury News while downplaying their own inattention to the crimes that Kerry had illuminated a decade earlier. The Los Angeles Times actually used Kerry's report to dismiss the Mercury News series as old news because the Contra cocaine trafficking "has been well documented for years."

CIA Confession

While the major newspapers gloated when reporter Gary Webb was forced to resign from the Mercury News, the internal government investigations, which Webb's series had sparked, moved forward. The government's decade-long Contra cocaine cover-up began to crumble when CIA inspector general Frederick Hitz published the first of two volumes of his Contra cocaine investigation on Jan. 29, 1998, followed by a Justice Department report and Hitz's second volume in October 1998.

The CIA inspector general and Justice Department reports confirmed that the Reagan administration knew from almost the outset of the Contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the CIA-backed army but the administration did next to nothing to expose or

stop these criminals. The reports revealed example after example of leads not followed, witnesses disparaged and official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged. The evidence indicated that Contra-connected smugglers included the Medellin cartel, the Panamanian government of Manuel Noriega, the Honduran military, the Honduran-Mexican smuggling ring of Ramon Matta Ballesteros, and Miami-based anti-Castro Cubans.

Reviewing evidence that existed in the 1980s, CIA inspector general Hitz found that some Contra-connected drug traffickers worked directly for Reagan's National Security Council staff and the CIA. In 1987, Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veteran Moises Nunez told CIA investigators that "it was difficult to answer questions relating to his involvement in narcotics trafficking because of the specific tasks he had performed at the direction of the NSC."

CIA task force chief Fiers said the Nunez-NSC drug lead was not pursued then "because of the NSC connection and the possibility that this could be somehow connected to the Private Benefactor program [Oliver North's fundraising]. A decision was made not to pursue this matter."

Another Cuban-American who had attracted Kerry's interest was Felipe Vidal, who had a criminal record as a narcotics trafficker in the 1970s. But the CIA still hired him to serve as a logistics officer for the Contras and covered up for him when the agency learned that he was collaborating with known traffickers to raise money for the Contras, the Hitz report showed. Fiers had briefed Kerry about Vidal on Oct. 15, 1986, without mentioning Vidal's drug arrests and conviction in the 1970s.

Hitz found that a chief reason for the CIA's protective handling of Contra-drug evidence was Langley's "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the Contra program."

According to Hitz's report, one CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

'Something So Dark'

This pattern of obstruction occurred while Vice President Bush was in charge of stanching the flow of drugs to the United States. Kerry made himself a pest by demanding answers to troubling questions.

"He wanted to get to the bottom of something so dark," former public defender Mattes told me. "Nobody could imagine it was so dark."

In the end, investigations by government inspectors general corroborated Kerry's 1989 findings and vindicated his effort. But the muted conclusion of the Contra-cocaine controversy 12 years after Kerry began his investigation explains why this chapter is an

overlooked -- though important -- episode in Kerry's Senate career. It's a classic case of why, in Washington, there's little honor in being right too soon. Yet it's also a story about a senator who had the personal honor to do the right thing.

On Forbes.com this political article “Dollar Vote Too Close to Call by Dan Ackman, Oct 28, 04It's often said that the rich are different, but when it comes to contributing to politicians and political causes, they are looking a lot like everyone else these days: more interested and sharply divided. While the conventional wisdom is that rich people vote--and contribute--Republican, our analysis shows that the wealthy this year are fairly bipartisan in the aggregate. (The extremely wealthy--billionaires--are another story.)

Candidates for the nation's highest office (including those who lost in the primaries) will have raised around $800 million this year when all is said and done. That's 51% more than in 2000 and almost twice as much as in 1996, according to the Federal Elections Commission and opensecrets.org, the Web site for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Between direct contributions to candidates, contributions to parties and contributions to independent "527" committees (named for the section of the Internal Revenue Code that sanctions them), the major party candidates are unusually well-matched, and both will have plenty of thank-you notes to write (or, if you prefer, IOUs to honor). Republicans have an edge in direct fundraising, but Democrats are aided more by the 527 committees.

Overall, national committees of the two major parties took in just over $1 billion between the start of the year and October 13, according to the Federal Election Commission. The committees spent $875.3 million during this period. Republican committees, including the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, raised $555 million in "hard money." The Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $451.8 million. The hard-money totals more than make up for recent bans on "soft money" contributions.

President George W. Bush and U.S. Sen. John Kerry had already collected more than $650 million between them by the end of August--$361 million for Bush, $320 million for Kerry. Add more than $350 million for Senate races and about $500 million for House races, plus contributions to parties, political action committees, convention committees, self-financing and public funds, and total spending for the 2004 federal election cycle will be $3.9 billion, the Center for Responsive Politics says. That's 30% higher than 2000.

Where The Big Money LivesAccording to opensecrets.org, Bush gets 30% of his money from contributors who donate $200 or less. Kerry gets 32% from such contributors. But it never hurts to go where the money is: Bush does get 49% from those who give the maximum $2,000; Kerry gets 36% from those folks. Much of that money comes from America's most expensive zip codes (those where the average home price is at least $1.2 million). The 17 swanky 'hoods have given, on average, $1.2 million per zip code to political candidates. That's compared to just under $34,000 for the average zip code, opensecrets.org reports. (Of course, not all zip codes are the same size, and the most populous zip codes in Manhattan, near Washington, D.C., and around Los Angeles give more in total.) All told, the folks in the most expensive districts, like the nation, this year are splitting their political giving fairly evenly.

How The Ordinary Rich Contribute Source is forbes.com and Opensecrets.org

Zip Code Town Contributions Mostly To

60611 Chicago's Near North Side

$4,236,577 Barack Obama, Kerry, Democrats

33480 Palm Beach, Fla. $3,983,497 Bush, Republicans, but substantial giving to Democrats too

94010 Hillsborough, Calif. (Long Beach area)

$1,944,999 Kerry, Democrats, but substantial giving to Republicans too

90402 Santa Monica, Calif. $1,778,084 Kerry, Democrats

92067 Rancho Santa Fe, Calif. (near San Diego)

$1,772,933 Bush, Republicans

94027 Atherton, Calif. (near San Francisco)

$1,751,967 Kerry, Democrats

94028 Portola Valley, Calif. (near San Francisco)

$1,481,816 Fairly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats

81611 Aspen, Colo. $669,819 Kerry, Democrats

33455 Jupiter Island, Fla. $568,710 Bush, Republicans

11771 Centre Island, N.Y. (Long Island)

$524,780 Fairly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats

10577 Purchase, N.Y. (Westchester County)

$479,128 Kerry, Democrats

11545 Upper/Old Brookville, N.Y. (Long Island)

$395,938 Bush, Republicans

94957 Ross, Calif. (near San Francisco)

$390,961 Kerry, Democrats

31561 Sea Island, Fla. $316,380 Bush, Republicans

92662 Balboa Island, Calif. (Orange County)

$249,385 Bush, Republicans

81435 Mountain Village, Colo.

$118,050 Kerry, Democrats

94528 Diablo, Calif. (near Oakland)

$47,301 Bush, Republicans, but substantial giving to Democrats too

George Soros has gotten plenty of publicity for his contributions to 527s. He has, in fact, given more ($19 million) than anyone else to political causes this year, not counting Blair Hull, founder of a Chicago securities brokerage, who contributed even more to his own losing primary campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. This year's most generous billionaires, including Soros, favor the Democrats. But overall, billionaires still solidly favor Republicans, at least judging by their giving. (See: "Bush Wins--Among Rich Listers.") Most of their giving, however, is done quietly and in relatively small amounts. According to the Center for Public Integrity, there are a dozen others who have contributed $3 million or more. That's a substantial sum, although for a contributor with $1 billion to his name, $3 million represents just three-tenths of 1% of his net worth.

$3 Million 527 Angels

ContributorAmount Contributed Contributes To

Source Of Wealth

Forbes 400 Rank

George and Susan Soros

$18,897,220 Democrats Hedge funds 24

Peter Lewis $18,745,000 Democrats Insurance 152

Stephen Bing $15,182,555 Democrats Inheritance none

Jane Fonda $13,085,750 Pro-choice candidates

Movies, exercise videos, divorce

none

Herb and Marion Sandler

$6,479,594 Democrats Banking 337

Roland and Dawn Arnall

$5,000,000 Conservatives Mortgage banking

106

Alexander Spanos

$5,000,000 Conservatives Real estate 260

John A. Harris IV

$4,674,500 Environmental preservation

Inheritance, investment banking

none

T. Boone Pickens

$4,077,000 Conservatives, Republicans, Swift Boat veterans

Oil and gas, investments

389

Harold $3,605,000 Swift Boat Investments 106

Simmons veterans, conservatives

Alida Messinger $3,571,000 Environmental preservation

Inheritance none

Andrew and Deb Rappaport

$3,214,000 Music for America, Democrats

Technology, venture capital

none

John and Christine Mattsson McHale

$3,100,000 Democrats Technology none

Source: Center for Public Integrity; Forbes

Independents Declare Their AllegiancesOne new wrinkle this year is the increased importance of the supposedly independent 527 committees, caused by recent changes in campaign finance law. With strict limits on gifts of "soft money" to political parties, these committees, which can collect unlimited amounts from individuals, have taken on a greater role in the campaign. Several of these committees have been prominently funded by such billionaires as Soros, who supports Kerry, and Roland Arnall, who is for Bush. But the advantage here is to the Democrats. If you add the 527 committees' influence to what Kerry has collected directly, the Democrats pull fairly even in funding--a stark shift from recent history.

Of course, none of this is completely new. The 527 committees raised $183.5 million in 2002, according to the Center for Public Integrity. But this year they've jacked up the total to $342.8 million. While groups like MoveOn.org have garnered most of the publicity, groups that are at least nominally linked to the major political parties, such as the Democratic Governors Association and the Republican Governors Association, have raised more money.

$15 Million 527s

Organization

Money Spent (in millions) Purpose

Victory Campaign 2004 $54.1 Funds other Democratic 527 committees

AFSCME $53.1 Labor union representing state and local government workers; gives mainly to national and state Democratic parties

America Coming Together $50.6 Democratic group funded by Victory Campaign and George Soros

Service Employees International Union

$49.9 Represents service and health workers; gives to Democrats

Media Fund $44.4 Group lead by Harold Ickes; funds Democrats

Democratic Governors Association

$38.4 Supports Democratic candidates for governor through contributions, research and other services

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

$30.0 Funds Senate Democrats

Republican Governors Association

$29.9 Supports Republican gubernatorial campaigns

Progress for America $23.7 Supports a conservative issue agenda

AFL-CIO $21.5 Labor umbrella group; gives mainly to Democratic umbrella groups

MoveOn.org $20.4 Democratic group funded by George Soros, Herb and Marion Sandler, Peter Lewis and others

EMILY's List $19.2 Contributes mainly to female Democrats

College Republican National Committee

$18.8 Supports chapters of College Republicans nationwide

Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

$18.5 Contributes to Democratic state legislators

Source: Center for Public Integrity

A Divided Corporate AmericaCorporate America, like the rest of America, seems fairly evenly divided. Though corporations are not allowed to give to candidates, their executives can and do. Even within industries, there is sometimes no clear trend. Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ) bankers lean to the Democrats; Morgan Stanley's (nyse: MWD - news - people ) lean Republican; Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ) and Bank of America (nyse: BAC - news - people ) are on the fence. Among the titans, Microsoft (nadsaq: MSFT - news - people ) and Time Warner (nyse: TWX - news - people ) execs give to Democrats, but Wal-Mart Stores' (nyse: WMT - news - people ) support the GOP. Accountants go for Republicans, lawyers go for Democrats.

The Candidates' Favorite CompaniesFor Kerry % To

DemocratsFor Bush % To

Republicans

Goldman Sachs 57% Morgan Stanley

59%

Microsoft 67% UBS Americas 57%

Time Warner 80% Merrill Lynch 68%

Lehman Brothers

65% Wal-Mart 82%

Source: Center For Responsive Politics

527s in 2004 Shatter Previous Records for Political Fundraising

WASHINGTON, December 16, 2004 — So-called 527 committees raised and spent just over a half-billion dollars during the 2003-2004 election cycle-double the amount spent during the 2002 cycle, according to a report by the Center for Public Integrity.

Although the 527 committees have been operating on the fringes of American politics for at least the past three election cycles, election 2004 was the first time they played a major role, perhaps a decisive role, in determining the outcome of a national election.

Below are some of the Center findings, based on four years of financial reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

In 2004 alone, 527s raised a total of $434 million, $60 million more than the amount raised in all of the previous three years combined.

Fifty-three of the 527s focused their activities largely or exclusively on the presidential election.

These 53 groups brought in $246 million during the 2003-2004 election cycle. America Coming Together, which raised more than $78 million, collected the

most money (although a third came from transfers from other 527s). Six committees that focused largely or exclusively on the presidential election

raised more than $10 million each; three raised $40 million or more. Although 527s by definition are supposed to be engaged in "nonfederal" political

activities, 98 committees clearly targeted all or part of their message at the presidential or congressional races.

Although ACT and the Media Fund spent more than $130 million combined, Swift Boat Veterans (which spent only $17 million) probably made the biggest splash on the presidential election. Their accusations were picked up by the media and succeeded in blunting Senator Kerry's campaign message.

State 527s-largely overshadowed by the attention paid to presidential groups-also raised record amounts of money in the 2004 cycle, moving these funds around state to state or to a number of candidates within a state with little accountability.

Although the Federal Election Commission placed some new restrictions on 527s starting with the 2006 cycle, there are still a number of ways to get around these limitations. It

remains to be seen how effective the new rules will be. Several lawmakers, including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who were the authors of the campaign finance reform law, have already moved to introduce legislation to rein in 527s.

The 527 project is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ford Foundation and The Joyce Foundation.

Article is under their silent partner section.

Above charts w leading article is on http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/printer-friendly.aspx?aid=435© 2004, The Center for Public Integrity. All rights reserved.910 17th Street, NW · 7th Floor · Washington, DC 20006 · Tel. (202) 466-1300