Despite my uncertainty -- Here's some potential info about that "mysterious" Edwards supporter

[Armstead]

I say uncertainty because I have not been able to verify 100 percent this is the same attorney Alexander Forger mentioned in the latest mud slung in Edwards' direction.

However, I'm posting it because all I've seen here so far are repetitions of the same story that implies some shadowy attorney appears to be siphoning the money of some senile heiress into a slush fund for Edwards.

IF this is the same Alexander Forger found in a Google search, I'd say he has very good reasons for supporting Edwards which are totally consistent with Edward's political message. And IF it's the same A. Forger, I doubt he would be dumb enough to secretly embezzle the funds of a widow to support a worthy cause.

AGAIN I EMPHASIZE this is not an answer for 100 percent certain. I hope some enterprising DUers take this a step forward in terms of verification or filling in the blanks, in an effort to answer the "questions raised" in the equally half-assed information that the smears are based on.

----

American Lawyer -- Lifetime Achievement Awards
http://www.americanlawyer.com/LAA.html

Alexander Forger
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy

In private practice, Alexander Forger's clients are the kind of people for whom money is no object and influence is inherited; in public service, he has always dedicated his strongest efforts to those who have neither money nor influence. As chair of New York's Legal Aid Society, Forger helped bring top-level legal advice and assistance to the indigent. When he went to Washington to serve as president of the Legal Services Corporation under President Bill Clinton, he fought fiercely in Congress to rescue a federally funded program that gave poor people meaningful access to the courts, restructuring the organization to adapt to severe budget cuts and restrictions on the types of cases that it can take. If charity begins at home, then Forger's assistance to his partners came in the form of tough love: helping revitalize an old-fashioned firm and ensuring its competitiveness in the modern era of global business, while also urging a greater commitment to pro bono and public service.

----

Also see Newsmeat

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=10022&last=FORGER&first=ALEXANDER

[Armstead]

1. kick

[Flabbergasted]

2. From what I've read this makes a lot of sense. nt

[Andy823]

7. I agree

I think this whole thing just shows that some are really getting worried about Edwards winning, and so they come up with all kinds of crap just to try and make him look bad.

Of course all the attacks just prove to me he is the "one" we need in the Whitehouse! :woohoo:

[surfermaw]

This smells like Karl Rove

[surfermaw]

18. This smells like Karl Rove

[Armstead]

3. I'm gonna kick it again

As long as the unverified charges keep getting up there.

[Flabbergasted]

Thanks

[Flabbergasted]

5. Dupe

[last1standing]

4. From what I've read, no one knows that Mellon didn't want to donate.

Only that she hasn't done so recently although she does have a distinctly Democratic history. I can only say that without something concrete to go on this is just a MSM non-story that is being eaten up by the hatemongers and partisan hacks at DU. Of course, even if she didn't want to donate it doesn't fall on Edwards any more than the felon who donated to Clinton reflects on her. They are both non-issues.

[spooky3]

19. Rachel "Bunny" Mellon was a friend of the Kennedy family & a philanthropist

It seems reasonable to propose she is supportive of Democratic ideals.

She is an heir who married an heir and has a considerable fortune. $495,000 is not an unreasonable sum.

She did not "give the money to Edwards" as several posters have implied; she gave it to the 527. Edwards by law cannot attempt to control the 527.

If it's a flaw in the system that many candidates, including Obama, have benefited from, then critics should focus on the system and not single out one candidate.

All of this pales in comparison to the $$$ that Mittens Romney has at his disposal, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Lambert_Lloyd

[frazzled]

26. Bunny Mellon hadn't given a political donation since 1980

to anyone. That is according to records. Until suddenly this year, checks in her name and her company's name were made to Edwards.

Those are the facts. Make of them what you will. Personally, I think it would be odd for someone to not make a political donation for 27 years, and then suddenly, at age 97 ...

But, of course, there are people who do believe in fairies. ... I guess you have to set aside reality a bit to believe in a candidate who has as many contradictions as this one. Someone who stood up in front of the Democratic Convention and said "You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you" is suddenly capable of running the country and repairing its situation in the world. Jeebus.

[cali]

6. I'm pretty certain you're right

How many NY attorneys named Alexander Forger who represent wealthy candidates can there be. There's also a certain irony here: He worked for the Clinton administration which is now largely viewed on DU as "corporatist" and repuke light.

[frazzled]

8. Nothing illegal, but possibly highly unethical

Forger has power of attorney for Mrs. Mellon; he runs her corporation (which is a holding company for her considerable fortune). He can write checks from it. The question is whether it is ethical to be writing a corporate check for half a million dollars to a political 527 when Mrs. Mellon, who controls the company, may possibly be unable to understand the expenditure (she is 97 years old).

Second, this is not the only questionable issue about this 527. Other problems involve the email of October 8, on which the New York Times reported, from the organizers of the 527, baldly stating that they were talking to the Edwards campaign to coordinate. That is illegal. (Well, their all being lawyers probably assured that the 527 was not officially incorporated until after these discussions took place ... but again, highly unethical). Coordination between 527s and campaigns is strictly verboten.

Furthermore, this is not the first time Forger has done this. The company gave $250,000 in the fall of 2006 to another Edwards 527: One America. What did they use the money for? It appears it was used to do that push poll of theirs, via Peter Hart Associates.

You know, it's interesting how willing people are to overlook improprieties when the candidate is one they support. We all do it. Everybody else's stutters or sighs or low necklines are mountainous obstacles and gasp-worthy improprieties. Things like this are "whatever."

Ask yourself this: if this were Hillary Clinton, and a pro-Clinton 527 started running almost a million-dollars worth of support/attack ads, and it was found that the head of the 527 were a close associate of Clinton's who had run a previous campaign of hers, and the bulk of the money for the 527 came from a lawyer who had power of attorney for a nearly 100-year-old multi-millionairess, and an email was made public that suggested the head of the 527 was making plans to coordinate with the Clinton campaign ... would you think this is nothing?

I try to look objectively at all criticisms of all candidates. This is a valid issue.

[Adelante]

9. Either we want our elections to be about money or we don't

That's the part that's irking me. Even if Mrs. Mellon did knowingly give a half million dollars to this 527 and a quarter million to an earlier of Edwards's 527s, (and a DUer who knows the family says she is not senile), do we want any individual to be able to influence our elections just because they can afford to do it? It's as if campaign finance reform and election reform are meaningless trivialities as long as it's for a Democrat. How hypocritical do we get?

This is what Democracy 21 is saying about the current 527 situation, aside from Mellon, and how they are sliding around election laws:

In discussing the role being played by 527 groups in the 2008 presidential caucuses and primaries, some published media reports have stated that these political groups can raise and spend unlimited contributions in the presidential race, as long as they do not explicitly urge people to "vote for" or "vote against" a presidential candidate and do not coordinate their efforts with a presidential candidate or campaign.

This statement is wrong.

In fact, the Federal Election Commission found that numerous 527 groups illegally spent unlimited contributions in the 2004 presidential election, without explicitly urging people to "vote for" or "vote against" a presidential candidate, and without coordinating their efforts with a presidential candidate or campaign.

In a number of enforcement cases arising out of the 2004 presidential election and decided within the last year, the FEC found that these 527 groups had violated the campaign finance laws by failing to register as federal "political committees," and by failing to abide by the limits that apply to contributions made to such committees.

In each case, the Commission made a determination that the 527 group was spending money to influence the election or defeat of a presidential candidate, even though the group did not explicitly urge people to "vote for" or "vote against" a candidate. And in each case, the Commission found that the 527 group had a "major purpose" to influence federal elections.

-snip

"Despite the FEC findings of widespread illegal conduct by 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election, it appears that 527 groups are blatantly and arrogantly at it again in the current presidential race," Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer stated.

"These 527 groups are spending large sums of unlimited contributions on what they claim are 'issue ads' but what instead are unquestionably 'campaign ads' being run to influence the 2008 presidential election." Wertheimer said.

"Given the past FEC determinations that illegal expenditures were made by numerous 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election, no one should be making the assumption that the 527 groups currently spending millions of dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire are doing so legally," Wertheimer stated. "In reality, these 527 groups may be making illegal expenditures in 2008, just as 527 groups did in 2004."

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={F3CFEA71-36DA-4056-89EF-12168391CB5F}


I'm adding this picture of a mail piece by the 527 in question to illustrate Democracy 21's points above.

[Armstead]

14. The whole system sucks -- Too many loopholes.

I'm not going to vigorously defend Edwards' connection to this. He's working the system -- albeit on a much smaller scale than many other candidates.

But he is at least trying to clean up the system.

If there's going to be these grey area, I prefer it on a smaller scale than some of the mega stuff that goes on elsewhere.

[Luminous Animal]

25. The memo says no such thing.

I have posted the contents of the email several times (and I will again below) when this accusation is levied.

"Second, this is not the only questionable issue about this 527. Other problems involve the email of October 8, on which the New York Times reported, from the organizers of the 527, baldly stating that they were talking to the Edwards campaign to coordinate. That is illegal. (Well, their all being lawyers probably assured that the 527 was not officially incorporated until after these discussions took place ... but again, highly unethical). Coordination between 527s and campaigns is strictly verboten.
"

Every single time I have posted the email and have asked those who make this accusation to show me where there is coordination with the Edwards campaign.... *crickets*

It is fucking dishonest, so read the email and give me the courtesy of making your case based on your reading.

The following email is an intra-union email. That is, a communication among union members NOT shared with the Edwards campaign. It is a recap of a phone call among union members outlining the agenda of the phone call and talking points to further dialog to advance a strategy to support Edwards' candidacy. It in no way states, infers, or hints that there is or will be any communication between as yet unformed 527 and the Edwards organization.

The email in full:

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

[frazzled]

27. It says exactly what I said it says, and what the Times and other news organizations

were questioning:

"To discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us"

The fact that they were coordinating about future strategy before the 527 was formed only makes it the sleazier: they loopholed the entire thing by coordinating before the official roll out. C'mon folks, you know if you read this about Hillary you'd be kvelling.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Two different issues...

The unions were planning on talking to the Edwards campaign to strategize on support.

In another separate issue, they talked about starting a 527. There is no evidence presented in the email or in the NY Times article that the Edwards campaign knew about the 527 or that they communicated with the 527 after it was formed.

It is a fucked up day when Democrats criticize unions for discussing "what specific support" they are willing to offer a Democratic candidate. Will you also ask Obama and Hillary to disavow similar support from unions if either were to win the nomination?

Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Are we, as Democrats, now going to use innuendo from anti-union corporate media to slime union support of our candidates?


For the record, I was 100% against the sliming of Hillary by association with the unethical bundler.


This is pure swiftboating people, and the corporate oligarchy is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Luminous Animal]

29. It is not illegal for unions to work on campaigns.

I will say this again.

It is not illegal for unions to work on campaigns. They are, indeed, allowed to coordinate with campaigns. They are allowed to discuss plans on coordinating with campaigns to find out what specific support they need. You know, like yard signs, door to door volunteers, phone bank help, etc.

The email is quite clear:

1) The union that supports Edwards (that organizations of laborers - our allies), endorses and will work to support Edwards.

2) Another organization will be formed. Absolutely no mention is made of coordination between that organization and the Edwards campaign. You and the anti-union NY Times can infer that there might be, but there is no such assertion made in the email and neither you or the NY Times can make be believe in your own lyin' eyes.

[Catchawave]

10. I consider all the sources for "candidate smackdown" threads...

The OP's DU history of bitchslapping my candidate and the out-of-context quotes and facts from questionable sources they provide.

It's usually pretty shoddy, and for the life of me, can't understand why they don't notice "their candiate" would probably benefit more from all that time and trouble they spend on being negative :shrug:

[Armstead]

16. Can you cite a questionable source?

William Greider? The Nation?

I would like to know.

[Catchawave]

24. "Journalists" who provide partisan spin, mostly msm

from the WaPo, LAT and NYT blogs. If I see a particularly nasty article, I search articles on that person, and usually gives me an idea whether it's credible or not.

I usually respect progressive sources, even if they're critical of my candidate, I know they're on my side :D

[balantz]

11. Kick

[Armstead]

12. Kick again because this still keeps cropping up

[smokey nj]

13. K&R

[Beaverhausen]

15. The uproar about this story is hilarious to me

I mean, if indeed there is any wrongdoing by Forger, no one has any proof that Edwards has any idea that it was happening, do they?

And why is it so strange that someone, who probably realizes she doesn't have much longer to live, would want to put a part of her fortune to use to help the candidate she prefers?

edited cause I can't spel

[Armstead]

17. Becauase we all know she is automatically senile

And her lawyer is going to risk his career and his reputation to support a political candidate who can give him nothing in return.

[Beaverhausen]

20. Well, there are those who want to find any reason to criticize any candidate they don't support

so they jump on any story and try to make it worse than it is. I, personally, like to wait for more facts to come out before I make a judgement.

[SoxFan]

21. Oooh! A trade mag puff piece!

Well, that certainly settles it...

I've seen judges disbarred for tampering with client funds and breaching fiduciary duties. Last week, a former Concord, NH city councilwoman and ex wife of a state supreme court justice/congressman had her licensed stripped. There's another judge who is facing impeachment because she aided her husband, another supposed pillar of the legal community, hide his assets when facing legal action.

Some of the scuzziest lawyers I know are the ones who have the right diplomas, the right board memberships, and the right status in the community.

[Armstead]

22. I'm glad you absolutely know he breached his fiduciary duties

Did Mrs. Mellon call you and tell you?

[sjdnb]

23. Ignore ... just another noob with obviously no campaign experience

or understanding of campaign law ... trying to spin nothing into something to make some 'hay'.

[SoxFan]

30. Yeah, ok

Campaign manager for a state senate race.
Field and press staffer for presidential candidates.
Elected to public office myself four times.
Sponsored an overhaul of campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure laws.
Volunteer legal counsel for a congressional candidate.

But since I call b.s. on John Edwards, I'm a "noob"!