Did Terry McAuliffe Try to Buy Off a Political Foe?

Did Terry McAuliffe Try to Buy Off a Political Foe?

Did Terry McAuliffe Try to Buy Off a Political Foe?

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.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

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.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x