In the real estate investment business, I’m told, it’s smart strategy to acquire buildings in disrepair, give them some basic cosmetic refurbishment, and market the newly-gussied-up building to the least-suspecting buyer for a pretty penny. Fractured ethics aside, there’s nothing wrong with it, I suppose: Caveat emptor and all that. While I have never had the benefit of advice from Howie Rich of New York City, a real estate investor – nay, mogul! – I might imagine that he knows the tricks of the investment trade as well as any other, which is why I’ve been entertained in recent days by the efforts being expended to rehabilitate his public persona. If most middle-America readers haven’t noticed, there’s a good reason for it: The refurbishment comes first tricklingly through the bought-and-paid-for right-wing media, then to the mainstream-pretending right-wing media, which means that a front-page coronation by the Wall Street Journal cannot be far behind. But a pretty new façade may not compensate for the foundation of facts erected during the 2006 campaign season.
Yes, smart money says we Americans have such short memories, right? So maybe a candy-coating IS all that’s necessary to erase the bitter gall of Rich’s negative national overexposure. Spoonful of sugar to help forget the medicine, hm? But by my count, probably more than 400 articles and editorials in newspapers and magazines across the land dragged Rich & Company’s activities out into the bright, disinfecting light of day, so it’ll take more than a spoonful of sugar to give a fair first coating. And I recall the admonitions of my elders and my dentist alike: Too much candy will give you cavities.
So before we get to the sugar, let’s have a little Listerine and truth, courtesy of Matt Singer, blogger par excellence of Left in the West. In a year-end recap of ballot measure activities published in In These Times and posted here http://www.inthesetimes.com/... Singer notes that "voters rejected a number of so-called ‘Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights’ (TABOR) spending cap measures and tax cuts in states across the country. New York City developer-turned-libertarian financier Howard Rich worked with a handful of friends to try and qualify as many as 35 anti-government ballot initiatives. Only one proved successful. Voters also outright rejected a number of tax cuts, including an estate tax repeal that was rejected by more than 60 percent of Washington state voters."
Yes, Singer accurately counts only one victory for Rich and Company in 2006, the passage of his "regulatory takings" ballot initiative in Arizona. "Eminent domain/regulatory takings," for the lay reader, is a bit of Libertarian logic that goes thusly: If a known drug dealer owns a parcel of land situated next to, let’s say, an elementary school or a church, and he wants to open a business on that land catering to an adult audience – perhaps selling adult novelties, books and magazines, videotapes of activities imagined only by the most dissipated and squalid of our species, not to mention such fare as ladies’ delicates – then that known drug dealer ought to have the right to open and conduct his business affairs on his property. And if local or state laws prohibit the use of that parcel of land for his purposes, then the local or state government has "taken" the potential earnings of this known drug dealer illegitimately, and he stands aggrieved. Rich’s "eminent domain/regulatory takings" measure would guarantee that the known drug dealer in question would be compensated – out of taxpayer dollars, mind you – for the estimated loss in revenue. Freedom would be won. Liberty would be preserved.
Well, the voters of Washington said no to Rich’s "eminent domain/regulatory takings" measure, as did the voters of Oregon, California and Idaho. Before election day, the Montana Supreme Court took his "eminent domain/regulatory takings" measure out of election contention, and the Nevada Supreme Court stripped the "regulatory takings" part of it out of that ballot measure altogether. Rich’s people in Nevada were so chagrined at losing the meat of their initiative that even THEY tried to get the "eminent domain" taken off the ballot altogether, and were unsuccessful.
So, as Singer points out, only Arizonans voted to pay a known drug dealer for imaginary income losses if zoning laws prevent him from opening his adult-oriented merchandising business next to a school or church. Hooray for drug dealers in Tucson.
But, gentle reader, here’s where the sugar comes in – where the refurbishment of the public persona begins, where the subcontractors start applying new vinyl siding to the edifice in disrepair. Watch closely.
" ‘Howie Rich from New York City’ has become the Left's latest whipping boy," writes Deroy Murdock in the December 7 edition of Human Events. "The wealthy Gotham real-estate investor and long-time free-market activist has generated liberal ire through his donations and support of Americans for Limited Government, U.S. Term Limits and other groups that sponsor state ballot measures to curb eminent-domain abuse, cap state spending and curtail careerism among elected officials."
Those evil liberals. And Murdock has the goods on them, too: SEIU Local 502 in Salem, Oregon, made the mistake of posting its newsletter online, where the whole world could see their attack on Rich! Aha! The AFL-CIO News had rotten things to say about him too, all posted online! And Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski – no, let me be as specific as Murdock is: "Oregon DEMOCRAT Ted Kulongoski" – even wrote a letter that was given to the free press itself, which of course published it for all to see. And worst of all, a website called HowieRichExposed.com revealed to America what it knew about Rich’s activities.
Murdock, one of the rare columnists to whom Rich has granted a real, live, sit-down interview in-person, found the sugar daddy savoring a bit of yellowtail – raw, of course – at Sushi Yasuda, "a restaurant near the United Nations." (That’s an endorsement suitable for framing and hanging on the wall between the Zagat’s review and the autographed glossy of Burt Reynolds!) Hearing the charges leveled against him by the allied liberals of America "makes Howie howl," Murdock writes.
You can read this for yourself here http://www.humanevents.com/... and the text was judged sufficiently florid to be reprinted, in full, in the New York Post here http://www.nypost.com/...
Rich tells Murdock, "I have been fortunate enough to have been successful in business, and I want to do something in this life to advance liberty." So it’s a rags-to-riches tale, Howie-Rich-as-Horatio-Alger with a twist of Thomas Jefferson for good measure. He’s Carnegie sans library card. Not so with the malcontents aligned against him, including those strong-arming "Big Labor critics," he advises Murdock: "Every nickel that I either donate or raise is voluntary. Nobody was coerced into giving."
Still, Rich is just the grease in the skillet, not the steak itself, he suggests. "All I have done here, for the most part, is provide seed money. All of these initiatives are left up to the voters. That’s what these people, who consider money evil, are not willing to address. It’s the voters in these states who ultimately make the decisions."
Mmm-hm. Voters in the states DID make those decisions this year, as Matt Singer outlined for us already. A reasonable person might even say that those voters – is "rejected" too strong a word? – Rich’s agenda.
But now, reader, with the stage set and our hero identified by the burnishing halo, Murdock the senior fellow becomes Murdock the confectionist, conjuring something brand-new and sticky-sweet from his saucepan of sugar.
"Rich, whose surname mirrors his bank account, is worth unspecified millions." Keep reading...
"He poured his initial plumbing-contracting revenues into real- estate ventures that have grown handsomely." Yeah, keep going...
"For November’s election, Rich and groups he runs or advises reportedly spent $15 million promoting state initiatives." Uh-huh, almost there...
"While all three of Rich’s budget-trimming Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, proposals failed, nine of 12 eminent-domain-relief questions passed overwhelmingly."
WHOA. Give me a minute here, the candy-coating is hard to resist. I think this is what my grandma called "sugar shock."
Let me underscore where the mixture got to the "crackle" stage, suitable for making peanut brittle. Murdock tells us, the least-suspecting buyer looking at a pretty new building, that "nine of 12 eminent-domain-relief questions passed overwhelmingly."
Now, careful reader, I’ve touched this topic once before, and found sufficient facts to satisfy my own mind that this trifle was full of hot air, here http://www.dailykos.com/... Hart Williams sunk a straw in the center to test its doneness here http://www.hartwilliams.com/... and let all its hot air out.
Nonetheless, as former Congressman Mark Foley may be learning, good rehabilitation begins with putting the facts of the past behind us and looking forward. As public relations-types might amend, however: A better rehabilitation begins with re-casting the facts of our past and giving them the fine patina of truthiness! Hahaha.
Hence, Rehabilitator Murdock tells us that "In Louisiana, for instance, 55 percent of voters approved a measure that prohibits cities from condemning private property to create jobs or boost tax revenues. In Florida, 69 percent of voters adopted property protections, as did 80 percent of Michigan voters. In South Carolina, 86 percent of voters banned condemnations for "the purpose or benefit of economic development, unless the condemnation is for public use."
Murdock EVEN – and boy, did this take moxie – calls on the name of California to support his Rich rehabilitation, never mentioning that California itself rejected Rich’s "regulatory takings" measure!
"Like the numerous property tax cuts that voters endorsed after Californians enacted Proposition 13 in 1978, these eminent-domain initiatives quietly swept the nation, even as Republicans had a rotten night. Americans recoiled against the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision. It freed cities to use eminent domain to snatch private property, not for public, but for private purposes."
Okey-doke. Now comes the toothbrush, so as to avoid letting this sugar rot to set in and leaving caries at the American gumline.
I’ve studied up on this. Spent some hours this weekend, matter of fact, click-click-clicking through websites hither and yon, when I coulda been catching the latest James Bond flick. I hear good reviews. And here’s what my dry-and-crossed eyes have found.
Using state elections websites in Florida, I can find no evidence that Rich or his beloved Americans for Limited Government gave money to support the measure that merely reinforced current eminent domain law in Florida. ALG gave more than a million bucks to "Trust the Voters" PAC, whose Amendment 3 sought to put constitutional amendments on the ballot in the Sunshine State. His old standby, U.S. Term Limits, gave $35,000 to the "Stop the Politicians" PAC, and Andrea Rich herself gave a little bit to the Wal-Mart PAC for Responsible Government. So Rich had nothing to do with the Florida "eminent domain" measure. Strike one.
Using the Georgia State Ethics Commission, I can find no evidence that Rich or ALG gave money to support the measure that reinforced Georgia’s own eminent domain law. Zippo. Check it out for yourself here http://www.ethics.ga.gov/... Strike two.
Using the Louisiana Secretary of State’s website and its online searchable database of contributors, I can find no evidence that Rich or ALG gave money to to support that measure that Murdock trumpeted. You look, too, here http://www.ethics.state.la.us/... and tell me what you find. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ll say that’s a strike until I see otherwise. That’s three, but let’s keep going.
Using Michigan’s state campaign database online, I can find no evidence that Rich or ALG gave money to support the eminent domain measure there. Want to check my math? Go here http://www.michigan.gov/... Strike four.
Using North Dakota’s online campaign finance data, I can find no evidence that Rich or ALG gave to the eminent domain measure there, but his buddy Laird Maxwell of Idaho did; Maxwell’s America at its Best gave $10,000 to a group called "Citizens to Restrict Eminent Domain. And you can find it here http://www.nd.gov/... Strike five.
Using Nevada’s online campaign finance data, it appears that ALG gave a little more than $168,000 to support PISTOL when it contained the language revising Nevada’s eminent domain AND Rich’s "regulatory takings" measure, which makes perfect sense. BUT, heh heh, I didn’t find any contributions from Rich or ALG supporting the measure once the Nevada Supreme Court stripped his "regulatory takings" language from it. Want details? Read ‘em and weep: (1) http://cce.sos.state.nv.us/... (2) http://cce.sos.state.nv.us/... (3) (http://cce.sos.state.nv.us/cefddocs/0002006_Reports/000Political_Action_Committee/000Alliance_for_P
roperty_Protection_Rights_PAC/000CE_Report_2.pdf and (4) http://cce.sos.state.nv.us/... I’m calling it a strike, and we’re up to six.
Now, in New Hampshire, you can’t review campaign finance data online, but you can search by contributor at the Secretary of State’s webpage here http://199.192.6.217/... Email me, please, if you find any entries for either Rich or ALG. I didn’t, so that’s steeee-rike seven.
Likewise in South Carolina, the State Ethics Commission doesn’t have an online searchable database of campaign financing, but you can search for contributors. Let me know what you find there. Clue: Strike eight.
Murdock said there were nine victories, and he likely counted Oregon in that list. So as not to leave my faithful reader with no opportunity to participate, I’ll leave it to you to Google what you may find in Oregon. I suspect Murdock and Rich are claiming credit for the work of Bill Sizemore and his compatriots without actually contributing – Rich contributed enough to win his Taxpayer Bill of Rights in Oregon, and lost it still. Tell me what you find, won’t you?
SO, reader. After our cleaning and fine-scaling to remove Murdock’s sugar-coating of Rich’s election year activity, here’s what we find:
Of the 12 eminent domain ballot measure voted on, only those in Idaho, Washington, California, Nevada and Arizona were directly linked to Rich and ALG. Four of the five contained his "regulatory takings" provision that would guarantee payment to the known drug dealer whose prospective business dealings in the adult merchandising trade would be curtailed by zoning. (In the fifth, the Nevada Supreme Court neutered Rich’s measure, leaving his eminent domain language substantially less eminent.) Of the four remaining measures, only Arizona adopted his agenda.
Clearly, the other eminent domain measures were put on various state ballots by their respective state legislatures, and none of them contained Rich’s "regulatory takings" provisions. I can find no evidence that either Rich or ALG contributed to campaigns to support those measures AND in fact, I’ve concluded there were no real campaigns specifically organized to support those measures.
Does Murdock offer any of this fact analysis in his work to gild the lily for Rich? Of course not. He does tell us, however, that that Rich is "a not-so-tall bald man who is fond of patterned sport jackets." That’s hard-hitting investigative work, people. Will someone help me nominate this man for a Peabody? If Bill O’Reilly could get one, Deroy Murdock’s hour in the limelight is coming.
Murdock leaves us with this parting shot: Rich, he writes, "taunts his critics."
"People think you can come in, win a few, and go away," he quotes Rich. "You're in the ring. You've got to keep punching."
Mmm-hm. The editors of the Kansas City Star are punch-drunk, then. They write here
http://www.kansascity.com/... about Rich’s success at unseating Circuit Court Judge Tom Brown in Cole County. They write that Republican Jon Beetem, Brown’s opponent, got "a big assist from an out-of-state group called Americans for Limited Government, which spent about $100,000 on a smear campaign against Brown. Who finances Americans for Limited Government and why did they want to oust a circuit judge in the Missouri county that includes Jefferson City? That’s a secret. And that secrecy is a problem."
"Americans for Limited Government, which has been involved in ballot initiatives around the nation, refuses to name its donors. And Missouri has no law requiring it and similar organizations to disclose their financers. ...It’s a ridiculous loophole that allows secret money to flow into campaigns. Lawmakers must find a way to close it."
"People who followed the judge’s race have two theories for why Brown was targeted. One is that the judge acquired well-heeled political enemies in Missouri who ferried money to the out-of-state group with the expectation it be used to unseat him. That would violate the spirit of Missouri disclosure laws. The other theory is that the campaign against Brown was in retaliation for a decision made by another Cole County judge, who was not up for election this time."
Did that last note pique your interest? Read more about it here http://www.dailykos.com/...
The editors continue, "The chairman of Americans for Limited Government, a New York real estate investor named Howard Rich, had tried to initiate ballot propositions in Missouri to limit state spending and curb the taking of private property for public use. The secretary of state ruled that petitions for both measures were flawed. The other Cole County judge agreed, thus preventing the propositions from appearing on the ballot. The notion that a wealthy out-of-state critic might be able to anonymously punish Missouri judges is very disturbing."
"The attack on Brown also raises the possibility that any Missouri candidate could be targeted with neither the candidate nor voters able to learn who is bankrolling the opposition. Ballot initiatives or opposition to them could also be funded wholly by anonymous interests. Secret money has no place in Missouri elections. Legislators should get to work immediately on stringent registration and reporting requirements."
To examine some basic tenets of real news analysis, Murdock might give a gander at blogger Jay Stevens’s work here http://www.prospect.org/... Stevens takes up the question of how Rich’s "regulatory takings" measure failed in Idaho, one of the reddest of red states. Short answer? "The initiative was a libertarian concoction meant to handcuff local and state government from regulating land use -- a regulatory takings bill cloaked in the guise of citizens' protection against eminent domain. It was the progeny of the anti-government group, Americans for Limited Government."
"Like in other rural areas, Idaho citizens are suspicious of external meddling in their local affairs. Rich's multimillion dollar effort and the wave of mercenary signature gatherers that descended on their state certainly soured the political atmosphere for Proposition 2. Rumors of fraud circulated: professional petitioners, paid by the signature, were misleading citizens about the content of the bill, even claiming that the government would take their homes if they didn't sign the petition."
"Moreover, the issue that Proposition 2 was using as cover -- eminent domain -- had recently been addressed in the state legislature. Idaho voters had to wonder why a bill was pushed onto their ballot ostensibly for the purpose of addressing an issue already covered by existing law. (The language involving eminent domain on the initiative was taken verbatim from the state law.) The debate, then, was allowed to focus on regulatory takings."
"Galvanized by the impact the bill would have on city zoning and rural land development, a large and diverse coalition sprung up to oppose Proposition 2. Environmentalists, ranchers, and farmers allied with business groups and politicians from both sides of the aisle to denounce the legislation. Republican Governor Jim Risch even held a widely publicized summit in his office to showcase the broad opposition to the bill. The voters in Idaho followed the advice of their civic leaders and thrashed the regulatory takings legislation."
Stevens’s analysis is so complete, it seems the only issue he didn’t consider was how badly the Rich family wants college football coach Steve Spurrier to return to his alma mater, Science Hill High School in Johnson City, Tennessee.
Take a moment, faithful reader. Let it breathe. Reporter Ron Morris explains it all here http://www.thestate.com/... "Science Hill High School is not giving up. The rumors continue to circulate this week in Johnson City, Tenn., that the school’s favorite son, Steve Spurrier, will be its next football coach. Keith Turner, Science Hill’s athletics director, can hardly contain himself with anticipation of Spurrier walking the Hilltoppers sideline. Spurrier could not be reached for comment. He said on Saturday when his contract with South Carolina was extended to six years and by $500,000 annually that he is happy in Columbia. He said is not interested in any other job, although he was coy in not addressing the one in his boyhood home of Johnson City."
"Science Hill and Johnson City have still more to offer Spurrier, who has long owned eight apartment units near the high school. Turner and Graham Spurrier confirmed that the Johnson City Country Club and The Ridges, an exclusive private golf course in Johnson City, would offer free year-round membership to the new coach. Since Science Hill already plays its home games at Memorial Stadium’s Steve Spurrier Field, Turner has assured Spurrier that the school’s baseball field and basketball gymnasium also would bear his name."
"Science Hill High alumnus Matt Czuchry, more commonly known as Logan Huntzberger on TV’s ‘Gilmore Girls,’ has indicated to Turner that he will make a sizeable contribution to the Spurrier cause. Then there is Science Hill High graduate Andrea Millen Rich, the wife of New York real estate millionaire Howie Rich. Turner is confident the Rich family will make Spurrier very happy when he accepts the Science Hill job."
And that’s how Howie Rich of New York City and the members of the Johnson City Country Club of Johnson City, Tennessee, could be separated by only two degrees.
Finally, reader, while we’re pondering surreal matters pertaining to South Carolina, here’s one more. Joshua Gross, who apparently writes for a weblog there, would like to meet Howie Rich himself. He has a message for the Manhattan mogul. Writes Gross himself, here http://schotline.blogspot.com/... "I've yet to actually meet Howie, though I hope for an opportunity to present itself sometime soon. When I do get the chance to meet him, I expect I'll tell him what a pleasure and privilege it is to be associated (however remotely) with someone of his character and vision." Lovely. I suspect that Deroy Murdock could arrange that happy occasion if anyone can.
Murdock and Gross share this in common: Commitment to the rehabilitation of Rich’s public persona. Witness: "Look, it's one thing to disagree with folks on policy, and I expect honest liberals will do so strenuously - from Howie's love of free market economics to his protection of homeowners from an intrusive government to his protection of taxpayers from an expanding government to his promotion of Milton Freidman's [sic] progressive ideas about educational choice. But the hard left folks -- those shrill voices who attack the personality of the man because they can't beat the arguments, often hiding in cowardice behind the false veneer of internet anonymity, these folks do more damage to their own cause (and to the quality of public debate) through their headfake attacks than they would if they simply engaged the public on the issues they actually care about."
Gross has readers, and some of them offer engaging commentary to his blog, where even yours truly is given the space of a few pixels. Consider it dessert.
Meantime, credits.
MISSOURI
http://www.kansascity.com/...
Editors, "Campaign to unseat judge disturbing in its secrecy"
NATIONAL
http://www.inthesetimes.com/...
Blogger Matt Singer, "Turning Back the Tax Revolt"
http://www.nypost.com/...
http://www.humanevents.com/...
Atlas Economic Research Foundation Senior Fellow Deroy Murdock, "Funding Freedom"
http://www.prospect.org/...
Blogger Jay Stevens, "Not for the Takings: How was a libertarian land use initiative defeated in blood-red Idaho?"
SOUTH CAROLINA
http://schotline.blogspot.com/...
Weblog, "Howie Rich from New York City"
http://www.thestate.com/...
Reporter Ron Morris, "Science Hill is bake sale away from Spurrier hire"