FACTCHECK.ORG: CROSSROADS GPS FALSE ATTACK AD ON TIM KAINE 15NOV11

karl rove's and crossroads gps' attack ad on Tim Kaines campaign for Senate in Virginia doesn't stand up to FactCheck's scrutiny. Check this out, click the header to go to the article on the FactCheck.org wegsite....

Shortfall Becomes Deficit

Crossroads is spending $616,000 on an ad in Virgina attacking Democrat Tim Kaine, claiming that as the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he was “Obama’s partisan cheerleader” and that he was a “reckless” spender when he served as Virginia’s governor. In the Senate race, Kaine faces Republican challenger George Allen, also a former Virginia governor and a former U.S. senator.
The ad claims: “As Virginia governor, Tim Kaine’s reckless spending turned a budget surplus into a big deficit. Reckless spending, massive debt.” Text in the background reads: “2006: $1.2 billion surplus, 2009: $3.7 billion deficit.”
For backup, Crossroads provided two stories from the Virginian-Pilot. The first story, published on Jan. 8, 2006, just before Kaine took office as governor, stated that the budget “debate centers on whether the $1.2 billion surplus should be used for one-time expenses such as construction rather than to create new programs with recurring costs.” The second story, from Feb. 17, 2009, a year before Kaine left office, states, “In December, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine projected that Virginia faced a $2.9 billion budget shortfall. He increased that estimate to $3.7 billion on Monday based on much-lower-than-expected tax payments.”
But those are misleading snapshots. And shortfalls aren’t deficits.
Virginia adopts a new budget every two years, and amendments are added to it in the odd year to square the numbers. There’s no question that Virginia experienced serious budget shortfalls during the recession due to much lower-than-anticipated revenues. But the shortfall was closed by the end of the biennium. The same Virginian-Pilot story in which Kaine talks about a $3.7 billion shortfall, notes that the stimulus provided $1 billion in budget relief, and that lawmakers were forced to cut $2.7 billion to balance the budget, as required by the state constitution.
Responding to the ad on Nov. 10, Kaine told WVEC ABC 13: “I left office with two balanced budgets that I submitted because you have to, by law, submit balanced budgets.”

And 2010's Biggest Winner Is…from MOJO 2NOV10

— Flickr/Tracy O

Dark money, shadowy groups, and secret millionaires.

One result of the 2010 campaign is clear before any ballots are counted: Democracy is in danger.
That sounds hyperbolic. But whatever remains of the quaint notion—call it a myth—that in a democracy citizens are more or less equal is in the process of being shredded, due to the rise this year of super PACs and secretive political nonprofits. Thanks to the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens United decision and other rulings, a small number of well-heeled individuals (or corporations or unions) can now amass a tremendous amount of political influence by throwing an unlimited amount of money into efforts to elect their preferred candidates. And certain political nonprofits, such as Crossroads GPS—the outfit set up this year by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie (which with an affiliated group is spending about $50 million)—can pour tens of millions of dollars into the elections without revealing the source of their campaign cash.
The secret and unlimited flow of dollars into congressional campaigns this year is largely unprecedented—at least since campaign finance reform was implemented following Watergate in the 1970s. Almost half a trillion dollars have been spent so far by outside groups—with about one-quarter of that coming from dark-money groups that don't disclose donors. And it's not just a Republican phenomenon. Unions and Democratic-leaning advocacy outfits are playing the game. Still, the advantage goes to the GOP. Of the outside groups not connected to either political party, those supporting Republicans and opposing Democrats have so far spent $119.2 million, and those supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans have dumped $73.8 million into races. This split is dramatic, but there's another factor to consider: Much of the pro-Democratic money comes from large membership groups (including the SEIU and the National Education Association), yet much of the pro-Republican money originates from a small number of millionaires (or billionaires). Consequently, fat cats have gained even more disproportionate influence.
The White House has complained about the rise of super PACs and the spread of secret money, though it miscalculated by focusing on the possible flow of foreign money into these endeavors—blasting the Chamber of Commerce's pro-Republican efforts—when the issue is the overall boost in special interest money. And here's the kicker: The 2010 campaign is merely a warmup for 2012 and campaigns after that.

It doesn't take a New York Times article—such as the one headlined "Conservative Donor Groups Lay a Base for 2012 Elections"—to predict what's coming. The permanent, neverending campaign will become even more permanent and neverending. These big-and-secret-money groups will be working 24/7, opposing and discrediting President Barack Obama and the Democrats in the so-called off-year and then revving up for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. The negative ads never have to stop. ("President Obama and Representative [fill in the name of a local House Democrat] are trying to ruin this nation's future with their reckless and risky schemes to [expand government spending/raise taxes/provide amnesty to illegal immigrants/impose socialized medicine on American families].") Surely, Rove and others can find enough right-wing millionaires to underwrite a constant blitzkrieg against Obama and the Democrats.
The argument for this is an obvious one: It will soften up the Dems for the final kill in 2012. Rep. Tom Perriello, the incumbent House Democrat freshman in Virginia's 5th Congressional District, has faced such a daunting reelection this year partly because outside conservative and corporate groups started running ads against him soon after he took office in January 2009. Perriello stood out as a target, given that he won by a measly 727 votes in a GOP-friendly district. But if enough money is bagged, Rove and his comrades will be able to target not just out-on-a-limb Democrats but a host of House and Senate Democrats year-round. Local television station owners, your payday has come. Secret money will flow before, during, and after elections.
Campaign finance reform advocates are in total despair. For decades, they have tried to lessen the impact of special interest money on the political system. (The House Democrats passed Obama-backed legislation earlier this year to force disclosure of contributors, but the bill stalled in the GOP-obstructed Senate.) Now the dam seems gone, blown up, in rubble. Moreover, the Federal Election Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the campaign finance rules that still exist, is in shambles. And the Internal Revenue Service has not yet demonstrated an ability or willingness to go after the political nonprofits under its jurisdiction, which may be violating IRS rules that supposedly limit their campaign-related activities. (And how bad would it be for any of these groups to be slapped with an IRS fine after succeeding in changing the political landscape?)
All this places Obama in a jam. Does he continue to decry the rise of super PACs and secret-donor nonprofits? Or does he encourage Democrats to fight big-secret money with big-secret money of their own? In the past, the Democrats have had success marshaling such resources. (See George Soros.) But can Obama do both—assail the new campaign finance order and explain that Democrats have no choice but to play by these anti-democratic rules? Mixed messages tend not to resonate well with voters. If Obama signals Democrats that he'd like them to unleash their own big-money hounds, he will likely find it tough to score political points by opposing the GOP's big-money efforts. Then again, can racking up debate points help Obama and his Democrats stand up to a tsunami of campaign cash? It's a dilemma.
The election news tomorrow night and in the days ahead will naturally focus on who won and who lost and the subsequent shift in the balance of power in Washington. But this campaign season has brought about a profound and fundamental shift in systemic, money-based political power. And it's far from done.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. Get David Corn's RSS feed.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• "Campaign Finance Reform Is on Its Last Legs"

  The mastermind behind Citizens United explains why corporations are entitled to hide their political spending..

• All Checks, No Balances: Campaign Finance Sells Out

  Thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations are free to spend whatever they want on elections. They just don't want to be seen doing it.

• Crashing the Covert Campaign Spending Spree

  What do secretive independent expenditure groups hate more than disclosure rules? When we show up at their doors with a camera rolling.

AFSCME Responds To Critics: Unlike Chamber There's "No Mystery" With Us

ANSWERING charges from right-wing fanatics that labor funding of progressive and Democratic candidates is the same as the u.s. chamber of commerce funding of right-wing tea-baggers and gop candidates.
The public employees union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), defended itself on Friday from charges that the massive funds it has devoted to the 2010 elections diminish the Democratic Party's argument that conservative donors are overwhelming the system.
On Friday morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that the $87.5 million that AFSCME had spent on election activities (the majority of it on voter contact efforts) made it the biggest dog in the 2010 fight. The union was, with one week to go, outpacing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million), American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, ($65 million) and fellow union, SEIU, ($44 million). Within labor circles the Journal article was initially hailed as a badge of honor. But pundits jumped on the revelation as proof that Democrats had either trampled on their talking points or been crying wolf over conservative mega-donors all along.
Lost in the analysis, AFSCME noted, were important distinctions.
"[T]here's no mystery about who we are or where the money comes from," Chris Policano, a spokesman for AFSCME, told the Huffington Post. "Unlike the Chamber of Commerce, we play by clear rules of transparency -- we report our spending to the Department of Labor and every month we provide the FEC a list of our members who contribute more than $200 for political activities.
"We believe these midterm elections are too important to hand over to rich, right-wing extremists who have declared war on public services and the men and women who provide them. Billions of dollars are going to be spent this election cycle -- clearly, the biggest dollars are not coming from labor. But we have people who care enough about our country to knock on doors, call their neighbors, contact their friends and work their hearts and souls out to protect working families and Main Street, USA."
Perhaps the clearest sign that the Chamber and AFSCME are operating with different mindsets, Policano noted, is that the union was comfortable working with the Journal's reporters.
"The Wall Street Journal asked about spending and we told them -- there's no mystery about who we are or where the money comes from," he said.

Story continues below

Advertisement

By contrast, an article that the New York Times ran Friday morning on the sources of the Chamber's funding seems to have been culled through painstaking research of different tax and filing forms.
There are, in addition, two other points worth noting with respect to the (occasional arcane) analogies between interest-group funding and spending. As Time magazine points out, when it comes to AFSCME, the implication is pretty clear who is supporting the political activity. They're union members whose dues go to the union's account. With respect to the Chamber, the funding sources aren't evident. As the Times reported, different companies have donated various amounts depending on what policy battle it wants to influence.

Finally, as Greg Sargent points out, when it comes to the issue of who is operating off of anonymous donations, the balance is heavily tilted towards conservative organizations.

According to data from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, conservative groups that have spent significant sums have plowed nearly $75 million in undisclosed donations alone into this election.
By contrast, liberal groups have spent under $10 million -- around one eighth that sum. And much of that is coming from groups that weren't set up just to influence elections.