Ron Paul: Nepotism is his middle name

I'd forgotten, frankly, that Ron Paul was still running for president. Most of his batshit-crazy supporters (which of course includes all of them) seem to have quieted down, which is terrific, since they are all pretty much unglued in one way or another -- or, in many cases, more than one.

Anyway, the campaign continues, and now I think I know why: it's a great way to enrich Paul's own family!

Stick with your own kind, says [Paul,] the maverick presidential candidate.

And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting.

Campaign aides said they discussed the possibility that involving so many family members could create the impression that nepotism was driving hiring decisions, but ultimately they saw no problem with the practice.

"You always think about those kinds of things," said Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman and, it just so happens, the fiance of one of the candidate's granddaughters (he has been paid $54,573). "But his family is very important to him. There is something important about having a family element involved in a campaign. Having people around you that you can unconditionally trust."

Nice going, Paulistas. You keep pouring money into your racist whackjob hero's campaign, and he just passes it right on to his relatives. In fact, here's a handy chart (right) of the family money tree.

I mean, over $3,000 just to maintain a MySpace profile? Hey, I'm not on MySpace, but I'm on Facebook, so if ol' Ron wants to write me a $3,000 check, I'll happily keep track of him on Facebook.

I've been laughing at Ron Paul on this sucky blog for almost a year now. But now it appears the joke actually is on his supporters.

Holy Crap!™

$20 million.

That's how much debt the Hillary Clinton campaign has. That's a lot of cash, especially for someone whose campaign is basically on its last legs. And the calls for her to withdraw are growing louder.

With nearly everyone -- including, privately, many on her own team -- contemplating when, not if, she will quit the race, the questions surrounding Clinton now go largely to her motivation. Publicly, her campaign argues that victories in West Virginia and Kentucky could shift the growing tide of momentum for Obama back to her by demonstrating that she has appeal in states that Democrats must to win to take back the White House in November. What is unclear is whether she hopes strong performances will make Obama consider her for the No. 2 slot or at least help her retire her growing debt.

"I don't believe that Senator Clinton is looking for a deal," Obama strategist David Axelrod said on the same Fox show on which Wolfson appeared. Saying that Clinton "competed hard" and is "playing it out as she sees fit," he said the Clinton campaign is capable of deciding how to leave for itself. "I don't think she's waiting for a cue or a signal from us or an offer of financial assistance. And I think that would demean her to suggest otherwise," he said.

Axelrod added: "I don't think even under any scenario . . . that we were going to transfer money from the Obama campaign to the Clinton campaign. We obviously need the resources we have. We have a great task ahead of us."

There was, Axelrod said, "a misunderstanding out there about that." After reports that Michelle Obama, the senator's wife, has rejected the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket, Axelrod flatly said: "That's false." He said there have not been overtures made to the Clinton team to negotiate her departure from the campaign.

I really don't have a problem with an Obama-Clinton ticket -- in fact, I think it's pretty much unbeatable -- but I just don't know if Sen. Clinton can come to terms with the idea in terms of her ego and sense of entitlement. However, I continue to be frustrated by the apparent need by the mainstream media to emphasize Michelle Obama's influence, in much the same way they focused on Hillary Clinton's influence on her husband's campaign -- and his administration -- in the early 1990s. I can't imagine that Mrs. Obama has "rejected the ... Obama-Clinton ticket," but even if she had, so what? It's not her responsibility! She's not the candidate! (Neither is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for that matter, but I'll save that for another post.)

But $20 million is a big hole to climb out of, and I see absolutely no reason that Sen. Obama should feel obligated in any way to help her pay that off, considering the vitriolic campaign against him that Sen. Clinton has run. I have little doubt that Sen. Clinton will spin the shit out of her expected win in West Virginia (not sure what will happen in Kentucky), but she's not going to be able to ignore the naysayers, or the facts, for much longer.

Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and ... politics

The real national pastime, these days, is politics, specifically the presidential campaigns.

I'm not sure how I missed this report last month, but it's worthy of bringing up now: people affiliated with Major League Baseball have given presidential candidates over $267,000. And I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that the GOP has out-raised Democrats among the baseball community by a 59% to 41% margin.

Who's the biggest individual "winner?" This isn't surprising either:

[Rudy] Giuliani is the top recipient of baseball cash, scoring more than $78,000. The former New York mayor counts among his financial supporters Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and leaders of the Detroit Tigers, San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Angels.

Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella alluded to Yankees-Red Sox history, saying the campaign felt good about its baseball support. "Not quite as good as (Yankees owner) Jake Ruppert felt when he bought Babe Ruth from the Red Sox for a mere $100,000" in 1919, Comella said. "But pretty good nonetheless."

Hillary Rodham Clinton tops Democrats with nearly $50,000, including checks from people tied to the Los Angeles Dodgers, Milwaukee Brewers and Minnesota Twins. Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said the New York senator's haul shows even Bush's former colleagues "are clamoring for the change Hillary will bring."

Ken Kendrick, managing general partner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, said he doesn't expect anything for his donations to Arizona Sen. John McCain, Giuliani and Romney. "I hope to get a good leader for our country," he said.

Also supporting Giuliani is Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez; you also might recall Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling campaigning hard for Drunky McStagger immediately after the 2004 World Series.

I guess it's not really news that a bunch of sheltered, egocentric millionaires tend to favor Republicans ... after all, the sheltered, egocentric millionaire demographic really is the GOP's base.

The most powerful lobbyists you've never heard of

Often lost in the sea of pharmaceutical, tobacco, farm, and gun lobbyists who swarm official Washington and make headlines on a more than occasional basis is a less-known but in many ways more powerful and insidious presence -- with Florida connections to boot.

Big Sugar may be making a splash of sorts on network television this year, with the Dynasty-like drama Cane, but its influence has been felt in government on the state and federal level for decades. Sugar, of course, is big business in America and worldwide, and they use quite a bit of money for influencing legislators, who in turn are more than willing to accept it. Interestingly, my cursory research shows that it's Democrats more than Republicans who suckle at the teat of Big Sugar, probably because of Big Sugar's roots (no pun intended) in farming, its long relationship with farm unions, and/or its common use of migrant workers.

WaPo has an exposé of sorts (yes, it's predictably right-wing, but bear with me) into the Big Sugar lobbying world in today's edition:

When U.S. sugar farmers needed help this summer defending a $1 billion, 10-year subsidy plan in a new House farm bill, they found it in some surprising places.

Among the 282 lawmakers siding with Midwest and Gulf Coast growers on a key vote was Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who represents Queens and Manhattan's East Side. The only sugar refinery in the New York area is well outside her district.

Four days after she voted against a measure that would have derailed the new subsidy plan, Maloney hosted a fundraising event at Bullfeathers restaurant on Capitol Hill that netted $9,500 in contributions from sugar growers and refiners, according to Federal Election Commission records and Maloney's election attorney, Andrew Tulloch. Tulloch called the timing of the July 31 fundraiser -- dubbed a "sugar breakfast" on the campaign finance report of one group -- a "pure coincidence."

The House sugar vote illustrates the hold that agricultural interests maintain on farm policy even as the number of full-time commercial farmers has shrunk to a few hundred thousand. Sugar groups have used campaign cash and far-reaching alliances with labor unions and politicians to expand their influence far beyond the 15 states and few dozen congressional districts where sugar is grown by fewer than 6,000 farmers.

Along with Maloney, a raft of other Eastern lawmakers voted against eliminating the sugar provisions. All eight House members from Maryland, home to a Domino Sugar plant in Baltimore owned by the huge sugar concern Florida Crystals, voted sugar's cause. Four of them, and both Maryland senators, have received political contributions from Domino PAC. Other recent Democratic recipients in the House include West Virginia's Alan B. Mollohan, Pennsylvania's Chris Carney and Maine's Michael H. Michaud.

So far this year, nine sugar farm or refinery groups have made more than 900 separate contributions totaling nearly $1.5 million to candidates, parties and political funds, according to federal election records and CQ MoneyLine. American Crystal Sugar Co., a Minnesota-based sugar-beet cooperative with 3,000 members, has made 317 contributions totaling $819,000. In July alone, its political fund contributed more than $70,000 to 26 House members, 24 of whom sided with it on the July 27 sugar vote.

"When you take on Big Sugar, you take on a huge political money operation," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), a co-sponsor of the amendment that drew the sugar industry's ire.

As a professional fundraiser in Florida, I've seen firsthand that Big Sugar is a force to be reckoned with in philanthropy as well as government. People outside Florida may think that America's Wang™ is just beaches, the Everglades, and Mickey Mouse, but if you drive across the state as I do regularly (as recently as yesterday), you see the real engine that drives Florida is agriculture. And while citrus plays a large role, as does the cattle ranching industry, the sugar interests have accumulated enormous wealth and are finding increasingly creative and influential ways to use it.

One way is with this proposed subsidy, which is intended to protect the sugar industry against expected incursions from Mexico once protectionist restrictions in NAFTA expire next year. Even biofuels may be affected, as sugar is seen as a potential source of ethanol (whether it's efficient, however, is another matter).

So it may be somewhat hypocritical of Democrats to deride the influence of corporate money in Republican coffers. The saving grace, of course, is that Big Sugar tends to spread its wealth more equitably, by providing a large number of union jobs and hiring a lot of unskilled labor. But I assure you, the sugar CEOs gradually are moving into the earnings stratosphere with the oil barons and business mavens.

Talk about an expensive date ...

I know it will come as a shock to those of us who know how deeply Katherine Harris values her faith and integrity, but she seems to have gotten herself mixed up with some rather nefarious characters ... I'm sure it's just a big misunderstanding, though, right, Kitty?

A campaign contributor who once wined and dined former Rep. Katherine Harris agreed Wednesday to pay a $1 million fine -- the second-largest in the Federal Election Commission's 32-year history -- for breaking campaign laws by funneling corporate contributions to Harris and another member of Congress.

The fine came as defense contractor Mitchell Wade reached a settlement with the FEC, acknowledging that he used $78,000 in corporate funds to reimburse employees and their spouses for contributing to Harris, a Sarasota Republican who lost a 2006 race for U.S. Senate, and Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va.

My goodness. Harris in the mix with Mitchell Wade and Virgil Goode? You remember Wade, don't you? He's the guy who pleaded guilty to bribing disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Of Course) of California. As for Goode, you may recall his bigoted rant about Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, using the Koran for his swearing-in ceremony. So, that's a real bunch of winners you're hanging out with, Kitty.

On the campaign trail in 2006, Harris acknowledged that Wade had picked up a $2,800 dinner tab when the two dined at the upscale Citronelle restaurant in Washington. She said then that the bill was so high because Wade bought several expensive bottles of wine to take home and that she had expected her campaign to "reimburse" Wade for her share of the meal. She said she would give $100 to charity -- the cost she calculated for her part of dinner.

Wade time was angling for multimillion-dollar government contract. Harris sponsored, but did not secure, a $10 million earmark that would have benefited MZM.

Some years ago in Tallahassee, I met with a member of Gov. Bush's cabinet. When I tried to pick up the tab for lunch, the cabinet member demurred and explained that because of finance rules, we would have to pay for our own meals separately. It's kind of surprising to me, therefore, that a member of Congress wouldn't know that allowing a lobbyist to pick up the tab for a $2,800 meal might be illegal.

Or maybe she did know and just didn't care? It would be irresponsible not to speculate ...

If money talks, a lot of Republicans are quiet

The demise of the short-lived presidential campaign of Jim "Who?" Gilmore (R-Va.) suggests that some others aren't far behind.

According to PoliticalMoneyLine, several other contenders are not doing all that well financially either, especially on the GOP side. Here's the tally for all candidates as of yesterday's reporting deadline:

Republicans

Sam Brownback: $1.4 million raised in 2d quarter (April 1-June 30), cash on hand $460,236.
Rudy Giuliani: $17.6 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $18.3 million.
Mike Huckabee: $765,873 raised in 2Q, cash on hand $437,169 (less $31,045 in debts).
Duncan Hunter: $814,417 raised in 2Q, cash on hand $212,927.
John McCain: $11.6 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $3.2 million (less $1.8 million in debts).
Ron Paul: $2.37 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $2.355 million. (see update below)
Mitt Romney: $21 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $12.1 million (less $8.9 million in debts).
Tom Tancredo: $1.46 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $598,451 (less $15,000 in debts).
Tommy Thompson: $486,555 raised in 2Q, cash on hand $121,648 (less $127,434 in debts).


Democrats

Joe Biden: $2.45 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $2.77 million.
Wesley Clark (not declared): $44,991 raised in 2Q, cash on hand $153,845.
Hillary Clinton: $27 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $45.2 million (less $3 million in debts).
Chris Dodd: $3.3 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $6.4 million.
John Edwards: $9.1 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $13.34 million.
Mike Gravel: $130,510 raised in 2Q, cash on hand $31,141 (less $64,716 in debts).
Dennis Kucinich: $757,035 raised in 2Q, cash on hand $213,269.
Barack Obama: $33.1 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $36.26 million (less $922,848 in debts).
Bill Richardson: $7.1 million raised in 2Q, cash on hand $7.1 million (less $61,104 in debts).

Also available are summary totals covering all money raised for all declared candidates thus far, if you just can't get enough of this stuff (and you know who you are).

So, two candidates -- Tommy Thompson (R) and Mike Gravel (D) -- are officially in the red, but no fewer than five four other Republicans have less than $600,000 in hand (as compared with only two other Democrats, one of whom has not declared his candidacy).

Surprises? I've got a few (but then again, too few to mention ... aw, hell, I'll mention 'em anyway):

• Mitt "Dog Torturer" Romney is in a surprisingly precarious financial situation. He's raising a lot, but he's spending it almost as fast as he can raise it, and with a net total of only $3.2 million in his coffers (cash in hand less debts and obligations), his real numbers have him way behind Giuliani.
• John McCain is in trouble ... he's only got about $1.4 million in net proceeds available, and his campaign is leaking staffers and money badly. In fact, as I discovered from my update below, McCain actually trails Ron Paul in terms of net money on hand. John, that's your signal to exit stage right ...
• It's a two-person race for the lead on the Democratic side with Clinton and Obama well out in front, but John Edwards isn't necessarily a lock for third as the year progresses; both Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd are doing fairly well (but, then again, neither is spending very much).
• Dennis Kucinich continues his bare-bones campaign, but that's kind of been his style all along, hasn't it?

I look for Tommy Thompson and Mike Gravel to follow Gilmore's lead and bow out relatively soon. The rest will hang on as long as they're in the black, but unless a clear third option appears on the Democratic side, it looks like it's going to be a two-person race in both parties ...

Of course, if Al Gore and Fred Thompson jump in, all bets are off. (Run, Al, run!!)

UPDATE (1:07 pm 7/16/07): Thanks to an e-mail from Bret, I've been informed that PoliticalMoneyLine is wrong about Ron Paul's numbers. Apparently they posted data from an amended first quarter report that was filed on Saturday, but they reported it as the 2Q numbers.

The correct 2Q numbers for Paul come directly from the FEC's website; I've redirected the link above as well. Thanks, Bret.