John Edwards busted on 527?

[Adelante]

Did Edwards get caught coordinating with that pro-Edwards 527 that is running TV ads in Iowa? That’s the implication in today’s New York Times, which reports on an email message from the union leaders who created the 527 suggesting “that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about ‘what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us’ just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with ‘a serious 527 legal structure.’” The 527’s ties to Edwards already smelled a little fishy, given that his 2004 campaign manager — Nick Baldick — was running the group. Does this New York Times report make things smell a bit worse for the candidate who is attacking the influence of special interests? This could be a bigger problem for Edwards in New Hampshire, where the issue of campaign reform is always on the minds of those “live free and die” voters.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/27/534654.aspx

In the final days before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, John Edwards has stepped up his criticism of outside organizations that spend money to influence elections, repeatedly disavowing a labor group that is blanketing Iowa with commercials supporting his candidacy.“As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can’t control them,” Mr. Edwards said last weekend as he distanced himself from the actions of the group, known as a 527 for the section of the tax code it falls under. He would prefer the group “not run the ads,” he said.

But the Edwards campaign may have expected the support of the group, Alliance for a New America, set up by a local of the Service Employees International Union. An Oct. 8 e-mail message circulated among the union leaders who created the group suggests that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about “what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us” just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with “a serious 527 legal structure.”

-snip

The 527 organizations and other third-party groups have become an issue in the presidential campaign because they allow donors who are sometimes anonymous to spend large amounts outside the limits of the campaign finance laws. The groups are prohibited from coordinating their expenditures with the campaigns.

-snip

The Oct. 8 e-mail message was sent by David Rolf, president of a Washington State local of the service employees union, to his counterparts at other union locals. It summarizes a meeting of “S.E.I.U. for Edwards,” a group of state-level union leaders rallying around Mr. Edwards.

The message discusses plans to swing as many S.E.I.U. locals as possible “into a pro-Edwards position” and to coordinate public endorsements with the Edwards campaign. The organizers plan “to discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they would like to see from us,” and list specific meetings scheduled between union leaders and campaign officials like David Bonior, the national campaign manager.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/us/politics/27donate.html?ref=politics

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "The 527’s ties to Edwards already smelled a little fishy,"

Smells like trial lawyer at work.

[Donnachaidh]

2. Let's play the Hillary game

Jump on an IMPLICATION and ride it till it dies.

Of course, if the same tactic is used for the general dirty tactics of Hillary supporters -- then the whining and gnashing of teeth, the calling of names etc. turns into the Clinton Tabernacle Choir.

Y'all are pathetic beyond belief.

[cali]

3. why don't you address the NYT and MSNBC

pieces? And I'm no Clinton supporter,

[Adelante]

4. Do you have something to say about the information in the OP?

Or is this the predictable Edwardian diversion tactic to throw a thread off its rails? The usual whining and gnashing of teeth whenever Edwards brings something on himself.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Do you have something to say?

The information is quite clear. Union leaders, that is leaders of organizations of working people who support Edwards, are communicating with each other on a strategy of how best to organize their membership to get out the vote. There was no coordination with any 527 despite the corporate media's innuendo to make such connection.

Will you claim that unions cannot engage in this type of campaigning?

[ClarkUSA]

11. No, you've got the information wrong.

Emails suggest that the union 527 was communicating with people INSIDE the Edwards campaign as to what they wanted in the 527 ad. That is unlawful.

[BeyondGeography]

14. C'mon man, it was only his national campaign manager they were dealing with

:sarcasm:

[Luminous Animal]

18. It was a communication between union members.

It was a recap of union campaign strategy among union leaders.

Will you assert that political campaigns be barred from communicating with the unions that support them? Will you do the same if Obama or Clinton gets the nomination and unions communicate with their campaign?

I cannot believe that Democrats are joining in on this smear. It is crystal clear that this is both a smear on Edwards and unions.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Here is the text.

The email says no such thing. It is quite clear that it is a recap of a meeting between union leaders talking about specifically about their strategy. No where does it make the claim that the yet unformed 527 will coordinate with the Edwards campaign.

From: David Rolf
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:27 PM
To: Rickman Jackson; redacted; redacted; Tom Woodruff; Anna Burger; Josie Mooney; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; Alice Dale, Kristy Sermersheim; Dana Graham; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; Gary Smith; redacted; David Rolf; redacted; redacted

Cc: Stacy Pederson
Subject: SEIU for Edwards conference call

This email provides the notes from today’s “SEIU for Edwards,” meeting, a summary of decisions, and an announcement of our Saturday phone call. Skip to the end for the call-in numbers for Saturday if you were at the meeting and don’t need the summary. And also note everyone’s email addresses above, for future communications.

At today’s “SEIU for Edwards” meeting convened in Chicago upon adjournment of the IEB, we decided:

1) To spend this week moving the maximum number of states into a pro-Edwards position using the procedures adopted by the IEB. Our targets for an early round of endorsements are: AZ, AR, CA, CO, GA, IA, ID, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, OH, TN, TX, WA, and WV. (A potential second round might include any from the above list that can’t move as fast as this week, plus OR, RI, CT, NV, and PA, depending on some state-specific factors).

2) To be prepared to roll out thse endorsement in a coordinated press strategy with the Edwards campaign next week, possibly as early as Monday.

3) To discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us, given our new state-based strategy. Tom Woodruff will talk to David Bonior; I will talk to Chris Cafe; Cathy Singer Glasson and I will visit the Edwards operation in Iowa on Wednesday.

4) To bring-on a full-time staff person to coordinate our efforts and plan the campaign. Payroll & legal structure will be determined by attorneys, but will not be on SEIU International payroll, since SEIU International is not making an endorsement at this time. People should move suggested names to Tom. W. There was general agreement that the campaign will likely involve fundraising, field work in early states, media in early states, and require full time staffing and a serious 527 legal structure for any communication beyond our membership.

5) To operate this group as an “SEIU for Edwards” steering committee, and to expand it to include local union executive officers from non-IEB locals that are pro-Edwards (for example, Missouri).

6) To meet again by conference call on Saturday, October 13 at 8 am PDT/11 am EDT. The call-in number will be the same as previous “SEIU for Edwards” calls” 1-866-285-7776 participant code 775000; host code 465874.

Talk to you then,

David Rolf

[Dawgs]

5. Of course he did. Edwards has been all talk and no action.

This love affair with someone that sold Bush's war is beyond me. I just don't get it.

[Pastiche423]

23. Neither do I

Where have all of the anti-war DUers gone?

[killbotfactory]

6. duh

If a republican was doing the same thing it would have been clear to everybody by now.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Who cares? Why aren't the unions backing Obama?

that's the real question here.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Red herring, anyone?

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

8. Are you suggesting that Edwards not talk to union leaders?

Because that is the implication here. The article specifically states that the email communication was between union leaders organizing to get out the vote. It was not a communication with the 527.

This is a smear by association and no surprise coming from the corporate media who rarely gives up the opportunity to weaken unions.

This board is becoming an embarrassment.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Um, the email was from union leaders behind the 527 re: "talking with Edwards' campaign officials"

There is no smear, but there is an association, as the email suggests -- between the 527 and the Edwards' campaign, which is illegal
according to FEC rules.

[Luminous Animal]

17. The 527 was not organized yet.

The email discusses forming the 527 outside of union activity.

How could the Edwards campaign coordinate with an organization that was not yet in existence?

[surfermaw]

12. This sounds like a little speculation Sort of like the word that is

going around about one of our candidates being furnished by the republican party, a candidat put in to stop Hillary Clinton, beause the republicans think she is the candidate that can stomp their ssa in a general election, as far as Oboma , he sounds like a little cry baby, is he angry because the UNIONS DIDN suupport him, but supported Edwards and Hillary instead...better be watching the republican party instead of Edwards , Hillary and the Unions.

[no name no slogan]

16. At least he didn't get busted on teh 420

:smoke:

[FrenchieCat]

19. Smells????

[Luminous Animal]

20. The only thing that smells here

is an unnamed opposition campaign attempting to malign union organizing for a Democratic candidate.

[GreenTea]

21. Here come the robot liars! Edwards is going to win Iowa & out come the the idiot bots right on cue!

[loudsue]

22. Yep. Sounds like it, doesn't it? Edwards is an attorney. He & his campaign

people (at least the ones that are actually following his orders.. i.e., NOT the plants from saboteurs) know better and would NOT be breaking campaign laws.

It just isn't going to happen. And if any such thing did take place, Edwards would kick someone to the curb in a heartbeat.

There are a lot of corporatists who would LOVE to have one of their insiders in the Edwards campaign fucking things up. But I doubt that this is the case concerning the talk of forming this 527.

[LSK]

24. EDWARDS BUSTED FOR WORKING WITH UNIONS???

WILL THE LEFT WING EVER RECOVER FROM SUCH OUTRAGES?!?!?

:sarcasm:

[OneBlueSky]

25. looks like the powers that be are getting nervous about . . .

the populist bent of Edwards' campaign . . .

the very LAST thing any of them want to see is someone starting a public discussion of reigning in corporations -- which Edwards is trying to do . . .

and which, btw, Obama and Clinton are NOT doing . . .

[2rth2pwr]

26. Please, Edwards was doing this because he was investigating

how weak the campaign finance laws were. He was going to expose all!