Those "Union-Backed" 527s

In recent weeks, John Edwards has been hit for being supported by outside 527 organizations in Iowa and elsewhere. Leaving aside some of the questions raised in the media about the proximity of the relationship between the 527s and the Edwards campaign, I don't have much of a problem with a candidate utilizing such organizations, particularly when they are friendly ones. Would I rather see such organizations outlawed? Yes. Would I greatly prefer a public financing system that works and a constitutional amendment overturning Buckley v. Valeo, which holds that dollars are constitutionally protected words, in effect? Yes. But in the absence of important changes, I'm in favor of playing the game as best we can so that we can win and not lose. The greater change that we need in this country far outweighs the rigid adherence to process argued by some. It is for this reason, largely, that I haven't found these attacks on Edwards to resonate particularly strongly. Like Paul Krugman, I generally believe that if groups on our side wish to support candidates on our side then that's a good thing.

A more difficult question comes along when a group or an individual with questionable motives comes along to support a 527 backing a particular candidate. This afternoon The Washington Post's Matthew Mosk reports that one of the largest backers of the primary pro-Edwards 527 organization is a corporate entity seemingly controlled by Rachel Lambert Mellon, from whom Edwards has received some $4,600 in contributions. Specifically, Oak Spring Farms LLC, which is reportedly controlled by Rachel Mellon, donated $495,000 to Alliance for a New America.

Now this is not a clear and dry case that raises major red flags, only one that raises some questions. This major donor is not a major progressive player but rather a key figure within the Mellon family, a family that has been among the greatest supporters of the conservative movement in the last 50 years. Yet Rachel Lambert Mellon is not Richard Mellon Scaife, who has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to fight "liberalism," and it's not clear that she has been part of her family's conservative politics. Indeed, before her contributions supporting Edwards, which apparently date back to a $250,000 check to the One America 527, Rachel Lambert Mellon was most closely related politically to Jacqueline Kennedy.

That said, this is Mellon money. And if Edwards is going to run a campaign saying that candidates who take money from big corporations and powerful interests aren't able to bring change while directly and indirectly accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from one of the most established and powerful interests around, the Mellon family -- even to fight against that family's interests -- then it's not clear to me that he's meeting his own level of expectations. And if his campaign and supporters say that Edwards' decision to accept public financing is a principled one, but then also say that the DNC and 527 organizations can make up the slack against GOP spending while some of that 527 funding comes from major special interests, then we've got a bit of cognitive dissonance on our hands.

Update [2007-12-28 21:15:20 by Jonathan Singer]: To be clear, Edwards does not have any control over Alliance for a New America, so it's worth noting that Edwards can't physically stop the 527 from taking Mellon money. What's more, Edwards has made clear that he would "prefer that all 527s — not just this one — stay out of Iowa," and later Edwards asked "this group and others not to run the ads." Still, the general sentiment still remains with me that Edwards is benefitting from this Mellon money, even if indirectly, and even though it's not clear that Rachel Lambert Mellon is of the same ilk as others of her family who have been so supportive of efforts to tear down that which we have fought so hard to build up, this story just doesn't sit well with me.



Display:


let me get this straight (2.00 / 0)

You are mad at Edwards because while he talks about fighting special interests, someone from the Mellon family donated a bunch of money to a 527 supporting him.

How on earth would he even know whether anyone from the Mellon family was donating this 527?

Anyway, his tax reform plans would disadvantage the members of the Mellon family.

What exactly is the problem here?


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:00:08 PM EST

Re: let me get this straight (none / 0)

If its good for the goose (Obama) then its good for the gander (Edwards).


by lonnette33 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let me get this straight (none / 0)

Jonathan wants Edwards to swear off 527 help, rendering himself unviable in the primary-then he might support him, even though it's his (alleged) unviability in the general that leads Jonathan to oppose--wait, my head hurts. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

We have a shitty system, and to be a viable candidate you can't help but get some shit on you. Clinton gladly swims in it, Obama wades in it and pretends he's clean, Edwards gets sprayed as well but at least has the honesty (sometimes) to admit he's dirty.

Anyhoo, stop trying so hard to find a reason to oppose the leading progressive in the race. Bowers finally gave in. Maybe you should too. It doesn't hurt, I swear. In fact, it feels pretty good.


by david mizner on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let me get this straight (none / 0)

No, I just have a problem with Edwards trying to have it both ways -- the purist on public financing who denounces anyone who takes establishment money, but who is willing to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in establishment money, whether directly (to a 527 under his control) or indirectly (to a 527 backing his candidacy run by his former campaign manager).


My Direct Democracy
by Jonathan Singer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let me get this straight (none / 0)

Please show me where-- I mean, one instance--Edwards denounces anyone who takes "establishment money."  

What he denounces is anyone who takes money from federal lobbyists and PACs. He most certainly doesn't denounce pols who take money from rich people. Why not? Because then he'd be a hypocrite. Edwards gets plenty of money from rich people, including from the CEO of Costco, who's in his camp.

Edwards (rather shrewdly) targets money from K-Street and PACs. If this is too limited a critique for some people, it at the very least has the benefit of allowing Edwards to indeed be pure. He's never taken donations from PACs or federal lobbyists.

Jonathan, I think your posts about the primary have generally been great. On this one, though, you're stretching.


by david mizner on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let me get this straight (none / 0)

Singer is just going to attack Edwards no matter what happens. We get it man, you hate Edwards!! Why not give it a rest now, my head is hurting too!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let me get this straight (none / 0)

Singer, I think your point about Mellon's money is a fair one, but why do you say that Edwards is "willing to accept" it? The money was given to a group operated entirely outside his campaign, over which he cannot by law have any control or even knowledge.

Now you may believe that this is a legal fiction and Edwards camp is actually running the 527. But think about that for a second; why would the people running his campaign, who are experienced pros, believe they could get away with that?

Plus, if you know the players, Baldick is not by any means going to risk his otherwise very high reputation as a political pro by doing something patently illegal.


by desmoulins on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let me get this straight (2.00 / 1)

I am an Edwards supporter, there, upfront and clear.

In what way does "I dont support" and  "please dont run those ads" and commitment to public financing and election reform is "accepting" "estabishment" money?

And I'm sorry - but - what kind of backhanded swiftboat attack is it to attack Edwards, when he can do nothing to stop support coming from a legal, morally supportable, group, in a broken election system. You may as well say "we cant support JRE because he says that the election system is broken -but hes running for office anyway!" It's sophomoric. It's smoky dorm philosophy.

When the post-primary fight starts, and the Rethuglican swiftboat ads begin pouring their foul lies into the 'debate', -- do we tell all of civil society not to use their legal rights to support the Democratic candidate, because Jonathan worries that its an example of what doesn't work fairly in the broken election system? OK and if we do, do we stay home during the general election, because the '527's supported the Democratic Candidate, so we can't anymore?

Taking principled stands. It isn't a game Jonathan.
He takes the stand because the system is broken, but it makes it harder for him to win. He says "please dont run the ads" because the system is broken, and it makes it harder for him to win.

Here's another example. If Karl Rove said he was supporting Edwards, and John said he didn't want the support, is that indirectly accepting support?  If Kucinich stopped campaigning for himself, and started working for John, and even though John pointed out that monies spent to help Kucinich's campaign cant be used for him. Does that mean we cant support John anymore? If one of JRE's volunteers had sex outside of marriage, must we end our support of this amazing candidate?

I have conservative relatives who say, and you have seen the MSM say, you cant be working for working people, unless you wear a hair shirt. I think it makes us feel guilty to see people taking a higher ethical stand that we have yet. Is that what makes us turn against our own leaders. Do we want them to fail to prove that we weren't 'bad'?

I am constantly amazed at how good a candidate John Edwards is, in principles, in political position, in strategy, in policy- but most importantly- who he has aligned himself with: the poor and progressives.

Kurt Vonegut, the American Saint, said that there are two parties in American Elections one that represents the winners, and one that represents the losers, and that the losers always lose. Is it a "self-hating" complex that tears us apart? Or as a candidate becomes more and more clearly the "ideal" candidate, perhaps they stray too closely to "ideal" images of our parents. (I'm just trying to help here, dont get angry.) I just dont know what drives people to vent their anger, like a petulent child, at daddy.

Can we stay on course? Will we lose focus and drop the ball?  I hope not, a real candidate has come forward, and we have a chance at FDR here, a chance at RFK becoming President. Lets get over personal issues, and work for the change that we have hoped for, worked for, for what now seems, finally, possible.

It is, in it's final analysis, a life and death struggle, and we have a responsibility to be clear. At the close of the Constitutional Convention as Benjamin Franklin came out, he was asked "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. Rise up high enough to see the terrain we fight on.


by inexile on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

John can't have it both ways.  I think that he is a hypocrite.

I am glad we know who is funding this so we can debate her intentions however that is the problem--it puts way too much power and control in the hands of a few privileged individuals. Who exactly gets to decide who is ok and who is not?  There is nothing good about the 527s and the fact that Obama is calling Hillary and John out on them--and that the press is covering it-- is a good thing--no matter who wins. They should be outlawed.


by aiko on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:03:48 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Yes, they should.

Edwards has said so all along. He's proposed a specific plan to reform our campaign finance system that would eliminate 527s.


by desmoulins on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Until Obama calls for Vote Hope (his 527 in California) to shut down, he has zero credibility on this issue.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

This is exactly the problem with 527's. There's just too little transparency, limitations and oversight. It's a huge loophole that allows the rich to have a inordinate amount of influence over the political process.

Edwards' pleading ignorance and/or impotence to do anything about this 527's actions makes no sense. It's his former campaign manager working on his behalf. To say that he had nothing to do with it is just ingenuous.

This new information also puts the lie to all of the Krugman types arguing that Obama was "anti-union" because he spoke out against the 527's. It's literally a "UINO": Union In Name Only.


by dmc2 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:12:04 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

It's his former campaign manager working on his behalf. To say that he had nothing to do with it is just ingenuous.

There's no basis to say that and it defies logic.

Look if the Edwards camp was going to break the law deliberately, it would have done so back in September when it was being written off, and when no one would have cared or noticed.

There's no basis to assert that this is a coordinated effort, and grasping at the BAldick straw -- no one even knows he's in charge of it, Obama picked his name because it appears on the FEC filing -- is merely ill-informed, not proof.


by desmoulins on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

"Like Paul Krugman, I generally believe that if groups on our side wish to support candidates on our side then that's a good thing."

I don't think this statement is relevant in this primary. Maybe it would be in the general election.

But right now, some groups on "our" side wish to attack a candidate on "our" side. 527s funded by SEIU and AFSCME are attacking Obama, even if they don't specifically use his name. (And in at least one ad and one mailer, they have used his name.)

By your logic in the statement above, one could surmise that you also believe that if groups on their side wish to support candidates on their side, then that's also a good thing. But that would mean you supported the right of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to do what they did. Did you support that?


by along on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:16:43 PM EST

the Alliance for a New America (none / 0)

ads and mailers have NOT attacked Obama, they have been pro-Edwards.

AFSCME has attacked Obama, you are correct. But they are not a 527, and they are supporting Clinton.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:24:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

I see what you're saying, but what could Edwards realistically do about it?


by MNPundit on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:21:12 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (2.00 / 2)

He could threaten to take away Widow Mellon's health insurance--wait, that's what an Edwards opponent is supposed to say.


by david mizner on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

I class that comment as "extra lame" now let's see if people troll rate this one, it probably deserves to be.

But your response is not a response at all.


by MNPundit on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Scaife money is dirty anti-Democrat money (none / 0)

Dick Scaife funded Newsmax with the express purpose of making shiite up and attacking the Clintons and Democrats way back in the 90s.


by dpANDREWS on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:27:14 PM EST

do you know this Mellon woman personally? (2.00 / 0)

Do you know that she shares Scaife's views?

The heir to the RJ Reynolds fortune donated millions to anti-tobacco causes.

What is your basis for saying this contributor's money is "dirty money"?


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: do you know this Mellon woman personally? (none / 0)

S.C.A.I.F.E.


by dpANDREWS on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what relation is she to Scaife? (none / 0)

Does she have a history of promoting Scaife's agenda?

You agree with the concept of collective guilt now, dp?


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's ok because (none / 0)

Hillary created Media Matters so that she could disprove everything they said as wrong...all is fair in love and war and clintonism.


by aiko on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sean Hannity? Is that you? (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sean Hannity? Is that you? (none / 0)

No. Tweety Bird.


by aiko on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sean was at yearly kos? (none / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9m wM


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:54:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The question is (none / 0)

Has Obama essentially committed to refusing help from unions should he win the primary? If so, he just became about electable as Gravel.


by david mizner on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:31:21 PM EST

Re: The question is (none / 0)

David,

Obama is accepting the help of Vote Hope, which is a 527 organization organized to get early votes for him in California.  He's got zero credibility when it comes to attacking Edwards or anyone else on the 527 issues.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Hmmm - here's my take on this..

I feel like both Edwards and Obama are right. Edwards can't really help that 527s are helping him - so it's not neccessarily his fault. But, at the same time, Obama is within his right to at least defend himself against independent organizations that are clearly alligned with competitors.

this is the whole problem with 527s - they create these murky situations. Neither candidate can really deal with this situation effectively...

It's interesting to watch though.


by mcdave on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:34:50 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

I think this comment is right on.

This is the point at which, if we as Democrats want to win an election, we've got to stomach the shit that does with American presidential elections. I don't like this at all and wish they had not taken such a large donation from a single individual -- but I also don't believe for a second, as others upthread have asserted, that this is coordinated with the Edwards campaign.


by desmoulins on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

I'm sorry, Jon, but this is a stupid argument.

I'm a Hillary person and no fan of Edwards, but you can be in favor of public financing and accept that those aren't the rules today. Edwards isn't doing anything wrong. If we wins and doesn't follow up on public financing, then you can have a legitimate gripe. But as long as these are the rules, expecting one guy to more noble than any other is silly.


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:35:34 PM EST

Life is unfair, therefore I cheat. (none / 0)

That sounds like an argument the rethugs would make...Life is unfair, therefore I cheat.


by aiko on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he's not cheating (none / 0)

He is working within the system that he would like to change.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he's not cheating (none / 0)

i give up.


by aiko on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he's not cheating? (none / 0)

There's legal, and then there's ethical.  Gaming the system by using 527's to get around the fact that you couldn't raise enough money to be competitive might be legal, but it's not ethical.  Especially not for a candidate who trumpets how he doesn't take "lobbyist" money.

Here's a news flash for you - everyone who contributes to a candidate is a "lobbyist" of sorts.  And those who give big money - like that lawyer who gave $500,000 to the Alliance 527 - are buying influence just as much as the registered K street lobbyists.  It's no different at all.

And people wonder why we think Edwards is a hypocrite.


by Wonk on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Edwards went the public finance route because he wasn't raising the money that Clinton and Obama were and needed the public money to compete. No other reason.


by Marylander on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:59:49 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Our politics will never change until we get control of these 527s which are established to circumvent campaign finance laws.  What is wrong with the Mellon's putting in money?  What is wrong is that I am only allowed to put in $2300 and she puts in $750,000 - that's what.

And for a place which likes to throw around the word naive any chance it gets, it's somewhat surprising to see the ridiculously naive comments posted here.  Oak Spring Farm LLC is not an easy thing to find.  It doesn't have an office and is controlled by one man who is very secretive.  The idea that they sent $250,000 to Edwards PAC back in 2006 and then somehow end up aligned with the SEIU Union without some connection back to Edwards is pretty damn naive.  


by Piuma on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:34:22 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

So the NAACP sets up a 527. Oprah donates $495,000 to it. The 527 starts to run pro Obama ads.
If anyone dares complain they're accused of being anti civil rights because this is a NAACP 527.
Obamas former campaign manager runs the 527.

Would that be fair....


by joachim on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:50:45 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

No.  Which is why when a pro-Obama PAC was announced Obama immediately came out and asked people to donate to his campaign directly and not support the PAC.  If we allow "good" PACs to influence campaigns, one what grounds do we stop "bad" PACs?  It is quite amazing when people attribute so much of the last campaign results to the effect Swiftboating had, so much in fact to make the mere word part of our daily lexicon, that people would even question whether or not we as Democrats should do everything we can to get rid of 527s.  If you don't think that way, then you truly are not committed to campaign finance reform.


by Piuma on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth? (none / 0)

Then why is it on the front page? There's nothing substantive about it except that you don't like it. Fair enough, there's lots of things I don't like about various candidates.

But all it does on the front page is waste space. Why don't you write a regular diary about it?


by MNPundit on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:02:33 PM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Make me uncomfortable that huge sums of money can be made available to an edwards directed 527 by a few super wealthy that want influence.
Edwards is taking it from wherever he can get it.. but still..it is troubling.
by hawkjt on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:57:03 AM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

Its BS!!! Just BS, but it makes waves in the 'soup' we call elections.

Just because it helps John doesnt mean its John's doing.

This is a swiftboat attack. Just smear. The conservatives used to say "communists are working for Democrats, so dont vote for democrats," and "gays support Democrats, so dont vote for democrats."

This is no different and just as reprehensible.
"this '527' supports Edwards, you cant support Edwards."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Keep your eye on the prize people, this a watershed primary in a watershed election.


by inexile on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:37:11 AM EST

Re: Those "Union-Backed" 527s (none / 0)

A lot of this is just ignorant. The relationship between a candidate and a 527 is defined: There can be no relationship. Thus, to say that Obama is accepting the help of Vote Hope is simply wrong. He cannot accept its "help," and he cannot turn it down. They function independently of the candidates.
Edwards has been urged to tell the union 527s to stop what they are doing. He has said in his speeches that he doesn't want them in Iowa. By law, that is all he can do. Direct communications are forbidden. Direct influence of a 527, even if it is to tell the 527 not to do something, is a clear violation of law.

Where is your evidence that Edwards (or Obama, or Romney, or McCain, or any other candidate) has some power over a 527? I doubt that you have anything of the sort. If someone is doing that, they are breaking the law in a serious way, and I guarantee that both the candidate and the 527 know it. If it is happening somewhere, I'm betting it is under deep cover and nobody has a clue about it (for now) except a few players.

The way 527s operate is deeply flawed. The law needs to change. But blaming a candidate everytime a 527 does something you don't like simply betrays ignorance about the system.


by anoregonreader on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:25:14 PM 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.