THE STUMP MAY 16, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
One of the rewards of being a loyal Wall Street Journal subscriber is that one gets to read things one might not see anywhere else. For instance, in Wednesday's paper there was a chilling front-page scoop about the fact that it was an American drone that had tipped off the Turkish military to a suspected caravan of Kurdish militants near the Turkey-Iraq border last year—a caravan that turned out to be nothing but local penny-ante smugglers carrying gasoline and other goods, a fact that was discovered only after Turkish planes killed 34 of the 38 of the men.
Or one might read, in the paper's opinion pages, about the “enemies list” that Barack Obama has drawn up, to sic his allies on those who would dare challenge him, a la Richard Nixon. What, you haven't heard about the enemies list? Well, that's because whatever lib'rul-media outlet you depend on has not deigned to acknowledge this monstrosity. But here is the fearless Kimberly Strassel bringing us the word in her op-ed column:
Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.
Got that? Identifying on a campaign Web site the people who are giving to the opponent's super PAC in six and seven-figure increments is the equivalent of Nixon's enemies list, which, as John Dean explained it at the time, was designed to “screw” targeted individuals via “grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc.”
OK, that seems a bit of a stretch. But Strassel has more. She reported a few days later that someone has been doing research into one of the people identified on the campaign Web site—Vandersloot, the CEO of the skin-care products company Melaleuca, who has given Romney's Super PAC $1 million.
About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee. Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.
Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work. The website for that company, Fusion GPS, describes itself as providing "strategic intelligence," with expertise in areas like "politics." That's a polite way of saying "opposition research."
Oooh, now this is getting good. Good enough for the other branch of Murdochia, Fox News, to fly into a tizzy. Someone was looking into VanderSloot's past! Wait, that sounds kind of familiar. Is it what Nixon did with his enemies? No, it's ... what I do as a reporter! I have no idea what Mssrs. Wolf and Simpson are up to in Idaho, other than looking into publicly-available court documents as anyone is entitled to do. But I know that a few months ago, I spent several weeks trying to learn as much as possible about some other big donors, the hedge fund managers who have shifted their giving from the Democrats to the Republicans. I called their rivals and ex-business partners, I called their college professors, I may even have looked up some court records! And I remember that there were a few people I called who asked me why I was trying to learn about these men and their political views—wasn't it their own business? And I remember saying something like, well, sure, everyone's views are their personal views, but when you start cutting checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars and giving them to super PACs, you are bringing your personal views into the public realm in a rather significant way, and the people who's job it is to report on this whole democracy thing of ours are going to take a closer look at you and your views.
But that's not how the Journal editorial board sees it. It weighed in after Strassel's columns with a thunderclap of disapproval, and a suggestion:
All of this is also a reason to reconsider rules that require the disclosure of political donations. This sounds appealing in theory, the Supreme Court has ruled that disclosure is Constitutional, and these columns have supported it as part of a political compromise that would allow unlimited donations. But it's increasingly clear that the real point of these disclosure laws is not to inform voters but to get donor names in order to intimidate them from participating in politics. The goal is to dispatch hired guns like Mr. Simpson on political opponents to trash their reputations.
Democrats and their left-wing allies should understand that Republicans and Mormons will not be the only targets. If Democrats think it is "legitimate" to prowl and publish the divorce records of Romney donors, no one should feign shock if some right-wing investigator is soon doing the same to Mr. Obama's bundlers and super PAC donors. A President who claims to want "civility" in political discourse will reap what he sows if he plays by Nixonian rules.
I'll grant the Journal this much: it's likely that more and more mega-donors indeed are going to seek out ways to give that are undisclosed—it is the reason why Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS group is raising so much, because, as a group that focuses on “issues,” not “elections,” it does not have to name its donors. But this shift is a travesty, not a solution, and it's why anti-disclosure loopholes like the “issues” groups need to be closed. Simply put: When you are giving on the level that Citizens United and related rulings allow you to give, you not only invite scrutiny, you demand it. When you are giving at levels hundreds of times larger than the $2,500 maximum for a regular donation to a campaign, or thousands of times larger than the size checks regular people send to candidates, then you are setting yourself apart. And the only thing that the rest of the citizenry has left to right the balance even slightly is to give you some added scrutiny—to see what personal interests, biases, you name it, might be prompting you to influence the political system in such an outsized way. It's all we've got, really—the Internet, the phone call, the visit to the courthouse. And yes, this applies to everyone. Why does everyone on the right know so much about George Soros? Because they were outraged at the scale of his giving in 2004 and 2006 and dug up everything they could on him. As is only right and proper. And now people are going to look into Frank VanderSloot, Harold Simmons and Paul Singer and the rest of Romney's million-dollar club.
For more on this, see David Weigel, who got to it a day before me and, as usual, nailed it. Also, be sure to check out the deeply-reported investigative piece by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones looking into Melaleuca and the other “multilevel marketing” companies whose owners (often Mormon, as it happens, though not in the case of Amway) are contributing huge amounts to Romney's campaign and Super-PAC. It's a disconcerting piece. Or, as Strassel and the Journal would probably have it, the equivalent of the Watergate break-in.
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
23 comments
TO: My supposed enemies list FROM: BARACK OBAMA, [acting] president of the United States [of African socialism] BCC: Journolist I can haz welcome your scorn? Hate, 44 (that's me!)
- chaitless
May 16, 2012 at 11:47pm
Oh yes. Let the sun shine in. Excellent piece.
- Haole45
May 16, 2012 at 11:59pm
*** I called their rivals and ex-business partners, I called their college professors, I may even have looked up some court records! *** {gasp!} Ole Alec "Tricky Dick" MacGillis is finally outing himself as the un-American scum we always suspected he was. Sheriff Strassel needs you to turn in your reporter badge & gun now. If you still have a job tomorrow, we'll know the librul media & George Soros & Hussein Obama truly control every cubic inch of this country. Palin/Beck 2012!
- Konstantin
May 17, 2012 at 12:06am
We should at least be consistent here. One week I hear about how poor little Sandra Fluke is a private citizen and immune from any scrutiny, and the next week I hear digging through divorce records on big republican donors is OK. So, which is it? Sounds like it's all fair game? In which case, all the whining about Ms. Fluke was just whining? And so all the TNR outrage over Fluke was nothing but posturing? Hmm. I get it now. Welcome to politics.
- seattleeng
May 17, 2012 at 12:20am
If money is speech and you give much more of it than 90% of Americans earn annually because you have more wealth than they could hope to earn in a millenium, then precisely because "one man, one vote" is being muddied by "freedom of speech" (money is not speech athough the Supreme Court maintains it to be), it's helpful to know where that money is coming from, where it's going, and whether there are any claims on it. That's just good governance. Unless Sandra Fluke is being paid by the DNC to testify, most Americans don't have too much of a problem with private citizens petitioning the government freely (with no money involved). Most Americans have a problem when money is involved because they think it corrupts. And since even the Supreme Court admitted this is a valid concern, they strongly suggested transparency, because that's the only condition under which free and unlimited donations make any sense at all in a democracy. And this is why MacGillis let the Soros stuff pass. It's clearly allowed and even encouraged.
- chaitless
May 17, 2012 at 12:40am
seattle please. Surely you see the difference here? Ms. Fluke was speaking out on behalf of women's health. These rich people are buying influence; they're turning our democracy into an oligarchy. She's an open book and THEY SHOULD BE. We have a right to know who's trying to buy this country.
- Sophia
May 17, 2012 at 2:36am
Sophia, you got it right. Seattleeng's mind has simply been taken over by Fox News. He and others who watch the collection of deep thinkers on that "news" channel can't distinguish between a person like Fluke who's an average American and a multi-billionaire who wants to eat the universe and all the Americans in it. And I agree with MacGillis. Soros should be investigated, too. And, of course, he has been, to the ultimate degree. They who do not investigate all multi-billionaires are cooperating in their own enslavement--kinda like Fox News junkies.
- magboy47.
May 17, 2012 at 3:10am
Who said Sandra Fluke "is immune from any scrutiny?" Nobody called VanderSloot a slut (and how easily it could have been punned!) for 3 consecutive days or demanded a VanderSloot sex tape. Also, he's not just "a private citizen." *****A quartet of four Melaleuca companies, which sell home and personal care items, gave $1 million. Company president Frank VanderSloot is a national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign and also raised money for Romney in 2008.***** http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/02/hedge_fund_moguls_top_list_of_donors_to_super_pac_supporting_mitt_romney/?page=2 Welcome to journalism.
- Konstantin
May 17, 2012 at 4:12am
{continued. . . } http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/02/hedge_fund_moguls_top_list_of_donors_to_super_pac_supporting_mitt_romney/?page=2 Welcome to journalism.
- Konstantin
May 17, 2012 at 4:13am
This just continues a long line of Republican projection -- accusing Democrats of doing things that Republicans used to do -- or perhaps still are doing. I wouldn't put it past Romney or Gingrich to have an "Enemies List", that's in their "All Democrats are Evil" mindset. But Obama? Mr. "Let's just get along"? Mr. "We can do better"? Mr. "Pre-compromise before we compromise"? No way.
- AllanL5
May 17, 2012 at 8:36am
It's clear me. It is an essential part of our democracy that people who bribe government officials should not be scrutinized or even prosecuted. Next up, people who bribe judges.
- Nusholtz
May 17, 2012 at 8:58am
It's clear to me.
- Nusholtz
May 17, 2012 at 8:59am
Multi-level marketing companies soar when the economy sours because many who lose their jobs must resort to them as the only alternative. Of course, multi-level marketing is a euphemism for pyramid scheme. My favorite promotor was Glenn W. Turner, he the proprietor of the "dare to be great" pyramid scheme. Unfortunately for Mr. Turner, he failed to include a legitimate product for those in his pyramid to market, and off to jail he went. Having learned his lesson, he now specializes in giving the same "motivational" speeches he used to give to those in his pyramid, only now he isn't marketing anything but himself. What's remarkable about Turner the motivational speaker is that he has a cleft lip (often called a harelip), which should be motivation for those with the defect if not those in his pyramid. As for Mr. VanderSloot and his multi-level marketing company, two comments. First, skin care products are the perfect products to market because they cost next to nothing to produce but can be sold at almost any price (we are a vain culture). Second, it's always helpful to have a built-in market of individuals to whom to sell the products, whether they be family, school alums, or, in Mr. VanderSloot's case, people of the same faith.
- rayward
May 17, 2012 at 9:12am
"The goal is to dispatch hired guns like Mr. Simpson on political opponents to trash their reputations." Wait, isn't it a form of intimidation by Fox news (WSJ branch) to name and shame Mr. Simpson? Are they not trying to silence his first amendment rights, subjecting him to abuse and slander from who knows what?
- blackton
May 17, 2012 at 9:37am
If huge monetary contributions are considered "Free Speech", that concerns me. But is it "free speech" if the person giving the "speech" isn't even identified? I think that impacts MY "free speech" rights to know who's talking to me. And by the way, huge contributions that don't have to be revealed sounds a whole lot like "Bribes" to me. If they're not bribes now, it certainly opens the door to them in the future.
- AllanL5
May 17, 2012 at 9:41am
Thank you Konstatin for pointing out the salient point - poor Mr. Vandersloot is not just some poor guy peddling skin cream, but an official in the Romney campaign. And since he has led and funded campaigns in the past against gay marriage, - you know, defending the sancitity of heterosexual marriage and all that, I say his divorce(s) are relevant. Vandersloot was not "slimed" unless one's definition of sliming is reporting facts.
- dubyadoubte
May 17, 2012 at 12:18pm
Every day, Republicans sound more and more like Captain Renault from Casablanca. There are always so shocked, shocked to find Democrats practicing basic politics!
- zardoz67
May 17, 2012 at 12:34pm
Konstantin, Fluke is as much in the public eye as Vandersloot. Both are activists trying to influence the debate beyond their single vote. One does it with words and time, the other does it with money and time. Both are allowed to do so. Both are claiming to be a victim. That TNR would breathlessly rail against one, and express shock and outrage at the what happened to the other just highlights the slide from a national treasure of a publication, its articles from half a century ago are still cited by the left and right as masterpieces of thought....to what we are close to having today...Gawker/TMZ, except the writers went to better schools. Part of being intellectually honest is being consistent. Claiming to be after the truth while contorting your beliefs to conform to your ideology doesn't really push things along. It's devolves things into a "Packers versus Bears" mentality in which everything is lost to ideology. As for Fluke being called a slut, she was called a slut by an entertainer who later apologized. I've not heard an apology yet from the other entertainers that have fantasized on national TV about one of the Palin girls getting raped by pro ball players, or who enjoyed calling the Palin women c*nts. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, that's all. Sophia writes: "Ms. Fluke was speaking out on behalf of women's health." it doesn't matter WHAT they were talking about. That's completely irrelevant (thankfully) under our laws. Once you cross a line, be it a huge donation or testifying (under oath or not) before congress, you are attempting to seriously alter the debate and your **motives** become fair game.
- seattleeng
May 17, 2012 at 12:49pm
It very much DOES matter what they are talking about, seattle -- truth and substance count, at least for some people. And had Sandra Fluke been a young conservative woman testifying in a hearing on some issue of concern to her, I would also object strongly if she had been made the target of vicious slurs about her sexual life or moral code (which in neither Fluke's case nor in my fictional case would be anyone else's business). So let's not hide behind irrelevant legal considerations here. There is a general sense that individuals testifying openly before hearings are citizens doing their civic duty and making an appeal about an issue that concerns them; hugely wealthy donors seeking to influence an election or set of elections while remaining anonymously in the shadows are, in many ways, the exact opposite. Any inconsistency is built into the model, so to speak.
- ironyroad
May 17, 2012 at 1:19pm
Thought I should offer a quick reply here to seattleeng. The other commenters have done a good job of arguing why the attacks on Sandra Fluke and the scrutiny brought to bear on seven-figure SuperPAC donors are hardly equivalent. But I'll just one additional point in my defense: I myself never flew into high dudgeon about the Limbaugh attacks on her. I found them outrageous, but it is also true that someone going to the battlements on a controversial issue the way Fluke decided to is going to get some flak. The public sphere is the public sphere. And it also was pretty apparent to me that Fluke was prepared for that and was handling the ugliness pretty damn well. Certainly better than these exceedingly thin-skinned mega-donors.
- Alec MacGillis
May 17, 2012 at 4:12pm
Irony, once again you pretend to know the motives on both sides. You do not. You ASSUME he is trying to extract benefit and that she is only following her heart. And yet you cannot possibly know this. If someone decides to advocate, they should prepare for scrutiny. Period. The more they advocate, the more scrutiny they will receive. That is what sunlight is all about. Sunlight is goodness. Always. Irony writes: " And had Sandra Fluke been a young conservative woman testifying in a hearing on some issue of concern to her, I would also object strongly if she had been made the target of vicious slurs about her sexual life or moral code" There are two different aspects here: 1) Making slurs against someone you disagree with isn't right. It doesn't matter if it's an entertainer like Limbaugh, Letterman or Maher doing it, or the head of the RNC/DNC. Limbaugh apologized, Letterman apologized. Maher doubled down. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. 2) Digging up info to understand a person's motivations is most always reasonable. Examples of what is reasonable: Looking at public records, trying to piece together a history of why the person came to this line of thinking. What is unreasonable: Stalking, going through their garbage, hacking email, etc. Thankfully, these are illegal too. That said, I wouldn't have cared a bit of this happened to a conservative woman. I would have expected it. A conservative writer was just fired for wondering if black studies had become a joke. Didn't bother me a bit.
- seattleeng
May 17, 2012 at 4:20pm
Nobody objects to scrutiny (except prickly rich conservatives, apparently). But groundless personal slurs over national radio is not "scrutiny." I think I disagree with Alec a bit too, as there has to be a certain space for citizens making their opinions known in relation to a policy question that doesn't involve them immediately being seen as politicians. We want civic involvement and it's bad if everyone then stays at home because they don't want to be made a punching bag of. Admittedly, it's hard to draw the line exactly but I think there is a line nonetheless.
- ironyroad
May 17, 2012 at 5:01pm
Sometimes I think about subscribing to the WSJ, because it really is a damn good newspaper. Then I remember that their editorial page might give me apoplexy and stay my hand.
- NR409654
May 20, 2012 at 9:15pm