A new memo from the Obama campaign discusses the way the Edwards and Clinton campaigns are being run. In this diary I will focus on the points made regarding Edwards. The memo strongly suggests that the Edwards campaign is exploiting loopholes and/or outright breaking campaign finance law. Here is the memo.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
After the break I will list the specific points made by the Obama campaign. Before that, I would like to preempt one likely response. Edwards partisans are going to cry foul over this diary. We are likely to hear things like: "This is just because Edwards is 'surging' in the polls" and "Obama is going negative". These responses are specious. It's also specious to claim that I or Obama have any problem with SEIU locals participating in the election. I think that they should absolutely be participating and that they should have given directly to Edwards' campaign. Anyone who gives these specious responses is not interested in honestly debating the validity of the points made. The best of Edwards' supporters will avoid the histrionics and address the specific points.
The Obama memo begins by noting that "Alliance for a New America" is a 527 group run by Edwards former campaign manager that is running candidate specific adverts for John Edwards. Following that, the Obama campaign makes two claims.
1) Nearly $500,000 of AfaNA's donations come from a 97 year old woman with no history of campaign donations whose lawyer is an Edwards supporter.
In their most recent financial disclosure, the Alliance for New America revealed that they had raised $495,000 from Oak Springs Farms, LLC. Oak Springs is funded through the assets of Rachel Mellon, who is 97-years old. According to the available records, which go back to 1980, she has never donated to a political candidate until a contribution was made in her name to John Edwards this year. Mellon's involvement in the decision to donate to the Edwards campaign is unknown. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Alexander Forger, who has power for attorney for Mrs. Mellon, is a major supporter of John Edwards’ candidacy. Crain's Business Journal reported in February that Forger and "a group of prominent New York lawyers" hosted a fund-raiser for Edwards at Essex House -- the Central Park South address where his office is located. Forger has also personally donated $4,600 to Edwards' campaign, according to FEC records. This is not the first time Forger has used Oak Springs Farms to support Edwards; in 2006, he made a $250,000 contribution to Edwards’ One America 527 group.
2) The Edwards campaign appears to have coordinated with the SEIU, another pro-Edwards 527 funder.
When John Edwards applied for matching funds, he agreed to spending limits in return for the public money he is now receiving. But at that time, the Edwards campaign was actively involved in discussions about the establishment of an "independent" 527 effort, to be conducted outside the federal financing requirements. Members of the SEIU, which is funding the 527 that has spent the vast majority of the money in IA on his behalf, described consultations with senior Edwards staff and a visit to the campaign in Iowa, all intended to assure that the project delivered "the specific sort of support they’d [the Edwards campaign] like to see from us."
Within weeks, the Alliance for a New America, a 527 group organized just to boost Edwards' last-minute media spending in Iowa, came into existence. The group portrays itself as an issue advertising group, able to operate outside the legal restrictions of the federal campaign finance laws. Its goal is to help Edwards, who is specifically promoted in its advertising. Consistent with the close coordination envisioned by the planners, key individuals involved in this organization and steering its activities are close associates of the Edwards campaign.
This is all problematic for Edwards because it undermines his credibility as a reformer. In a general election, his opponents can say that he took taxpayer money when his supporters could have given to him directly instead of these 527s. When the 527 group Vote Hope formed to support Obama, he very publicly condemned it:
"It would be hypocrisy if I had anything to do with them, since I just heard of them. This is not something that I authorized or had any part of. My recommendation to people who are interested in supporting me is to support me through our campaign — the way over 250,000 donors have supported us, the way hundreds of thousands of volunteers have supported us. Get involved in the campaign that we’ve set up, that is above board, that is transparent, that is legal. And I think if people channel their energies in that way, we’ll all be better off."
http://www.ibabuzz.com/...
By way of contrast, Edwards has been unwilling or unable to get his supporters to give to his campaign rather than these 527s. At the beginning of this diary I said that certain responses that Edwards' supporters are liable to make will be specious. Let me say this now: If you can show that Obama is receiving the same kind of 527 support from former employees like Baldick or supporters like Forger then you can legitimately respond with a charge of hypocrisy.
Supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama share a goal of reforming the amount of control that lobbyists have come to have over our elections and our system. Edwards has earned credibility by not ever receiving money from PACs or Washington lobbyists. But I think we all know that politics isn't going to change by following one example. As Edwards himself says, these people aren't going to give up power voluntarily. You have to take it from them. Obama can claim greater credibility because he actually has fought for his entire legislative career to do just that. Obama, not Edwards, is the one that can boast a track record of working for and passing legislation that makes government more open, democratic, and accountable. Now, the credibility that Edwards earned from the way he has run past campaigns is subject to questioning.