Did Terry McAuliffe Try to Buy Off a Political Foe?

posted by John Nichols on 05/29/2009 @ 4:38pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (40)

Subscribe Now

Consumer activist Ralph Nader has made a significant charge against former Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe -- that of attempting to bribe a political foe in order to influence an election result.

Remarkably, McAuliffe, now a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of Virginia, is not denying it.

That ought to concern Americans as much as the wrongdoing itself.

If we have become a country where it can be revealed that a political party chairman offered to pay a troublesome candidate to get out of the way politically, then all the talk of campaign finance reform and ethics that gets bantered around is just that: talk.

In an upcoming book, Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny (The New Press), veteran Nader aide Theresa Amato -- who managed his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns -- details efforts by McAuliffe, then the DNC chair, to get Nader to stop campaigning in key states. (It's part of a smart, thorough dissection of what ails the political process, which Phil Donahue hails as "the biggest swing--not a jab, but a roundhouse punch--at America's corrupt electoral system.")

The charge is that then-DNC chair McAuliffe offered Nader -- who was mounting an independent campaign that some observers thought could pose an electoral threat to the candidacy of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry -- an unspecified amount of money, presumably in the form of contribution checks from big donors allied with the Democratic party, to avoid campaigning in nineteen battleground states.

Nader confirms that McAuliffe made such an offer.

"When you get a call like that, first of all it's inappropriate," the consumer activist told the Washington Post.

Nader says he immediately refused the money. "[If] you don't immediately say 'no,' it's like taffy, you get stuck with it," he explained.

That's the appropriate response to the offer of an old-fashioned political bribe -- and, make no mistake, paying a political rival to pull his punches is just that.

So what does the former DNC chair who now seeks to serve as governor of Virginia have to say for himself?

"McAuliffe isn't denying the charge," says Post writer Anita Kumar.

In fact, quite the opposite.

Elisabeth Smith, a spokeswoman for McAuliffe, sounds like she is confirming the charge when says her boss "was concerned that Ralph Nader would cost John Kerry the election as he did Al Gore in 2000 and give us another four years of George W. Bush."

Then she took a shot at Nader, suggesting there was no reason to be concerned about the issue.

"It looks like Ralph Nader misses seeing his name in the press,'' Smith griped. "Terry's focused on talking with Virginians about jobs, not feeding Ralph Nader's ego."

Nice spin.

But it does not get to the heart of the matter.

McAuliffe is asking the Democrats of Virginia to nominate him for a position of public trust. If he does not have a better explanation than the one that has so far been offered, there can and will be serious questioning of whether he's got what ought to be expected of major-party nominee and a governor.

But this is about more than Virginia.

Even if no legal actions are brought against McAuliffe, and no matter what happens in Virginia's primary, Democratic National Committee members should press for an investigation of the charges. And they should demand an absolute commitment by the DNC that it will not be in the busy of bribing candidates to quit contests.

Comments (40)

Hooray for the lesser evil!

Posted by Mandaliet at 05/28/2009 @ 8:36pm
More evidence piled on the enormous mountain of evidence we already have that we need a huge overhaul in our electoral system. The first overhaul should be the end of lobbyist and corporate campaign contributions.

Posted by lltrix at 05/28/2009 @ 8:41pm
As a Repub.....it's kinda hard for me to defend an ex-DNC chair, but....here it goes:

Very importantly, Kerry & Nader are NOT in the same party!

Nader was running as an Independent and even most of his own believers won't vote for him, preferring the more traditional Lesser-of-Evil voting--same as I in NOT voting Libertarian nor for John Anderson nor Ross Perot--so.....I see no problem w/McAuliffe offering campaign contributions so Nader can campaign MORE in those non-battleground states.

Terry was doing his job....was he in a gray area ethically? No more or less than folks who don't vote their true beliefs but would rather cheer on the Lesser Evil.

Hopey and Changey forever!

Posted by Happy at 05/28/2009 @ 9:43pm
waiting to hear more before making much commentary...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/29/2009 @ 07:26am
Posted by Happy at 05/28/2009 @ 9:43pm

Maybe not illegal, maybe it is just gray ethically, but doesn't that show some of what the problems are with our electoral system.

Hap, don't you sometimes wish you had another viable choice? With the way things are that will never happen.

Posted by !immutable at 05/29/2009 @ 07:28am
J-CONASON on GOP's sicko anti-white bigotry:

18 years ago, the Senate confirmation of Thomas earned historic notoriety for its bizarre descent into conflicting recollections of sexual harassment & pornographic banter. But the lingering question about the man selected to replace the legendary Thurgood Marshall was whether he fulfilled the White House description of him as "the most qualified at this time." As Thomas confessed in his memoir a few years ago, "Even I had my doubts about so extravagant a claim...Far from being the "most qualified," Thomas was a nominee with no experience on the bench beyond the 18 months he had served on the US District Court...He had never written a significant legal brief or article. He had achieved no distinction in private practice or law enforcement. He had never even argued a case in federal court, let alone at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Indeed, his entire career had resulted from affirmative action, beginning with his admission to Holy Cross College, continuing with his acceptance by Yale & including his first job as an assistant attorney general in MO. Thomas later insisted that he had been damaged by the stigma of affirmative action, especially when he tried to find a job after graduating from Yale Law. (To the extent that minorities were stigmatized at Yale, of course, much of the blame was owed to right-wing figures such as law professor Ralph Winter, the Federalist Society eminence who was quoted back then complaining that none of the minority students at Yale were truly qualified to be there.)

...Every account of those deliberations indicates that Bush & his aides went through a list of potential African-American nominees to the high court -- & rejected politically moderate judges with better qualifications than Thomas...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/29/2009 @ 07:51am
How about this for a perspective...

McAuliffe was trying to end the Bush Presidency in 2004....

by nullifying the guy who helped to give it to us in 2000?

(Naderites, fire away!)

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:58am
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:58am

pppthhhffft.

-----

All, HAPPY does not know what "ethcis" are.

If anybody thinks the dual power system is working, take a gander at opensecrets.org's list of top donor contributions for major candidates for the last 8 years. You will notice that many of those donors are now getting your money.

What is wrong with our society when Uncle Ralph sits up and speaks the Truth, and he is roundly criticized?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2009 @ 10:24am
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:58am

pppthhhffft.

-----

All, HAPPY does not know what "ethics" are.

If anybody thinks the dual power system is working, take a gander at opensecrets.org's list of top donor contributions for major candidates for the last 8 years. You will notice that many of those donors are now getting your money.

What is wrong with our society when Uncle Ralph sits up and speaks the Truth, and he is roundly criticized?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2009 @ 10:24am
Crabbie,

That's because Americans, left right and center, can't handle the truth when the truth is also critical.

What is wrong with our society? Other than it being completely and totally fucked, everything has been going swimmingly!

Posted by TexasFlood at 05/29/2009 @ 10:54am
Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2009 @ 10:24am

Fine. No point in another round of "Ralph's innocent for 2000" and the counter argument.

Let's just leave it at "McAuliffe thought" Ralph would hurt Kerry in 2004 as "McAuliffe thought" he had hurt Gore in 2000 and wanted to prevent that and another 4 years of Dubya.

Even if you believe he was incorrect in those assumptions....was trying to do what he thought was best to end Bush at one term....a "bad thing"?????

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 11:24am
Terry tried to bribe Nader. BFD.

Ego maniac Nader cost Gore the election. Terry didn't want that to happen again. If that's a scandal, breathing air must be a crime.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/29/2009 @ 11:31am
I actually agree with Darin. Nader didn't run in 2000 or 2004 because he was trying to save the country. He ran because his ego demanded it.

Has Nader had some good ideas over the years? Of course he has. And while I desperately want to blame the Iraq war on Nader (Thanks, Ralph!), I won't do it.

Third party politics is all well and good, but would you rather have something like they have in Israel, where the far right gets more power because they can't come up with a middle-left (where most Israelis sit) coalition?

I say ya dance with the devil that brung ya. I just wish Ralph would stop dancing. Doesn't he know that white men can't dance? :)

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/29/2009 @ 12:27pm

If he runs again in 2012, it will be silly and a lot of his fans, even Mr Nichols, will put it as "less-than-serious".

If he runs again in 2016 at the age of 81, it will be beyond sad and pathetic and ALL his devotees will see Ralph for what he's become.

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 12:47pm
We are shocked, shocked ... that the Pardons-Sellers Clintons' fundraiser-in-chief is a crook.

Posted by sloper at 05/29/2009 @ 2:36pm
"Ego maniac Nader cost Gore the election."-DARIN

This statement is a falsehood.

I guess Gore ran to assuage his own ego too. And Howard Philips, and Harry Browne, and John Haglin, and Pat Buchanon, and James Harris and Dave Barry.

They all must have brought us George Bush, right? The fact that the 2 parties have a lock on the system means nothing to you people? Why do you continue to blame the people that are CORRECT, and excuse the people that continue the corporatocracy?

Last go -round, when people answered questions about policy they agreed either with Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but we got neither in the main election. That tells me it is about money, not policy. That is sad. Terry And Co are a part of the problem. If what Ralph says is true, Terry should be banned from politics for life, along with the Clintons, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Phil Gramm etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2009 @ 2:49pm
"I say ya dance with the devil that brung ya"

To the tune of

"We in the money"

Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2009 @ 2:52pm
It's sad to see petty politics take up this much time and money. We should focus on what the all parties can do together, and with this attitude, we can accomplish a lot more. Personally, I would like to see the US take the leading role in the effort to make poverty history. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

Posted by davidwaters at 05/29/2009 @ 3:02pm
"Ego maniac Nader cost Gore the election."-DARIN

This statement is a falsehood.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2009 @ 2:49pm

We can never know for certain, but you honestly believe that if Nader had died of a heart attack one week before the 2000 election that Bush would still have had 1500 more votes after the first recount?

I don't think you believe that at all.

You're free to prefer a parlimentary system over our system that has seen the demise of the Federalist and Whig parties to be replaced by the Dem and Rep parties. But you are not free to claim that you don't believe Nader cost Gore the election when he got 97,488 votes, more than twice the amount of all the other third party candidates combined.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/29/2009 @ 3:17pm
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

Posted by davidwaters at 05/29/2009 @ 3:02pm

I've seen you post this half a dozen times. Yes, $30 billion might be the cost of the food that would end hunger. How many trillions of dollars will it take to depose Kim Jong Il, Mugabee, myamar junta, et al, who steal the food once it's delivered, leaving the people just as hungry as they were before?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/29/2009 @ 3:20pm
<How about this for a perspective... McAuliffe was trying to end the Bush Presidency in 2004.... by nullifying the guy who helped to give it to us in 2000? (Naderites, fire away!)

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:58am

Let's just leave it at "McAuliffe thought" Ralph would hurt Kerry in 2004 as "McAuliffe thought" he had hurt Gore in 2000 and wanted to prevent that and another 4 years of Dubya. Even if you believe he was incorrect in those assumptions....was trying to do what he thought was best to end Bush at one term....a "bad thing"?????

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 11:24am>

Mask has finally gone on record that despite his criticisms of Republicans for what he perceives as violating the rule of law, he believes that the ends justify the means if it is those he supports.

Now watch him attempt to sidestep this revelation by launching a series of attack questions on conservatives rather than explain his remarks.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 4:20pm
Mask has finally gone on record that despite his criticisms of Republicans for what he perceives as violating the rule of law, he believes that the ends justify the means if it is those he supports.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 4:20pm

I am not a lawyer so I guess I am unclear about which law was violated? This was not an attempt to bribe an elected official. I don't see how it is different from a potential business deal between two competing businesses. For example, would it be unethical/illegal for Home Depot to ask Lowes to not build a new store in a market that Home Depot is struggling in and in turn provide Lowes support to establish in a different market?

Back room deals are commonplace in politics and business, the quid pro quo, (you do this for me and I will do this for you) I just don't see the controversy here either in ethics or law broken, maybe Anti or Mr. Nichols could extrapolate on what they find offensive.

Posted by Extraneous at 05/29/2009 @ 5:11pm
That is why I have stopped voting for a Rep or Dem candidates a long time ago and will not ever vote for them

Posted by pachonegro at 05/29/2009 @ 5:12pm
by nullifying the guy who helped to give it to us in 2000? (Naderites, fire away!)

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 07:58am

actually, you had something to do with that.

remember, "other" received more votes in florida than the differential between the baconator and wush..

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2009 @ 7:27pm
Listen, AL GORE GOT MORE VOTES THAN GEORGE W. BUSH IN 2000.

I suspect that Nader's haters would believe it's Nader's fault we still have this ridiculous electoral college if the Democrats told them to believe that.

They would also believe that it's Nader's fault that Bush ran an almost successful campaign, and it's Nader's fault that Gore's campaign wasn't strong enough to defeat Bush more than he did, and it's Nader's fault that the Supreme Court decided who our next president would be.

It's rather disturbing that many people's reaction to McAuliffe's attempt to subvert democracy is "Good, I don't like Nader anyway." This shows that you don't care about democracy, you just want your side to win no matter what.

People who have resigned themselves to voting for Democrats as the lesser evil don't seem to know what that means. If the Democrats are a lesser evil, does that somehow mean they're not evil? Does it cross your mind, you lesser-evilers, that this means Democrats do bad things?

The thing that disgusts me the most about the Democratic Party is its treatment of Ralph Nader. Following Nader, reading and listening to what he says, convinces me that he is good, the antidote to the evil that controls us. Not because of the ego that is a requirement for anyone who runs for president. The Democrats do what they can to crush this good, because they do not really represent us. If someone comes along to threaten the establishment, the establishment knows what to do: tell its followers (who, it seems, don't care much about democracy) to hate, and they will hate obediently. You can see this with Limbaugh and O'Reilly as well.

Final thought: To protest Nader's unwillingness to give in to the corporate-owned duopoly, you should all stop wearing seatbelts.

Posted by Mandaliet at 05/29/2009 @ 9:11pm
For example, would it be unethical/illegal for Home Depot to ask Lowes to not build a new store in a market that Home Depot is struggling in and in turn provide Lowes support to establish in a different market?

Actually, it would be illegal under antitrust laws. A slam dunk for prosecutors if they had proof of the offer. I'm not sure the same applies in an electoral venue, but I suspect there is something in the law. At least there ought to be.

As to Nader electing Bush in 2000, no analysis has been done on how many Nader voters would have stayed home if he had not been runnning. I would suspect a lot. Even in 2000, Bush came off as a buffoon, and Al Gore should have wiped the floor with him. When he got his narrow victory taken away by FL shenanigans, Gore was too slow to send people down to help, and the Repubs stole a march on him, sending busloads of assholes down to intimidate vote counters. Then Gore took the gentlemanly route of not provoking a constitutional crisis and letting Bush v. Gore settle the question. If only he could have known the greater constitutional crisis that would created by the Cheney presidency. (Not a typo.)

Posted by huntervanv at 05/29/2009 @ 10:44pm
It may not be a crime, but it does seem unethical. As flawed as the US Federal Constitutional Republic is, episodes like this make it worse.

If the Democrats were worried about Nader siphoning off some of their votes, they should've tried to appeal to Nader's supporters rather than try to take away their opportunity to vote for who they wanted.

Posted by koroviev at 05/30/2009 @ 02:08am
what MASK said...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/30/2009 @ 06:20am
Gore lost, because of Gore and nobody else. The rest is bullshit. Any actuary that says otherwise should have his credentials pulled.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2009 @ 08:46am
Gore lost, because of Gore and nobody else. The rest is bullshit. Any actuary that says otherwise should have his credentials pulled.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2009 @ 08:46am

No, you are wrong.

Gore lost because of bad luck. He did everything he needed to do to win. He picked Leiberman (who's only function was to appeal to FL Sr. citizens). He spread his campaign fund optimally (I think Tennessee was a lost cause. In order to win there would have had to say things that would have cost him other states.) He picked and energized the right lawyers to fight for votes afterword.

He lost because, although he did everything he needed to, he had bad luck.

There were half a dozen random processess beyond Gore's control that could have tipped the election the other direction.

The butterfly ballot: A Democrat working in good faith designed a ballot that was confusing to people who intended to vote for Gore. This ballot caused 2000 - 3000 Gore supporters to cast a legally valid vote for Buchanan, rather than Gore.

The Felon list: a non-partisan company working in good faith, eliminated about 95,000 people they believed were felons from voter roles. They made some mistakes because of similar names and birthdates. It is claimed this affected more Democrats than Republicans and a more accurate process could have made the difference.

Every single third party candidate received more than the 537 votes that separated Bush and Gore. However, Nader, who was much closer to Gore than Bush received about 97,000, which is more than twice the number of votes that all other 3rd party candidates received combined. Without Nader on the ballot, Gore would have easily had another 2000 votes.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/30/2009 @ 09:37am
Continued

Tie breaker: The Constitution states that in the event that no candidate has a majority of electors, the race will be decided in the House (like the contest between Jefferson and Burr) and the House was controlled by Republicans. Gore could have continued to fight after the SCOTUS ruling, but it was not Gore's fault that a continued fight was futile because of the tie breaker.

People are lazy: Some people aren't that motivated to vote. If it's too hot or raining, that's enough to cause some people to stay home. Different weather could have added 2000 votes to Gore's total (or caused 2000 Bush voters to stay home).

Vote Trading: If I remember correctly, there were a number of Gore supporters in California who set up a website to trade votes with Nader supporters in FL. If this had been more successful, Gore could have won.

So we had a razor thin election. I just listed six different things could have tipped the election: Butterfly ballot, felon list, Nader, tie breaker, weather, and internet vote trading, that were all beyond Gore's control.

I'd call that bad luck.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/30/2009 @ 09:37am
One more quick thing on Gore losing Tennessee. Of the "Southern Democrats" who won (Carter and Clinton) both of them were governors of their southern states. Gore was a Senator living in Washington DC. That makes a big difference.

Tennessee trended much more conservative over the years and in order to appeal to NY, CA, PA, MA, etc, Gore had to make himself unappealing to TN voters. He never really had a chance.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/30/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/29/2009 @ 4:20pm

Yes, Larry...bribery has to do with elected officials....Nader wasn't nor never has been (nor never WILL be) one.

So what did McAuliffe do that was illegal?

Posted by Mask at 05/30/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2009 @ 7:27pm |

A fraction of a "role", FROSTY. If my one vote had gone the other way, Bush would have still won my state.

If 600 of the 95,000 votes that Nader got in Florida had not bought into "They're the same"....Bush would have lost the Presidency.

And extremely likely that 4100+ American soldiers wouldn't have lost their lives over nothing.

(Now the truly insane can jump in and claim that "Gore would have invaded Iraq too!", if they like.)

Posted by Mask at 05/30/2009 @ 11:03am
Yes, Larry...bribery has to do with elected officials....Nader wasn't nor never has been (nor never WILL be) one.

So what did McAuliffe do that was illegal?

Posted by Mask at 05/30/2009 @ 11:00am |

Even if not illegal (and I have no firm conclusions on that yet), it is highly unethical.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 1:46pm
And extremely likely that 4100+ American soldiers wouldn't have lost their lives over nothing.

Posted by Mask at 05/30/2009 @ 11:03am

Mighty callous of you to say they "lost their lives over nothing"....but then, you merely reinforce the valid opinion of most that Leftists are anti-military....good job!

The last chapterS of the Iraq intervention have yet to be written......and it's now in your Messiah's hands, at least for another 3.5 years, as to whether in fact, we have lost a number of those lives "over nothing"....of course, if one were to ask the Kurds and the marsh Arabs of Iraq, and those imprisoned by Saddam as dissidents or enemies of the regime, they already consider those US lives lost, as quite worthy.

You need to check in on KvH's newest posting on her speech in Boston......she and the ACLU were both, most concerned with the rights and plight of non-US citizens.....why aren't you? Don't you believe in helping the Kurds, etc....?

Posted by Happy at 05/30/2009 @ 2:54pm
.....it is highly unethical.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 1:46pm

That's what they do....politicians and their operatives! To achieve power just about requires, most especially for the Dem Party which relies entirely on lies and populist slight of hands.

Hopey and Changey forever!

Posted by Happy at 05/30/2009 @ 2:57pm
Posted by Happy at 05/30/2009 @ 2:54pm

Why is NOT wanting American soldiers to die..."anti-military", HAPP?

Nobody is buying that b.s. anymore, that if you "don't support the Iraq War, you hate the military".....nobody.

Posted by Mask at 05/31/2009 @ 07:00am
.....nobody.

Posted by Mask at 05/31/2009 @ 07:00am

I hear ya whistling......

Posted by Happy at 05/31/2009 @ 10:14am
Just to be clear to others, your diversionary tactic doesn't work as my point was your insistence of military lives wasted "over nothing"....clearly demeaning to the military....and nobody should buy your b.s......unfortunately, there are many MASKs!

Posted by Happy at 05/31/2009 @ 10:17am