I'm here in the main convention hall at Netroots Nation, and as has been the case the last couple years I have found it slightly difficult to keep up with the news and blogging. However, there are many, many upsides to being here, of course, chief among them the ability to see some great panels. And in a few minutes I will be seeing the conversation between Sam Seder and former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was seemingly prosecuted by an overzealous prosecutor because he is a Democrat.

I had a chance to talk a bit with Siegelman yesterday, and today ahead of the panel the Governor has made some news: calling on John McCain to compel his informal adviser Karl Rove, who appears to have played a role in Siegelman's prosecution, to testify before Congress on the matter. Sam Stein has the story for The Huffington Post.

On Friday, former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman called on John McCain to compel his informal adviser Karl Rove to testify before Congress, and to remove Rove from any and all campaign capacities.

"Sen. McCain should distance himself from Karl Rove," said Siegelman. "And I think it is important and a smart political move [for him] to call on Rove to go and obey the law and to show up before the Judiciary Committee, to put his hand on the Bible, and to try to tell the truth - or at least plead the fifth."

Siegelman, whose controversial trial for corruption contained many Rove fingerprints, would not go so far as to claim that by employing Rove as a consultant, McCain was sullying his own good-government credentials. "That's a question that is left to the people and the electorate and they will have an opportunity to express themselves in November," he said.

But he argued that it was absolutely vital that the presumptive Republican nominee -- who, according to published reports, has received money from and privately consulted with Rove -- insist that the former Bush confidante respect Congress' investigative prerogatives. Barack Obama, he added, should do the same.

"I would like to see Senator Obama speak out on this issue and call on Congress to hold Rove in contempt because no man is above the law," he said. "And I think its set a terrible example going forward if we do not hold Rove accountable."

It has just been a few days since Rove refused to testify about his role in the prosecution of Siegelman, and it is definitely the case that McCain should tell his informal advisor to come clean. If he doesn't, it will be clear that McCain is comfortable with the type of corrupt politicization of law enforcement that we have seen during the Bush administration -- a politicization that needs to be stopped immediately.

Update [2008-7-18 12:0:16 by Jonathan Singer]: Just to add one more thing I noted yesterday over at the Huffington Post's Twitter feed from Netroots Nation (which is a good way of following the conference): I thought it was only countries like Cambodia that locked people up for their partisan affiliation.

Update [2008-7-18 12:6:37 by Jonathan Singer]: Siegelman just announced a new effort launching today -- ContemptForRove.com. Here's the letter the site is asking Americans to sign:

Recently, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove, demanding his testimony about his own role in the politicization of the Department of Justice and politically motivated prosecutions of Democratic leaders, including me.

Karl Rove refused to even show up for the hearing, claiming that Congress has no power to compel senior White House officials from testifying. That's outrageous. Yet again, Karl Rove has showed his callous disregard for the law and for Congress' constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government.

It's time for Congress to act: Forward an email to your Member of Congress below, urging him or her to support a contempt resolution against Karl Rove. If Karl Rove won't respond to a legitimate Congressional subpoena, it's time to turn up the heat.

The Denver Post doesn't much like the idea of electing someone like Bob Schaffer who was a close congressional crony of Jack Abramoff's.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee isn't letting Schaffer off the hook for his Abramoff ties, either.

If you want a fuller rundown of the Schaffer-Abramoff nexus, check out thispost from Daily Kos. In short, however, the takeaway is that Schaffer, the former GOP Congressman who is the presumptive US Senate nominee for his party in Colorado had some close connections with Abramoff during his time on Capitol Hill.

Will revelations about Schaffer, and the heavy coverage such revelations are receiving in the Colordao media, doom him in his bid against Democratic Congressman Mark Udall, his own party's presumptive Senate nominee? Some in the rightosphere in the state are trotting out GOP polling taken basically before the Schaffer-Abramoff story broke showing a 45 percent to 45 percent tie between Schaffer and Udall. Looking at the available nonpartisan polling on the race, these Republican numbers probably aren't too far off. However, as alluded to before, these numbers do not reflect the several days of hits Schaffer has taken in the media for his relationship with Abramoff. And of course, they also do not reflect the money race between Schaffer and Udall, either.

Both U.S. Senate candidates surpassed $1 million in donations during the first three months with Udall collecting $1.46 million and Schaffer taking in $1.02 million, the filings said.

[...]

Schaffer had $2.2 million in the bank for the campaign at the end of March, while Udall had $4.2 million. The two candidates are vying for the open U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Wayne Allard.

At this point, Schaffer has just a bit over half of what Udall has in the bank. And although raising $1 million to Udall's $1.46 million isn't bad, particularly considering that Udall is still in Congress while Schaffer is not, these numbers actually represent a bit of a failure for the Republican. To the point, Schaffer brought in President Bush back in January for a major fundraiser -- something that he cannot do again, something that should have brought him to fundraising parity with Udall. But it didn't. And what's more, even as the event failed to help him eat away at his fundraising deficit against Udall, it showed him to be a lackey for George W. Bush, a place few want to be in this cycle.

So all in all, these aren't particularly good days for Bob Schaffer.

Please Support MyDD Today

Some great reporting from Patrick O'Connor and John Bresnahan got caught up in the madness that was Super Tuesday:

Top House Republicans were told in recent days that a former employee of their campaign committee may have forged an official audit during the contentious 2006 election cycle and that they should brace for the possibility that an unfolding investigation could uncover financial improprieties stretching back several years, according to GOP sources briefed on the members-only discussions.

[...]

The precise details of the suspected accounting irregularities and their possible fallout are not entirely clear. NRCC officials and top GOP leaders are being tight-lipped in large part because the FBI is investigating the matter. An outside lawyer advising members and staff has warned everyone at the committee to keep quiet.

[...]

The NRCC internal investigation centers on Christopher J. Ward, a former NRCC treasurer who worked at the committee until mid-August of last year, according to those briefed on the matter. From that time until late December, Ward was an outside contractor for the NRCC, according to Federal Election Commission records.

[...]

As treasurer, Ward was in charge of NRCC bookkeeping, tracking tens of millions of dollars in political contributions and expenditures. He has been at the center of NRCC bookkeeping for more than a decade.

Ward also served as treasurer for numerous other Republican campaigns and leadership political action committees, according to FEC records.

[...]

Ward has been with the committee in some capacity since 1993, according to FEC records. He was listed as the committee's treasurer between 1993 and 2003, according to the same campaign finance data.

[...]

Over the years, Ward has also served as the official treasurer for numerous congressional Republicans, their PACs and other GOP candidates running for Congress.

They include retiring Reps. Jim Saxton of New Jersey, James T. Walsh of New York and Jerry Weller of Illinois, as well as Reps. Steve Buyer of Indiana, Phil English of Pennsylvania and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, among many others.

He was also listed as the treasurer for incarcerated former Ohio Rep. Bob Ney's American Liberty PAC.

For as many details as I quote here (and I've quoted a significantly larger portion of this article than I almost ever do with other articles), there is a lot more available at the link above.

This is just simply awful news for House Republicans. I'm not sure how it could be worse. You look at the fundraising numbers and you see that the NRCC finally was able to pull itself out of debt after more than a year trying, and now it's hit with a federal investigation centering on the alleged fraud of the committee's long time treasurer (who also served as treasurer for the PAC of the seriously ethically challenged Bob Ney). With the feds sniffing around the offices of the committee and forensic accountants digging through committee records, does anyone really believe that the NRCC is going to have any chance of erasing the $31 million deficit it has relative to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee? House Republicans may finally have a genuine pick up opportunity as the result of a Democratic retirement, but if they have no money and a campaign committee worrying about other things, it's hard to see them successfully defending their seats, let alone making inroads in bluish districts in states like Oregon.

Both the Washington Post and the Clarion-Ledger are saying that Republican Governor Haley Barbour is expected to announce, any minute now, that he has tapped GOP Rep. Roger Wicker to replace Trent Lott in the Senate.

As the story develops, should Wicker in fact be the appointment, there is something in Wicker's closet that we ought to highlight.  He is a Republican Congressman so, of course, there is a matter of questionable ethics hanging around Wicker's neck:

Apparently, Wicker and aerospace company Aurora Flight Sciences have a questionably cozy relationship. In 2006, Aurora was Wicker's top campaign contributor; and, then in 2007, Wicker secures a juicy little earmark for Aurora. The relationship is furthered by the fact that Wicker's former Chief of Staff works for the lobbying outfit that lobbies for, you guessed it, Aurora. With Trent Lott and Chip Pickering expected to bolt to K Street, and with Republican corruption stories again flowing like water, this story has the potential to blow up should Wicker get appointed to the Senate or run for the seat opened up by Lott's resignation. Stay tuned! (HT: Cotton Mouth)

With the media more focused on horseraces than ethical issues, it is incumbent upon us to highlight what appears to be this latest section in The Republican Appearance of Impropriety Handbook's chapter on trading earmarks for campaign contributions.

Earlier today I noted that House Minority Leader John Boehner was bemoaning the fact that his caucus is having a terrible time trying to raise money for the 2008 elections. Looking at the way he has been spending money, though, one might begin to understand a part of the reason why people have been reluctant to support House Republicans. Mike Soraghan has the story for The Hill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spent more than $110,000 in legal fees this year to deal with a Securities Exchange Commission investigation of possible insider trading at student lender Sallie Mae.

Four staffers interviewed by SEC investigators were later issued clearance letters indicating no action would be taken against them, but the investigation is ongoing and the link to Boehner could highlight his political ties to the now-scandal-tarred student loan industry.

[...]

The SEC is investigating whether Sallie Mae Chairman Al Lord had inside information about President Bush's budget proposal, which when it was released in February proposed cuts in subsidies for student loan companies.

[...]

On Feb. 26, Boehner's office was notified by the House Counsel's office that an SEC investigation of the transaction would include them, according to a source familiar with the situation. The SEC sought e-mails, notes, calendars and other records concerning Bush's budget plans for student loan subsidies.

As Soraghan notes, Boehner has been very close -- very close -- to the student lending industry over the years. Sallie Mae alone contributed enough money to Boehner's campaigns to make it his 13th largest contributor. Lord personally donated close to $10,000 to Boehner's leadership PAC at a time when Boehner was chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, which oversees the student lending industry. And there's more, as I noted more than a year ago.

Almost 80% of the money given to House education committee members by advocates for the student loan industry and for-profit colleges went to Republicans in the 2003-04 campaign cycle, according to an analysis by the Chronicle of Higher Education. More than half of the money went to two Republicans: then-Chairman John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), chairman of the higher-education subcommittee.

With an appalling record of supporting the for-profit student loan industry over students themselves, it's no wonder that younger voters have been flocking to the Democrats, whom they backed in House elections last fall by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin. And with the SEC sniffing around Boehner's actions -- and Boehner is not the only Republican these days to come under scrutiny for potential improprieties -- and Boehner spending big bucks to fight back such an investigation, it's little wonder why folks aren't lining up to donate to try to help make him Speaker in the 111th Congress.

It looks like all of that massive Republican corruption in Alaska is taking its toll on the party, with the Senator who has represented the state for about 80 percent of its life and the Congressman who has represented the state of about 70 percent of its life both trailing their respective Democratic challengers in new head-to-head non-partisan Research 2000 polling commissioned by Markos:

If 2008 election for Congress were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Ethan Berkowitz, the Democrat, and Don Young, the Republican?

Young (R) 42
Berkowitz (D) 49

If 2008 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Mark Begich, the Democrat, and Ted Stevens, the Republican?

Stevens (R) 41
Begich (D) 47

In both of these races it looks like the greatest potential problem for the Democrats could come in the form of a successful primary challenge for either/both Stevens and Young. Indeed, Young recently earned himself a seemingly credible challenger in the form of state Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux.

In the event that both Young and Stevens make it out of their party's primary, it seems likely that both races will be among the most competitive in the nation next year. On the Senate side of the ledger, a Stevens-Begich race could be as high as the Democrats' fifth best pick-up opportunity (behind Mark Warner in Virginia, Tom Udall in New Mexico, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire and Mark Udall in Colorado, perhaps in that order and perhaps not). On the House side, I wouldn't give Young much more than a slight edge, if even that, given the Republican-leaning nature of the state (no Democrat has won a federal election in the state since 1974), and I'd more likely rank the race in the toss-up range.

If you want to go back through and get some information on these races, between Todd, SenateGuru and me there's a whole lot of posts in both the AK-Sen tag and the AK-AL tag here on MyDD.

And just to add... In case folks were wondering, I have finals here at Berkeley law starting tomorrow morning, so I'm probably going to be a bit quiet in the coming days. Thanks for bearing with me, though. -- J

Update [2007-12-10 13:37:27 by Todd Beeton]:If I can just jump into Jonathan's post for a second, looking at the internals of the poll, it's interesting to note that it isn't Republicans who are abandoning Young and Stevens, although they're more inclined to support Berkowitz over Young than they are to support Begich over Stevens. The real story here appears to be independents who favor the Democrats by at least 20% margins in both races. This is particularly important in Alaska where, according to 2008 Racetracker wiki, the partisan breakdown is as follows:

As of Oct. 3, 2007:
Dem. - 67,860 (14.26%)
Rep. - 117,504 (24.69%)
Non-Part.-74,772 (15.71%)
Undecl. - 183,397 (38.54%)
Other - 32,296 (6.79%)

Karl Rove was apparently very much involved in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, who at the time was Alabama's Democratic Governor. Such a move didn't pass the smell test of Congressional investigators. And according to recent polling, it didn't pass the smell test for Alabamans, either.

In a survey of likely Alabama voters 56 percent believe it is somewhat likely or very likely that the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman was politically motivated. The poll was conducted by a respected national polling firm, Rasmussen Reports.

Thirty five percent thought it was not very or not at all likely. Ten percent were not sure. Five hundred likely voters in the state were asked this and other questions. Ten percent said the outcome of the Alabama/Auburn football game was more important that who becomes President. The margin of Sampling Error was +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. The poll was published on Nov. 14.

According to the Survey, Alabamans' sentiments about the Siegelman issue are not bleeding over into their feelings about the upcoming Senate election in the state, with incumbent GOP Senator Jeff Sessions leading his Democratic challenger by better than a 2-to-1 margin.

That said, as this issue continues to play out in the state one could imagine it becoming more of an issue, at least in non-federal campaigns. Although Bob Riley, the Republican who defeated Siegelman in 2002, easily won reelection by about a 15-point margin in 2006, the Democrats do maintain sizable majorities in both chambers of the state legislature (.pdf) -- 61 to 43 in the House, 23 to 11 in the Senate. And the 2008 state legislative elections in Alabama, like other elections in may states around the country, will in fact be quite important given that it will be the last chance to elect that particular Senate class before redistricting. Now it's true that a good portion of the Democrats in the state legislature are conservative and thus not necessarily likely to help in an aggressive mapping effort. Nevertheless, with only one two of the states six seven Congressmen a Democrat and no district in the state less Republican than R+4 (other than the majority African-American seventh district), it's conceivable that even some minor adjustments in a couple of years could make a real difference.

Update [2007-12-5 18:38:19 by Jonathan Singer]: Well, it looks like I was wrong -- the next Alabama Senate elections won't be held until 2010. Nonetheless, the broader point basically stands, and that is that this scandal could have lasting effects in Alabama.

A couple months back, Markos found it very curious that there wasn't more news coming out of a troublingly quiet Senate Ethics Committee, given the myriad cases that should be on their plate.  He noted, "the Senate fails to promote confidence in its integrity by attempting to bury any and all information into the ethics committee's activities."

The fact is, given a whirlwind of ethically questionable activity by Republican Senators, the Senate Ethics Committee should be one of the busiest committees in the Legislative branch.  Even if initial deliberations by the Senate Ethics Committee are confidential, surely the results of Senate Ethics inquiries should be public information.  And, by now, the Senate Ethics Committee should have achieved results on a number of fronts.  Unfortunately, we've heard virtually nothing of substance from them all year.

So let me take this opportunity to run through the year in investigation-worthy ethics imbroglios among Senate Republicans.  Perhaps a lowly staffer on the Senate Ethics Committee might see it and wonder why the Committee hasn't been more productive this year.

(Much more below the fold.)