The Price of Strategery

Published on April 23, 2007
by Steve Hoersting

File Under: Coordination, Faulty Assumptions, Political Committees & 527s, Political Parties

HILLARY'S SHADOW DNC

*              Hillary Places Harold Ickes at Helm of Shadow Party to Displace Dean's DNC 

***

*              Ickes Creating Own Voter Database Due to Lack of Confidence in DNC's Database:

Harold Ickes "Open Distrust" of DNC Chair Howard Dean's Ability Prompted Him to Create Own Voter Database. "Perhaps Ickes' largest-scale project is Catalist, a private company born out of his open distrust in the ability of Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean to build a voter database to rival that of the Republicans. Ickes is president of the company." (Ben Smith, "Hillary's Hammer Returns," The Politico, 4/18/07)

In 2006, Ickes Acknowledged His Database Was "A Vote Of No Confidence" In Dean's DNC. "Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front.  'The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march,' said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros." (Thomas B. Edsall, "Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle," The Washington Post, 3/8/06)

*              Clinton Favorite Ickes Previously Challenged Fmr. Gov. Howard Dean for DNC Chair in 2005:

*              Other Close Clinton Advisors Have Voiced Lack Of Confidence In DNC:

***

[James] Carville: "Do we want to go into '08 with a C-minus general at the DNC?" (Donald Lambro, "State Chiefs Credit Dean For Victory," The Washington Times, 11/26/06)

In 2006, Former "Top White House Advisor" to Bill Clinton … Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Said the DNC "Couldn't Find Their A** With Both Hands Tied Behind Their Back."

***

A Product of the RNC Research Department

Apparently a billionaire has agreed to take up the entire micro-targeting and ground game operation for the Democratic effort in the 2008 election cycle.  We all know what that means.  It means that the DNC may beat its chest all it wants that it’s ready to compete head-to-head with the RNC’s technological prowess, but true confessions of Clinton confidantes tell another story.  How embarrassing for the DNC, how much egg on the face of Howard Dean, and how ridiculous for the DNC to think it could ever overtake the Republicans anytime this cycle! 

We at CCP often defend the storied role of our national party committees in American politics against the reformers that would hobble them.  We say that the parties are a galvanizing force for citizen action and a moderating force in the selection and support of candidates.  But every now and then we feel as though we are defending the dietary whims of adult-onset diabetics against The Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The RNC’s headline sounds correct, but its conclusion seems so wrong.  They seem with the implications of this piece not to have internalized the legal terrain on which the 2008 race will be run.  The piece strikes those who understand that terrain the same as viewing hidden video of castaways who discover a life-saving cache of satellite-linked laptops only to make good use of them as end tables and nightlights.

We wonder how the piece would read if the researcher who discovered this Catalist nugget also knew that, under federal campaign finance law, any entity established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a political party committee or its agents must receive contributions in amounts no higher than that allowed a political party committee?  Or wonder how it would read if the researcher knew that any organization that coordinates its activities with a political party committee makes in-kind contributions to that party committee subject to source prohibitions and contribution limitations?  We would like to ask this RNC researcher:  “If you were briefed by lawyers that jumbling up these two activities was illegal, and you were involved in one activity but not the other, what would you be willing to say on the front end about the other to avoid jail time?”  Or ask this: “Why do you suppose Howard Dean feels no strong need to strongly refute these comments?”

2008’s legal terrain was shaped, as much as any, by an earlier RNC shortsightedly eager to wipe out its opponents.  The 2004 game plan was to stop the so-called 527 organizations and push for fully funded public financing.  Such measures are incumbent-protective, yet barely worked to protect the Republican incumbent in 2004.  The RNC pushed its ban-the-527s theory long after its candidate was safely home, and safely delivered home by a 527.

The 2008 Presidential contest, however, will be the year of a Democratic “incumbent,” not a Republican one.  Banning 527s will ban discussion of Hillary’s Arkansas and White House days.  And all the hope placed in public financing was shrewdly wiped away in a single advisory opinion request by a Democratic runner-up asking a question the frontrunner needed answered.  With the runner-up posing the right question, any answer allows the frontrunner to box-in one Republican known for “reform,” while leaving the frontrunner, safely distanced from fallout that comes with posing the question, free to raise a wealth of private funds should she find herself in a general-election contest with “Bain Capital.”

The terrain is rough, indeed.

We might wonder if this RNC researcher ran this research piece by the RNC Counsel’s office, lawyers we know understand 2008’s terrain.  But we have no doubt this piece was run by the Counsel’s office, who promptly read it for fair use, defamation, and applicable disclaimers.  This doesn’t mean they can't see the landscape, however.  If 2004 is any guide, the Counsel’s office is waiting to hear how it will treat the Catalist development.  They may soon be asked by their political arm to make life tough for Catalist, or to stop them.  The Counsel’s office won’t relish this task, knowing that whatever may be said of 527s, that are called "political organizations" by their IRS designation, running a for-profit business, even at a loss, is not (yet) a punishable offense. 

So if the RNC Counsel’s office does one day decide to pursue Catalist by filing complaints with the FEC, they will have to do so under a coordination or agency theory.  If those complaints one day come, there is one thing we can be sure of -- and we'll hope this RNC researcher will be watching: Whatever the DNC and Catalist may seem to disagree upon, they will readily agree to defend any RNC complaints with the very RNC research piece that seems to exonerate them.  And if that day comes, you can bet your … well, you can bet a lot … that Howard Dean and the DNC will grab that exculpatory evidence with “both hands.”