The Dog That Hasn't Barked

Remember last week, when a number of wealthy Clinton supporters announced plans to launch the "American Leadership Project," a 527 to boost her candidacy in Ohio and Texas?

Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.

Funny thing happened between last Wednesday and the ensuing ad blitz: the ad blitz never happened.  So far as anyone can tell, not one ad has actually aired on television, even though they've already shot one.

There's one of two reasons why this has happened, I'd reckon: either the donors don't exist anymore to fund such an effort, or between the potential contributors and the organization, there's a lack of will to engage in what seems to be a clear violation of law:

"This is not a case where there are shades of gray," said [Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer]. "This is not a case where they will be saved by some form of 'Philadelphia' lawyering. This is absolutely a cold, calculated move to violate the law for the benefit of the candidate and to assume that any penalty will be so deferred to the future that the immediate benefits can be gained now without consequence. I think the miscalculation on their part is that the penalties are going to be bearable for them. But I think at the end they will prove to be unbearable for them. This is going to wind up being a very, very miserable experience for the people involved. Maybe in some respects life-changing."

Now, I happen to be a big fan of Philadelphia lawyering, but Bauer's point remains valid.  As I've said before, "a group that forms on the eve of primary elections, advertises only in the immediate primary election states, and has no track record whatsoever of any kind of 'issue advocacy' outside such context ... well, it's damn hard in those circumstances to claim you're not in it for the purpose of influencing the elections."

Still, despite the fact that a citizen complaint has been filed with the FEC, the ALP still insists that it was all legal, so, then, what's the holdup?

This may be a clue: the ALP's website claims that "the names of all donors contributing more than $1000 will be disclosed within 24 hours."  They've yet to make any such disclosure.  I've emailed the ALP to ask for a copy of that list, and if it ever appears, I will let you know.

In the meantime, you'd have to figure that if they had the money they'd be using it right now in Ohio and Texas, which begs the question -- have the $2300+ contributors to Clinton's campaign (i.e., her financial base) already given up?