Roger Salazar to Run Pro-Hillary 527: Is it Violating Federal Law?

my party dues money (0.00 / 0)

goes in part to Roger Salazar and Jason Kinney, who are now engaging in a suicide mission against a fellow Democrat.

You stay classy, California Democratic Party...

(where's concern troll Steve Maviglio to tell us that they should all focus their energies on the Republicans instead?)

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55:36 AM CST

Why is the spokesman of the CDP leading a 527 like this (0.00 / 0)

It brings up a lot of issues about fairness from the CDP. Sure, our primary is over, but I've been hoping that the CDP would do everything within its power to maintain the appearance of neutrality between our 2 candidates.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:58:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

classic CDP (0.00 / 0)

Begin fighting only after defeat is all but certain? This does indeed sound like nothing more than a suicide mission.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh wait (0.00 / 0)

Maviglio is too busy concern trolling a potential Lawrence Lessig run, for... get this... exactly the same reason as I state in my previous comment!

Jeez...

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Vote Leubitz for Senate 2012! (8.00 / 1)

I think I understand how this works now. Basically if you've been at it for a long time, the seat becomes rightfully yours.  Thus, I'm happy to announce that I'm running for Senate in 2012.  As I'm first, nobody should challenge me.  Back off Gavin, don't waste resources!!

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

I have nothing to do with this.

And unlike the Speier campaign (where she's slam dunk to win), the presidential race isn't over.

And unlike Mr. Lessig's video -- where he attacks a Democrat over campaign contributions -- this 527 appears to be positive.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:49:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it is positive thus far (0.00 / 0)

but thank you for telling us, O wise one, when it's OK to have a primary and when it isn't.  Why doesn't everyone just run this stuff by you first, it'd be so much less messy!

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:03:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well then dont come begging for 20K for an ad on the yacht tax (0.00 / 0)

when you think that money is better spent on a primary.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 17:36:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not really my decision to make (8.00 / 1)

But the idea that it's a zero-sum game is, frankly, absurd.  I made the ad I made for 2 bucks and so far we've shut down the CRP's phone lines two days before their convention.  As far as an ad buy, would everyone who put money into a Jackie Speier/Lawrence Lessig primary fight be exactly the same people that would fund a state issue ad?  That logic seems to me perverse.  The CDP would expend zero resources in a Democratic primary fight and I think you know that.

I also like this idea that I'm begging for money and if I'm not sufficiently nice to you I won't get it.  The purpose of the ad is to HELP DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND CAUSES.  You would think you'd want to do that anyway.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 18:22:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stay tuned. (0.00 / 0)

Its in the works.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 19:56:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And yet, it's folks like us who the Dem establishment (0.00 / 0)

pegs as divisive...

Apparently, you're only divisive if (a) you're not a member of the well-paid insider consultant class, and (b) you offer a criticism from the nominal left.

Simple lefty villagers should STFU and let the pros (funded by the lefty villager dollars) really destroy the party from the right.

---

by: jsw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The expanse of your vocabulary is amazing ... (0.00 / 0)

you've gone to obscenities to "STFU."

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:05:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Man, you crack me up (0.00 / 0)

Where's the apology to the Progressive Caucus?

---

by: jsw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 18:05:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For? (0.00 / 0)

Free speech is a terrible thing I guess.

---

by: sacguy @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 19:55:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maviglio from the right? (0.00 / 0)

Seriously?

Maviglio & the Speaker are slightly to the center of left, at best.  How can you accuse him of coming from the right?  I thought the Dems were about a big ideological umbrella.  I thought the Republicans were the ones who had a litmus test about who was truly worthy.  

At the end of the day, "D" is a "D".  I support Hillary, but if Obama gets the nomination I will support Obama.  I may be on the right fringe of the Democratic party, but I still want to do whatever it takes to get as many "D"s in office as possible.

What's wrong with being pragmatic?  I know everyone here thinks Rahm is Satan for thinking the same thing, but really...how is it so bad?

---

by: modem @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:04:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Come on (0.00 / 0)

First, the California Democratic Party does not and, indeed, cannot endorse presidential candidates (read our bylaws).

Second, Roger Salazar is a political consultant. He has many clients. The CDP is one of those clients. This 527 is another, different client. You might recall that the Indian tribes ("Yes on 94-97") were yet another client. Just like many of the people posting in the comments here, he wears many hats. He is not wearing his CDP hat for this endeavor.


Online Organizing Director
California Democratic Party

---

by: California Democratic Party @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:44:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah but.... (0.00 / 0)

Roger is often referred to as "Spokesman" for the CDP . When he represents a particular cause or candidate the impression of CDP backing is inevitable. I complained to CDP about this when Roger was in the media as "Spokesman " for Props 94-97 and was told he was "very professional and it shouldn't be a problem",  a non-answer.DDay is pointing out the obvious conclusion. Not classy is a rather mild description.  

Judy Cohen Hotchkiss
"It does not take a majority to prevail. Just an irate, tireless minority,setting brushfires in peoples minds." Samuel Adams

---

by: jhotchkiss2 @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:01:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

why (0.00 / 0)

does the California Democratic Party not hire full-time consultants?  Why are they constantly competing for the attention of the people they pay to organize within the state?  Why aren't they right now working on all kinds of issue ads over this Sloophole thing?

Can we get a party that doesn't have to hold on while their top-level talent whiles themselves away on other progects?

Hiring you two was a start.  How about a full-time spokesperson?

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:06:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Honest, this is the "short" answer (5.00 / 1)

Basically, there's a very long answer to that which we'll be happy to discuss with you when we figure out the best way to present it. But the "short" answer is that the party, like every political organization, has finite resources and a finite amount of time to devote to various issues and projects.

The CDP tries to be judicious in not spending money on staff that is unnecessary or redundant. The party doesn't just have Roger Salazar as its spokesperson; it has the services of Acosta-Salazar, which is a full communications shop. The CDP get services from them other than just having someone who can function as a spokesperson for the party. In essence, you're arguing that the party needs to avoid the appearance that its spokesperson represents the party even when he or she isn't speaking for the party.  I take it that you would prefer that the party allocate money to avoid this type of ambiguity in the role of party spokesperson.

However, please understand that it is standard operating procedure in California politics for consultants to work on more than one campaign, and it's understood that a vendor for Client A does not represent Client A when speaking for Client B.  If this seems problematic to you, if you think the CDP ought not to be doing this, then you as a delegate and as a registered Democrat have the ability to organize with others to demonstrate to the party's leadership and the party's staff that there is an organizational will to make this type of policy change. It's not at all clear to us (Matt and Penny) that your view is representative of the entire party; but to the degree you think it is, by all means please do something to demonstrate that it is representative. But you need to remember that no matter how reasonable an argument sounds to one person (even a staffer), the party needs to respond as an institution to the organizational will of its membership as determined by the mechanisms established in the rules and bylaws of the party.

With respect to the sloop issue ads, the party is not in a position to run issue ads across California. Again, it comes down to finite resources. And competing demands for those resources guarantee that the decisions that are made regarding allocation will be tough and that not everyone will be happy with them. If this is something that you think should change, then, once again, there are mechanisms to work within the party to establish different organizational priorities. We (again, Matt and Penny) know a lot of people who would be absolutely appalled at the party spending money on issue ads rather than spending it on other institutional needs, such as organizing in rural areas, services for county committees, party support for specific candidates in partisan races -- well, I'm sure you catch the drift. The party is made up of a lot of different people with a lot of different perspectives, and there's a need to synthesize these competing demands to come up with something that is broadly acceptable.  

David, we're sure you're not alone in your perspective, and we hope that you find a way of organizing like-minded people so that there is a cohesive group with a prioritized list of changes that can be integrated into the larger discussion that's happening within the party. Remember, it's not enough for the party to, in fact, be right; the party's actions also have to be broadly acceptable to its members.  There are a lot of voices and a lot of perspectives within the party, and it's very difficult to distill all of that down outside of the context of the eboards and the conventions.


Online Organizing Director
California Democratic Party

---

by: California Democratic Party @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 16:14:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks for the pat on the head (0.00 / 0)

I actually already did the proof of concept, it cost me two dollars and it's on the front page of this site.  If I generated 2,000 calls to the California Republican Party offices and a rally in front of the SF Hyatt Embarcadero, would that be worth the two dollars?  3,000?  5,000?  I don't know, the resources argument is kind of typical, but aren't online organizers like yourselves supposed to be a smidge more nimble?   You could send an email blast of that video or something like it (maybe one that costs more than two dollars) for pretty much nothing more than your own salaries, and any dividends it paid would be gravy.  I'm quite troubled by the poverty of imagination and lack of flexibility.

A cable buy is cheap, and I'd certainly be happy to put it up for a vote at the state convention, but we both know that's not how it works.  I'd be happy to take any and all suggestions for how to make the party more representative of the views of its members.

All this talk of what California traditionally does is blunted by the fact that a lot of other states actually DON'T work this way, and what they've done in the past several years has been arguably quite effective (North Carolina is a good example).

Happy to talk about any of this offline.  I'm fairly available.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 17:06:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To follow up... (0.00 / 0)

When the CA Dem establishment (e.g., CDP, the Speaker of the Assemply) pays to be represented publicly by high-level individuals who simultaneously act as (paid or unpaid) spokespersons for a certain faction of the party, it does raise the question of whether that faction is the preferred faction of the party establishment.

See, by way of a parallel example, Mark Penn and Chris Lehane.  Their outside activities (union-busting) raise profound questions about the tolerance and political stance of the campaigns that they work for.

---

by: jsw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:58:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the real problem (0.00 / 0)

is that we have a nation-state with a population of 38 million people, and a part-time political consultant class that has no time to hold the opposition accountable.  A state this big needs a full-time party.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:33:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is their (0.00 / 0)

first ad.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM CST

Hard-hitting (0.00 / 0)

Tell Senator Clinton to...Keep up the good work!!!

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:34:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not negative... yet (0.00 / 0)

If this is all they've got, they ought to save their money.  "If speeches could create jobs, we wouldn't be facing a recession"?  Um, wasn't the worst speechifyer in Presidential history, George Bush, the President overseeing this recession?

It's not negative at all, and this seems to be just creating financial parity so the Clintons can keep going in Ohio and Texas.  But it could, of course, metastasize.  Plus the soft-money aspect, after the Clinton campaign criticized Obama for not being committed to public financing, is pretty weak.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:35:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this ad is lame (0.00 / 0)

I was expecting something like the anti-Kerry wolves, or at least something like this:

(especially given this exact rhetoric is already being used against Obama by Hillary surrogates)

Not that I'm trying to actually encourage supernegative IEs!--but this ad is just a waste of everybody's time and money.

---

by: CarlsbadDem @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:18:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was expecting something more like this (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately there's still plenty of time left to go....

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:43:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

touche n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: CarlsbadDem @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 19:44:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IE's (0.00 / 0)

As far as the IE's, I am going to stick up for Salazar on this one, partly because of concerns I have about how Democrats look at the concept.

First, there have already been several IE efforts in primary states on behalf of all candidates (Remember Vote Hope).  To worry about legalities might be ok, but in this case it's quibbling.

Second and more importantly, this discussion reminds me of mistakes from campaigns past.  When Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter, he openly encouraged IE's.  The Carter people were outraged and discouraged a response because they thought the efforts, many of which were amateurish would backfire on Reagan.  Instead, many were very effective and Reagan outspent Carter 4 to 1 if you count IE money and won in a landslide in a race that was expected to be very close two weeks out.

Since that time Democrats have matched Republicans on the IE front and at least kept the fight even there.  There are however some top Democrats who would like to see us disarm to make what they believe would be a case for taking money out of politics.  If Barack Obama wants to be our parties nominee, he is going to have to deal with the same type of tactics from the Republicans in the fall and he and his campaign might as well start getting used to them now.   JMO!

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM CST

I don't mind I.E.s and like Roger and Jason (0.00 / 0)

But with the timing such as it is, this does feel like a suicide mission.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:58:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

actually (0.00 / 0)

I think there are some Democrats that would like to stop seeing other Democrats do the Republicans' dirty work for them.  The IE argument you're making is irrelevant. (although I would say that so far this looks to be a pretty clean set of ads, so I have less of a problem with it)

I think "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago" and "there you go again" had a bit more to do with the Reagan victory than a bunch of IEs, incidentally.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:03:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I make (0.00 / 0)

a distinction between IEs.  There is a vast difference from the work that Vote Hope was doing.  They were focused on organizing with an eye to long term progressive work.  That is quite different from a group of maxed out major donors fronting an advertising blitz.

I do not want to see us disarm.  I want these outside organizations like America Votes and what MoveOn, SEIU and others are planning to be integrated with local organizing and not be simply a funnel for large amounts of TV ads from really rich people.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:29:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IE's (0.00 / 0)

As far as Julia's comment, that gets to what I see as the heart of the problem.  Given the current law, there is no waya to stop very rich people from funding media blitz's and experience has shown time after time that real voters don't care when they do.  They should, but they don't.  So to start complaining when Democrats try and do this to win a nomination is just a short step from limiting our side in the general in the same way Jimmy Carter did so many years ago.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 14:56:14 PM CST

I don't see anyone saying (0.00 / 0)

"527's bad".  That's a straw man.  What people are saying is "this 527 at this time is a stupid and destructive idea."

Those two things are really different.  See, if I say "Pol Pot is bad", that's not the same thing as "leaders of Asian countries are bad."

---

by: jsw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:00:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (0.00 / 0)

What people are saying is that a 527 working for a candidate they do not support is bad, but you are right, no one is technically talking about getting rid of IE's in the general YET.  However, there are two problems with the posts I have seen.  First, Hillary still believes she has a chance of winning, so we are talking about the rules of the game.  To say that this particular IE is bad at this stage of the game is no different than an insider telling a longshot not to run because he can't win or to hold him to different standards as they so often do because they are trying to preserve their own power.  If Barack is going to win, he has to win, not have it given to him.  It is just like in sports.  You don't give the Patriots the Super Bowl because no one thinks they can lose, you play the game.  Obama is a much stronger candidate if he puts Hillary away and his campaign will be much better off having to deal with this IE because hopefully it will educate them to the dangers of a Jimmy Carter type approach.  To take the sports analogy one step further, it's like when a team gets a bye in the first round, as top teams sometimes do, usually they don't play as well in their next game.  Well for Barack Obama to be elected this November, his whole campaign has to be running on all cylinders and a bye week isn't something they can afford.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 18:53:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're still injecting your personal bias. (0.00 / 0)

1)  Stop it with this ridiculous straw man about "no is technically IE's in the general YET".  Really, stop it.  Nobody is talking about that here.  I haven't seen any regular posters here complain about them, except in the general sense that they're often a crappy idea created by the train-wreck of non-public campaign finance, but you're going to be hard-pressed to find proponents of "unilateral disarmament" here.

2)  There are two questions under discussion here w/r/t this specific effort: (a) whether right now it's stupid and destructive, and (b) whether it's in violation of federal campaign finance law because it's advocating for/against a candidate.

W/r/t (b), I think there's a pretty good case to be made that it would be in violation of federal campaign finance law, but that's not for me to decide, and to the extent that penalties are trivial compared to the expenditure, that's a bigger problem than this specific IE. (Unlike, say, using a dirty word on network TV, where the fines are ridiculous -- though of course, certain commenters here are obsessed with the use of dirty words, and they may disagree.)

W/r/t (a),  I think your point that the primaries shouldn't be treated like the minor leagues is a fair one, but one can still have an opinion on whether an attempted end-around the FEC in this case (or generally) is a good idea, and whether tearing down a possible general election candidate using right-wing talking points is a good idea.  For me, the answer is probably "eh" on the first, and "no" on the second, and would be even if it were a pro-Obama group going after HRC in that way, which I think is not a particularly far-fetched hypothetical.

---

by: jsw @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 19:45:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You could be right, I don't think so (0.00 / 0)

1st in my personal experience a lot of people complain about IE's and don't like them and in fact in response to those complaints, the Obama campaign tried to discourage some that did work for him in the primary and helped him get to where he is today.  More on point though, I don't really believe your last statement that you would be likely to be just as critical of Barack if he did the same thing.  I think this is a case of overzealous supporters complaining about a legitimate tactic from the opposition and since one of the biggest common complaints from independent voters about Democrats is that they only complain when things don't go to suit their own selfish interest, I thought it was worth posting my disagreement with the comments.  People can take them for what they are worth.

As far as the other point which is more philosophical.  There is an old saying from William McKinley, that if in a political campaign, a false attack has success, your candidate hasn't done a good enough job in getting the truth out.  Barack's campaign could be derailed by something at the last minute, but if he is hit this early and isn't able to bounce back, he probably shouldn't be President anyway.  Of course I believe he can and will and that is why I would rather see the Hillary people do this than to have her just drop out.  In part that is because of things like that Texas State Senator who went on Hardball and had a meltdown in part because he hadn't prepared for his appearance.  The Obama campaign still has a lot of new blood and I don't think this will wind up hurting them a bit.   Maybe if Hillary has something stronger she unleashes tonight, but not otherwise.  

One other point.  The longer Barack is running against Hillary, the longer he gets sympathy from Republicans and independents who don't like her.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 14:00:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do you know who I personally supported in the primary? (0.00 / 0)

More on point though, I don't really believe your last statement that you would be likely to be just as critical of Barack if he did the same thing. I think this is a case of overzealous supporters complaining about a legitimate tactic from the opposition and since one of the biggest common complaints from independent voters about Democrats is that they only complain when things don't go to suit their own selfish interest, I thought it was worth posting my disagreement with the comments.

Really, your accusation of bad faith is crapola, certainly as it applies to me, and I'm pretty sure as it applies to Julia.  Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have been disappointing in terms of their tactics (and from my perspective, a fair number of their substantive positions).   Nice counterfactual, though.  You can hypothesize about what we would do in order to insult our character.

As far as "independents" who think that Dems only complain when something goes against their own interest, well, I don't have much faith that the views of "independents" are closely related to how things actually work.  And given that the Republicans have spent decades honing that talking point ("Dems are whiny hypocrites"), I'm unsurprised that "independents" think bad things about Democrats.  IOKIYAR, though, right?  Republicans will absolutely stand up for Dems.  Or, y'know, not.

Just because people perceive something to be true doesn't mean it is, and more to the point, even if it has some truth to it, there's nothing that can be done to stop that kind of perception, especially when people (like, you, for instance) perpetuate it without evidence.

---

by: jsw @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 16:11:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Sorry if I singled you out individually, but I will say that most of the negative comments on various blogs were from Obama supporters (of which I am one) so whether it applies to you or not, it certainly applies to the situation.

As far as the comments on Democrats waffling, I merely quoted polls showing independents thought that.  I didn't say they were right or wrong.  As to your point about them being wrong, in terms of a campaign, it really doesn't matter.  The idea of a political campaign is to convince voters that your side would do more for their well being than the other side and in the end do a better job of working to carry out their wishes (which of course is why elected officials are called public servants).   You can't hide what people think and to limit discussion on the subject is silly and leads to a lot of mistakes down the line.  People generally have a pretty good idea of what they are voting for when they cast a ballot for President and their support needs to be solicited, they don't need to be patronized or lectured.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 18:48:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]