Taking Over Where It Counts, By Any Means Necessary

Republicans are particularly adept at doing that. With the occasional exception of Ed Rendell, Republicans control nearly every aspect of government in the "big three" swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Not only does this give them an advantage in Presidential Elections, as seen by, among other things, Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell, but the gerrymandered maps in these congressional district rich states are almost single-handedly responsible for the current Republican majority in the House. Despite Bush only winning 50.6% of the vote in these three states, by legal means or otherwise, in the 62 CD's in these three states, Republicans control 42 seats, or 67.7%. That is worse than we do in Texas under DeLay's map.

How do they do it? Largely, through illegal corporate contributions funneled into the campaigns of state AG's and Secretary's of State. For example, in Pennsylvania:

Sunday, December 05, 2004

By Marc Levy, The Associated Press

HARRISBURG -- An executive of an Oklahoma oil and gas company was revealed Friday to be the largest source of a generous campaign donation made to state Attorney General-elect Tom Corbett through a national Republican fund-raising group in the waning days of his campaign.

Aubrey K. McClendon, the chief executive of Chesapeake Energy Corp., gave a total of $450,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which in turn gave $720,000 to Corbett and Republican state groups in the final month of the election.

But the sources of all of that money did not come out until Friday, the deadline that state officials gave the Washington D.C.-based RSLC to comply with state law and reveal the sources.

A Wachovia Bank loan, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. political action committee, and the College Republican National Committee supplied another $255,000 of the total sum the RSLC gave.(...)

But in an Oct. 22 filing, the RSLC essentially listed itself as the source of a $480,000 donation on Oct. 15, raising an outcry from Corbett's Democratic opponent, Jim Eisenhower, and prompting state officials to order the RSLC to reveal the source of money given in Pennsylvania.(...)

Eisenhower's campaign originally questioned whether the RSLC had used corporate money to fund the donation, which is illegal in Pennsylvania.

Many of the RSLC's donors listed in IRS filings are corporate sources, including Indianapolis-based Centaur Inc. and Harrah's of Memphis, both of which hope to open a slot-machine parlor in Pennsylvania, and slot-machine manufacturing giant International Game Technology of Reno, Nev.

While Barnes in October denied that corporate money was used -- individuals and partnerships legally may give money to candidates and political action committees in Pennsylvania -- he would not reveal the sources.(...)

In unofficial returns, Corbett beat Eisenhower by about 120,000 votes, or 50 percent to 48 percent.

So Corbett, the new Pennsylvania AG, illegally used corporate donations to win a narrow victory in November. Now, the only person who can investigate this is... Corbett, the new Pennsylvania AG. Further, Corbett is now significantly responsible for the legal apparatus surrounding future elections in the state. I feel assured that he will act in a professional, non-partisan manner.

That brings us to Blackwell, who conducted a magnificent election in Ohio, with no problems whatsoever (PDF), and never had a conflict of interest in that he was the chair of Bush's Ohio campaign. Now, he is running for governor:

Ohio's chief elections officer is facing criticism for a fund-raising letter that thanks Republicans for "helping deliver" Ohio for President Bush -- and asks for illegal corporate contributions for his 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who was co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio, said the request for corporate checks was an oversight and that criticism of his partisan activities for Bush is "misdirected."

"My message is pretty simple: The curse of the Bambino has been lifted from the Boston Red Sox, Elvis is dead, and the election is over," he said.

Blackwell sent a letter last month to Republican donors and activists statewide asking for contributions and lauding their efforts in the fall presidential campaign.

"I want to say thank you for helping deliver the great Buckeye State for George W. Bush," Blackwell wrote, adding that "unapologetic liberal" Democratic Sen. John Kerry could have won Ohio -- but "thankfully, you and I stopped that disaster from happening."

Blackwell also says in the letter that he was "truly pleased to announce President Bush had won a critical and clinching victory here in Ohio."

U.S. Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, who prepared a report on Ohio's election problems as ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the letter bolsters suspicions that Blackwell's actions as secretary of state during the election "stemmed from partisan political motivations" to help Bush.

"Such a blatant statement acknowledging the commingling of his official duty to ensure a fair election with his partisan duty to re-elect President Bush, made in a political fund-raising appeal, evidences Secretary Blackwell's poor judgment at best, and the manipulation of election administration for partisan purposes, at worst," Conyers said in a statement.

Two important states, two Republicans winning with illegal corporate contributions, two terrible House maps, and big time electors being cast for Bush. A few days ago I wrote a diary over at Dailykos entitled You Do Not Want Election Reform that called for a county and state level strategy to achieve election reforms rather than a federal one. These are two perfect examples for why such a strategy is needed. By controlling the levers of elections in statewide races, Republicans have been able to not only do serious damage to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida as states, but they have managed to overwhelmingly influence the balance of power in the federal government. No Republican control of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and there would be no President Bush, and probably no Speaker Hastert.



Display:


Interesting PA law (3.00 / 1)

From PA's campaign finance act:
Section 1637 (25 P.S. §3257). Proceedings Against Candidates Violating Provisions Relating to Contributions and Expenditures.

     If any candidate, who has been nominated or elected, is found by any court of this Commonwealth in criminal proceedings to have willfully accepted any contributions or made any expenditures in contravention of this act, either directly or through the treasurer of any committee authorized by section 1623 or through any other person with his knowledge or consent, whether expressly or not, that fact shall be certified by the court to the Attorney General. In the case of a candidate for nomination, the Attorney General shall make a motion to the proper court to remove the candidate's name from the ballot. In the case of an elected candidate, the Attorney General shall file in the proper court a suggestion for a writ of quo warranto against such candidate. If upon the hearing of such motion or writ, it shall be determined that such candidate has willfully accepted any contribution, or made any expenditure in contravention of this act, either directly or through the treasurer of any committee authorized by section 1623 to pay or incur primary or election expenses in furtherance of his candidacy or through any other person with his knowledge and consent, whether expressly authorized or not, judgment of ouster from nomination, in the case of a candidate for nomination where the judgment is entered prior to the subsequent election, or judgment of ouster from office in the case of a candidate for election or in the case of a candidate for nomination who has been subsequently elected to the office for which he was nominated, shall be entered against him.


Well, what if the Attorney General is the person who violated the act?  Does no one have standing?  Thankfully PA has its progressive tendencies and provides for Private Criminal Causes of Action, 234 PA Code Rules 504 and 506.
Of course you'd have to submit your complain for approval to the AG?  Right?  Fortunately PA has a nice rule of standing which allows for enhanced individual standing where the AG (or other government officer) usually has exclusive authority but is interested in the outcome of the dispute:
Quo Warranto. This is a legal action brought against a public official, not the municipality
itself. Established in Pennsylvania as the only method of challenging a public official's right
to hold office, a quo warranto action must be brought by the county district attorney or the Attorney General. The only exception to this rule is where a private party solicits the AttorneyGeneral or district attorney, and these officials refuse to bring the action. In these cases the
private party may bring an equity action seeking removal of the official or bring a mandamus
action (see below) petitioning the court to issue a writ compelling the Attorney General or district
attorney to bring a quo warranto action. Only a private party with a special right or interest
distinguishable from a right or interest of the public generally may bring such an action.

link (see also In re 100 or More Electors of Clairton, 546 Pa. 126, 683 A.2d 283 (1996).)
A serious and credible suit to remove Corbett from office is possible.
by Myrkury on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 03:17:22 PM EST

Re: Interesting PA law (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for the info. I'll look into this more.
by Chris Bowers on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 04:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Corruption, corruption... (none / 0)

I wrote a diary about local corruption and framing that may be of use here.
by Garemko on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 05:44:30 PM EST

If we don't push for electoral reform (none / 0)

what is our strategy? I think Dems should introduce election reform legislation at the state level and the federal level and hold the Republicans' feet to the fire. I think the only tactic that will work is to Shut down Congress.

Whatever it takes to get the MSM's attention is exactly what is required. Screw Sam Donaldson's complaints about Democratic obstructionism. If it takes obstructionism to force the GOPers to reluctantly sign on to election reform, then obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. We may not be able to get genuine reform, but if media attention is focused on the details and process, it is difficult to imagine that GOPers could do worse than what we have now.

If they try their Medicare Prescription Drug bill tactics the Democrats should walk out. They should introduce legislation that requires one week to read, analyze and debate any legislation. If they can't get it, shut down Congress. They should follow up on H.R. 2239 and demand a verified paper trail for all votes. If the GOPers don't give it to them, shut down Congress.

These are vital issues that polls show even Republican voters support. It's time for Democrats to take a stand and say no more! In addition to Social Security, a verified paper trail and one week to read legislation prior to voting on it are fundamental drop dead issues.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 06:26:06 PM EST

That's why we must have Cemocratic governors there (3.00 / 1)

It is crucial to elect Democratic governors in Ohio and Florida in 2006, and then get them re-elected in 2010. At the same time make sure there is a Democratic succesor to Rendell in Pennsylvania. Unless we see a real "wave" election in one of the next few cycles on the scale of a 1974, 1980, 1986, or 1994. it is unrealistic to expect the House to change hands before the next round of redistricting. And Democratic governors in those states will make sure that even if the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, they will not be able to run roughshod and create a redistricting plan without a gubernatorial veto.

Another potential place to gain seats is here in New York where the Democrats have a real chance to retake the Senate by the end of the decade. That, togther with the presumed governorship of Elliot Spitzer and Democratic control of the Assembly will assure control over redistricting. Even though New York will most likely lose 1 to 2 seats we should make sure that they are Republican ones.

by Sy Gold on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:04:57 PM EST

Excellent diary (none / 0)

about state level reform. I also agree our side will get nothing from the repug Congress and talk of "shutting down Congress" is meaningless bluster.

Reform means, IMO, petetion drives, ballot measures, raising money to hire legal counsel to draft election reform legislation and finding a friendly legislator to carry it, public campaigns to ban black boxes or at least require a paper trail, LTEs, talk radio and so on.  I don't see any other way in Ohio and Florida and any other repug-controlled state.

I got $25 for the campaigns that get it going in those states.

by Norcal Lib on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 11:37:16 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.