July 28, 2012


Karl Rove: He's Back, Big Time (Paul M. Barrett on July 26, 2012, Business Week)

Perched safely on the sidelines, he also dodged the Republican disaster in November 2008. At the center of that debacle, presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) distanced himself from outside political action committees and accepted public financing, a decision that had the effect of limiting what he could spend in his race against Obama. The Democrat turned down public money, revealed himself to be a fundraising dervish, and outspent his opponent by nearly two-to-one. Rove watched carefully. "After seeing their success and recognizing liberal groups and unions would systematically spend hundreds of millions of dollars every cycle," he says, some on the right "decided to create an enduring entity as a counterbalance." Those entities are the Crossroads groups.

Rove's return to the arena coincided with a major campaign-finance ruling by the Supreme Court. It irritates Rove that Obama has succeeded in crafting the conventional wisdom on Citizens United. According to Obama's account, a 5-4 conservative judicial pronouncement liberated a cabal of zillionaires and corporations to launch a hostile takeover of American politics. In his State of the Union Address in January 2010, the president blamed the justices, some of whom were seated before him, for empowering "America's most powerful interests, or worse ... foreign entities" to "bankroll" elections. Television cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words, "Not true."

Rove agrees with Alito. Obama's bit about "foreign entities" giving to campaigns was flat wrong; that remains illegal. Citizens United did clarify that corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech in the form of spending for advocacy. The majority tossed out an important 1990 precedent and invalidated certain legislative restrictions on how and when companies and unions can deploy political dollars. Spending has increased dramatically in the wake of Citizens United, much to the advantage of Republicans, and yet the notion that the ruling sparked a brand new conservative bonanza is misleading. "The left," Rove notes, "pioneered the use of 527s and 501(c)(4)s years ago, spending millions of dollars to influence public opinion and the policy landscape, on issues spanning the environment to the Iraq War. Drawing on their example, Crossroads was being planned before Citizens United, and would exist with or without Citizens United."

A quick look at campaign-finance history illustrates what he means. Secret contributions and sundry other corrupt actions culminating in the Watergate scandal led to reform legislation in the mid-1970s. Before the ink had dried on the new rules, the Supreme Court intervened in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, to remind lawmakers that the First Amendment complicates any inclination to limit political expression. The upshot was a problematic system that curbed contributions to candidates in the interest of reducing quid pro quo corruption, but encouraged open-ended expenditures in the name of free speech. Cue the K Street loophole artists.

By the 1990s labor unions and companies had perfected the "soft money" gambit, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to political parties, rather than particular candidates. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as McCain-Feingold, was supposed to wall off soft money. In doing so, the law inadvertently redirected the cash flow to 527s, such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to which conservatives could give unlimited amounts to assail the war record of Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). Another alternative was the 501(c)(4) social-welfare group devoted to issue advocacy, which did not require the disclosure of donors' names. Six years before Citizens United, the basic technology for an outside-spending arms race was in place.

In 2004 a 527 called America Coming Together led a $200 million initiative, partly financed by Soros and Lewis, to unseat George W. Bush. One reason many forget this liberal financial surge is that it failed; Kerry, a diffident campaigner, lost by 34 electoral votes. Republicans, for their part, didn't fully appreciate the advent of outside groups because they were lulled by Bush's talent for gathering direct-contribution checks with the assistance of "bundlers," the dedicated supporters and lobbyists who aggregate individual donations.

Rove and his consultant friend Ed Gillespie--now a paid senior adviser to the Romney campaign--had warned from the inception of McCain-Feingold that it would lead to problems for Republicans. Borrowing from the chorus of the classic Sonny Curtis song, Gillespie joked that as RNC chair for the 2004 election cycle, he "fought the law, but the law won." In 2009, Rove and Gillespie decided it was time for Republicans to stop whining and turn the tables. [...]

The word that Dowd and many other Rove contributors want amplified is not the tear-the-walls-down Tea Party howl. If there is an establishment Republican alternative to the Tea Partiers, it is embodied by Rove. In October 2010 he used an interview by the Telegraph in London to question Sarah Palin's suitability for the White House. He helped marginalize Christine O'Donnell, the right-wing senatorial aspirant from Delaware with a colorful financial history and a past interest in witchcraft. O'Donnell, Rove told Fox viewers, "does not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for." She lost in November 2010 to Democrat Chris Coons.

Unfortunately, without W to guide him, he still lacks the positive message that will make the GOP the long term majority by claiming the Third Way first.

Posted by at July 28, 2012 7:25 AM

blog comments powered by Disqus