A batch of blog coverage from David Postman, Goldy, and Josh Feit expresses varying degrees of concern about the fact that Republicans donors understand that giving money to Republican party usually means the party organization is going to use it to support Republican candidates. This should hardly be earth-shattering news.
Postman's coverage includes mention of the fact King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg bills himself as a relatively non-partisan fellow yet is receiving party support. In a world where Dave Reichert - neither a lion heart of the conservative movement or a bloodthirsty partisan - receives ample support from party organizations this shouldn't be a surprise. As much as some liberals would like to proclaim otherwise, Reichert's deviations from the mainstream of conservative thought on environmental/energy policy as well as on a number of social welfare issues is substantial. But the party and many of its activists are perfectly content to invest time and resources supporting Reichert because he's a Republican who can hold a tough seat. Ditto with Satterberg.
Moreover, such things hardly happen on one side of the aisle alone. Gary Locke was no Ted Kennedy on the liberal causes of the day but the Democratic Party did much to support his campaigns for Governor. Likewise, the Democratic Party invest much in the way of broadcast media, earned media, and direct mail to support the election Patty Murray and the defeat of George Nethercutt in 2004, as they did also in 2006 to help bury Mike McGavick and retain Maria Cantwell. Those are just two prominent examples of what parties do, by the very nature of their purpose and our existing campaign finance laws.
The heart of the issue is that Goldy and Feit in particular seem to presume nefarious intent (though if Peter Goldman and Rob Glaser donated $25,000 each to the King County Democratic party and that money got spent to help Bill Sherman I'm not sure either blogger would spend much time on the matter).
Some Democratic operative is probably pitching the story as such given the timing of their posts along with Postman's. But the current partisan story line ignores the basic reality of why people donate to parties. Sure, some people just want to help the party in general, but many have more direct purposes and since they're not dumb they know where to send their money. Example: let's say I'm financially wealthy and want to support Dino Rossi in 2008. I max out directly to his campaign but decide based on my income that I'm willing to put an additional $15,000 toward the race. Unless I'm a moron, I'm going to realize that sending that sort of money toward the Washington State Republican Party or the Republican Governors Association is probably going to directly and indirectly benefit Rossi since he's one of those organizations highest 2008 priorities.
Now, are there grey areas in such scenarios? Yes. Are there times where "earmarking" occurs. Yes, though more rarely than the skeptics think. A high dollar donor can talk to a party official, find out what the party is planning to do in support of its candidates in an election cycle, and then send a big check. That's legal. What they can't do is call a party official and say "I'm going to send you $50,000 and I want it used on XYZ race." Is that perhaps a little odd? Yes. But that's the law.
Lost in all of this nonsense is the fact that the state Republican Party has money to spend - meaning it has the trust of donors again. This has been an issue off and on for years with the party, often depending the Chair. It seems clear that Luke Esser and his Executive Director Jeremy Deutsch have demonstrated to donors - large and small - that they're competent and know how to use contributions effectively. That wasn't the case with Esser's predecessor, when the state Republican Party did famously little to support its candidates out in the field. Long after the Satterberg/Sherman race is settled, the return of confidence by Republican donors in the state party might be the real important takeaway in this otherwise non-story.
UPDATE: Goldy and Josh Feit pile on with more faux outrage. It would be funny except for the fact this sort of naivete about the fact that low and behold, high dollar donors understand campaign finance law and understand how to distribute their resources accordingly is appalling.
Where do these guys think the Democratic Party gets its money to use in major races? Surprise, surprise, if you compare donor lists between the parties and the respective candidates they support you're likely to find a lot of similar names. That's been reality on both sides of the aisle from the federal to the local level as long as such contributions have been legal. It's nice to see Goldy and Feit just woke up to that fact.
Meanwhile, I'm sure we can all look forward to their careful scrutiny of donations to the State Democratic Party and Democratic Governor's Association next year from individuals and entities with business before the state executive branch.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 04, 2007 01:04 PM | Email This"The Role of the Prosecutor
All serious criminal cases require the participation of three
individuals: the judge, counsel for the prosecution, and counsel for the accused.
If any one of these are absent from the procedure, "the criminal justice system
is incomplete" (Congress). The prosecutor stands at a critical stage in the
criminal justice system as well as playing a critical role before, during and
after the trial. They serve many functions throughout the criminal process.
Some of which are investigating, plead bargains, questioning both jurors and
witnesses, and being involved through the sentencing as well.
The first thing that must be understood is that the duty of the
prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. It is crucial that his
obligation is to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, to guard
the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public. The
prosecutor should have the most knowledge of the work of the police in the
investigation of crimes and in the enforcement of law. The prosecutor has
tremendous amount of desecration as to what charges will be brought against an
accused person or whether to even dismiss charges based on lack of evidence.
Since his decisions account for a large share of cases that are taken into the
courts, "the character, quality and efficiency of the whole system is shaped in
great measure by the manner in which he exercises his broad discretionary
powers" (Britanica)."
http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=92405
Since posters here thaought that Nifong of the Duke case did not properly excercise discretion, no matter the party, a non-partisan prosecutor is desired.
Now, I think you have a point in Seattle city elections where lately republicans don't run and county-wide elections in King County where republicans run and lose.
Now, for a bit of history, republicans in Seattle were not the endangered species that they now seem to be. This article from HistoryLink:
"Origins of CHECC
In 1966, a group of young, bipartisan, Seattle-area business and professional people carried out a successful campaign against Washington state's "Blue Law" or Sunday-closing law, which prohibited the sale of liquor as well as the operation of many businesses on Sunday. The group working on repeal of this law included some of the future CHECC founders, and this experience led them to think that it might be possible to create a bipartisan action group to back new candidates for City Council, which are officially nonpartisan offices.
Also in 1966, some among the future CHECC founders and leaders joined Seattle's College Club, where, led by Llewelyn Pritchard, they began to campaign for the club's desegregation. On May 13, 1968, Seattle's College Club welcomed Ester Wilfong as its first African American member.
According to CHECC founding member Peter LeSourd, formation of the group began in December 1966 when Richard Bushnell, immediate past-president of the Young Republicans, approached David Wood, treasurer of the Metropolitan Democratic Club. Discussions between them developed and were joined in short order by members of the Seattle Junior Chamber of Commerce...."
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=4244
Why would it matter to Democrats if Dave Riechert stays as the Congressman in the 8th, apparently all Darcy wants to do is make the position partisan, not effective as it is now.
Posted by: Huh? on November 4, 2007 02:27 PMHow is that any different from the other two "great inorganized parties"?
Posted by: pbj on November 4, 2007 02:32 PMWe are different because most of us actually try to vote for the best candidate. I know that this is an unofficial sample, but most indies I know want clean elections and do not support corruption. Most of us believe that if you have a truly superior idea and the idea is subjected to the market and the market is not corrupt, the superior idea will win. Most of us, even though we are indies do not want one-party rule, that is simply a trip down the highway of corruption.
Posted by: WVH on November 4, 2007 02:56 PMMay I suggest you also post sometimes at HA? You have a good sense of balance that I suspect is wasted here. Most of the non dems there, myself accepted, are trolls with little of vlaue to say.
Posted by: SeattleJew on November 4, 2007 03:21 PMContrary to past protestations, I might take you up on the offer. Continue to post here. I am one of the few people of color who post here, but the readership is greater. Many of the posters here and HA represent extreme views, but there are many openminded people who read the blogs and don't post. Blogging is the new public square and like it or not, if one has an agenda or cause, one has to blog. My agenda is competition in education and that agenda, like the anti-smoking campaign and MADD will be pushed by the folks. So, until Stefan bans either us, blog on.
Posted by: WVH on November 4, 2007 04:10 PMIf you really cared about any of the things you're railing about I'd bother to respond, but I know you don't care about her qualifications, because you wouldn't be voting for her anyway, or the fact the congressional approval rating is due in huge part to the fact Republicans have been opposing legislation at every turn.
Meanwhile, the topic at hand here is the influx of money from the Republican party into Satterberg's coffers. The question still remains why they would throw so much money at a candidate who would make the office non-partisan. What does that say about the partisanship of the position?
Posted by: Daniel K on November 4, 2007 04:37 PMImagine if all of that fifth column was against Democrats? They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It takes keeping a murderer in office as a nine term senator, lying, stealing campaign dollars, massive union support, a continual recruitment and apology for an ever expanding set of token victims, and a whole apologist media along side to run cover just to keep the Progressive machine rolling.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 4, 2007 06:16 PMNow you can't compare the same. The Dem's do NO WRONG!!!!
Darcy is partisan, and will recieve tons of money from the Dem's, but it will make no difference. You see, she will NOT WORK with the Repulican if elected, and that is what the Dem's Expect from her. It is the "I beat Bush" mentality.
But Satterburg who's current pro-tem job SHOULD really be non-partisan, is trying to do his best by saying " I WILL NOT RUN A PARTISAN OFFICE", but accepts funds from his PARTY, is a SNAKE, LIAR, and NOT FIT FOR OFFICE.
His Challenger is saying "HEY, I AM A DEM, AND WILL SCREW EVERY REPUBLICAN THAT COMES MY WAY".......a straight line Demo (like darcy),
That is what Daniel K is saying. Sherman is a Democrat, you gotta vote for him, even if the other guy is more qualified. (It is about the other guy(sherman) not about what is best for KC.
Posted by: Chris on November 4, 2007 06:30 PMExactly, if you follow the Dems logic, in so many words what they are really saying is that the Republicans have values, and thus they hold them to a higher standard. But the implication is that the Dems are the party of crooks and liars and racists, but that's the way it is supposed to be, and they know it, and embrace it, so its OK. We see this logic all over the Progressive world. A good example is the N word. If a Black Democrat says it, well then he's just talking about his peeps, no prob. But if a Black Republican says it, then it's the end of the world.
Progressives rely on this kind of moral equivalence to keep their ideological house of cards propped up. And psychologists have a word for this special kind of cognitive dissonance: projection.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 4, 2007 06:54 PMI figured you were old enough to be raised on "Hooked on Phonics" but obviously not.
You must be one of those "WASL" kids. Sorry about that.
"ATTENTION ALL SP POSTERS"
Daniel K. is now the new Spell Checker for SP Posters. Please email all Posts prior to posting to: "Dannyknowsbest@onlyademocouldwin.com"
Posted by: Chris on November 4, 2007 07:32 PMThanks for your vote of confidence...
BTW...the bumblebees at HA are abuzz about Satterberg...Greatest crime since the crash of the Hindenberg!
That Satterberg would have the temerity to actually want to win this election despite opposition from Goldy's Gang.
Of course, we all know Bill Sherman is Goldy's lap dog and lickspittle...HA does fundraising for him while Sound Politics takes after Satterberg and holds him accountable.
Gee...who'd o' thunk it?
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on November 4, 2007 07:37 PMGO, DAN SATTERBERG!!!!
(However, I still do think I could beat DK in a spelling bee)
Posted by: Michele on November 4, 2007 08:11 PMBut the left complaining about it, of course, is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Posted by: pudge on November 4, 2007 09:49 PMI don't disagree on your point. I was on the brunt end of what appeared to be some earmarking in a little race in 2003 where the money got run through your current LD organization. So, I get the point. But Postman really needs some more meat to be on to something other than speculation and the complaints from the left are laughable on this score, as you note.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 4, 2007 10:16 PMHmmmm. How do you know that? Is there a race stamp in here somewhere that I'm not aware of?
Posted by: RBW on November 5, 2007 11:02 AMYour point is extremely well taken. I remember in the Snohomish County Executive's race four years ago the state party under Vance was AWOL. Your dad was a great candidate and should have won that race, with more support from the WSRP he could have.
Posted by: Stanwoodsage on November 5, 2007 11:04 AMI don't know that for sure, but on other occasions when there have been threads that had issues which involved race, other posters have identified themselves as Latino or Asian. If you have taken a lit class in college, one of the assignments is often to take a piece written by an author and determine, if possible their orientation. Of course, it is never 100%, but by virtue of living in a culture there are certain characteristics that will be common to that culture. I have heard that it is true among Asians and Latinos as well, but many Blacks can identify another Black person even if their characterisitcs would lead others to not identify them as Black. During the period of segregation, many lighter skinned Blacks "passed" and were not identified as Black by the larger culture. The answer is to be 100% sure, people will have to honestly self-identify, but there are clues.
Posted by: WVH on November 5, 2007 10:31 PM