Kerry Campaign Returns Illegal Donations - Good for them

At least He Can Keep His Hands Off of Illegal Donations . . .

Let's just hope that he keeps this trend up even if he does spend his wife's money instead of collecting funds from people who want him to be elected.

U.S. Looks Into Edwards Campaign Donations

QUOTE A spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, Jennifer Palmieri . . . said, "and once we learned of the allegations of wrongdoing by the firm, we returned all the donations we received from employees of the firm. And we're glad to see that the appropriate law enforcement officials are following up on what we consider to be a serious matter." END QUOTE

--30--

Kerry May Renege on Promise Not to Use Wife's Money

Kerry may go back on his earlier Promise

On 3/25/2003, I posted a story with the headline "Kerry won't use wife's fortune to run for President." (See archives for original post.) Perhaps I spoke too soon.

Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Kerry may make GOP wealth a campaign issue

QUOTE If Republicans forge ahead with plans to spend $200 million or more on President Bush's reelection campaign, Senator John F. Kerry would make it a campaign issue and would not rule out tapping his personal wealth to compensate, he said yesterday.

The Democratic presidential contender, who recently reported $8 million cash on hand in his campaign kitty, said that if the Republicans double the amount they spent on their 2000 campaign, it would confirm the party as the handmaiden to the wealthiest Americans. END QUOTE

Where to start with this one?

First - Senator Kerry's money comes from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. It is money she inherited from her late husband, Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, heir to the Heinz fortune. So Kerry would be using what to fight Republican money? You got it: he would be using Republican money to fight the Republicans.

Second - the article quotes Kerry as saying, "If they want to spend $200 million from their very wealthy and specialized interests, I think that would become a major issue about the kind of government we have in this country and where we're going." Well, where did Bush's campaign money come from in the last election? Let's look . . .

Opensecrets.org, gives the following breakdown of Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign financing:

Individual contributions of more than $200 $81,260,483 (42.1%)

Individual contributions of $200 or less $20,260,290 (10.5%)

Federal funds $67,560,000 (35.0%)

PAC contributions $2,229,056 (1.2%)

Candidate self-financing $0

Other $21,778,821 (11.3%)

In other words, 52.6% came from INDIVIDUALS. Remember, individuals cannot give more than $1000 total to any given presidential candidate. SO the $101.5M listed above came in in at least almost 101,500 different donations . . . if every person gave the maximum. More likely many many more people gave in much smaller amounts. Add the individual contributions numbers to the Federal funds and you see that over 87% came in from citizens or from matching funds. Thus, over 87% had no connection to Kerry's mythical "very wealthy and specialized interests." Only 1.2% came from PACS (lobbying groups) and only 11.3% came from "other sources." Even if we assume that ALL of the "other sources" money came from corporations and "special interest" groups, a highly questionable assumption, it is barely more than 1/10th of the total monies collected and barely 1/5th the amount given by INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS across the nation.

So maybe the Republicans get the majority of their money the old fashioned way, citizens who want to elect a particular candidate give it to them. Because they like them.

Is that what Senator Kerry wants to stop?

While we're at it, is the NRA a "special interst group"? Many Kerry supporters would say yes. Ok, fine. Is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? How about the labor unions? Teachers unions? Why is it that so often conservative groups are labeled "special interest" groups but liberal ones are not? Somehow I don't think that Senator Kerry will refuse monies from the NEA, the AFL-CIO, or the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, will he? But the GOP should avoid money from the NRA and AT&T? BTW, check out the list of who gave the most money in 2000 and to whom . . . you might be surprised.

--30--

The NYT gives it's usual unbiased edge to a report of Iraqi WMD

Iraqi Scientist: We had WMD

Note the consistant use of terms such as "claims" and "asserts" instead of "says" or "states" in this "news" article. While the facts are probably correct, it tries desperately to make it sound lke this Iraqi insider is lying.

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert

A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

--30--

The French at it Again

GD French Won't Ease UN Restrictions on Iraq

Monsieur Chiraq, along with Germany and Russia, have said that they will block easing UN sanctions against Iraq - the same sanctions they wanted to lift prior to the US's liberation of same. Check out the quote below and then read the article. Disgusting.

Moscow, Paris balk at lifting sanctions -- The Washington Times

Mr. Chirac and his EU colleagues, worried that the suspension of the sanctions would reduce the influence of the United Nations in Iraq's future, said the issue should be discussed in the context of a comprehensive plan for a "central" U.N. role.

--30--