• 
• 
• 
• 
(Photo from MittRomney.com)
by Mark Silva
Old traditions die hard, veteran political reporter Thomas Edsall reminds us.
In the old days, precinct bosses liked to spread a little "walking around money'' to local clubs, paying precinct workers to get voters out to the polls and showing them how to vote.
These days, Republican Mitt Romney has revived the grassroots distribution of campaign cash in Iowa, where he is campaigning for his party's presidential campaign.
Read the work of Edsall and Ethan Hova from the Huffington Post's Eyes on the Money project, part of their Off TheBus campaign reporting and a result of closer reading of the Federal Election Comission's campaign finance reports.
See it here in the Swamp:
Romney Buys Conservatives
Thomas B. Edsall
and Ethan Hova
Even with the rise of the internet, podcasts and YouTube debates, there are some things in politics that never change.
One of the most controversial, but now forgotten, practices of political machines and big city bosses was the payment of "walk-around money" to local clubs and organizations. The money would go to pay precinct workers whose job it was to get their voters to the polls, armed with a printed sample ballot showing them how to vote.
Democrats cherished walk around money, and suburban Republicans hated it. "This is money we give back to the people that you keep for yourselves," Maryland Democratic House Speaker Thomas Hunter Lowe (1969-1973) once told Republican reformers trying to prohibit such payments.
Now, early in the 2008 campaign, a new variety of walk-around money has emerged according to Federal Election Commission reports investigated by the Huffington Post's OffTheBus project.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is distributing numerous payments, primarily to religious and social conservatives, most of them in Iowa, for what he calls "GOTV Consulting." "GOTV" is political shorthand for get-out-the-vote - just what walk-around payments financed.
"We pay the consultants to help organize and grow our volunteer base," Romney political director Carl Forti told the Huffington Post.
The payments start at $500 a month, the base rate for student leaders, many of whom are chairs in the "Iowa Students for Romney" campaign organization. At a higher level, Joe Earle, former director of the Iowa Christian Alliance (the successor to the Iowa Christian Coalition) gets $4,000 a month, and Gary Marx, a top-level member on the Romney for President National Faith And Values Steering Committee, gets $8,000 a month.
Marx said in an interview Thursday that in addition to the Romney campaign, he has a number of other corporate and interest group clients. "I'm point person, liaison with economic and social conservative organizations." He said he "regularly meets with leaders of those organizations at the state and national levels" on behalf of the Romney campaign.
The votes of Christian conservatives, especially those in Iowa, are crucial to Romney, whose campaign is premised both on winning Iowa and on winning the backing of the social right.
One of the major hurdles facing Romney is the exceptionally high level of suspicion of Romney's Mormon faith among fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant voters. Most of his GOTV consulting payments appear to be directed at building support precisely among these voters.
In just three months -- April, May and June -- the Romney campaign paid a total of $208, 874.19 to 68 individuals for GOTV consulting.
Forti said the campaign was following a precedent set by President Bush in the 2004 general election. Bush campaign finance reports from that period show 55 individuals receiving "political consulting" fees, generally of $1,000 or less, for a total of $113,309, but the Romney campaign could not confirm that these were the payments Forti referred to.
Some of the GOTV payments are for services only indirectly related to getting out the vote.
Take the case of Matt Rees. On December 1, 2006, Rees published a Romney profile titled "Mister PowerPoint Goes To Washington," in the American Enterprise Institute's magazine The American. Rees wrote:
"In a quest for the Republican nomination there's no question that Romney will be well organized and well prepared." Rees then quoted Staples Founder Tom Stemberg: "I have never met a better venture capitalist or corporate director than Mitt Romney. I suspect he will be an equally good president." The Romney campaign posted the Rees article on the campaign website.
Rees received two GOTV consulting fees of $7,500 each, the first on March 12, the second on May 1.
Rees said in an interview that the article was published before he became a consultant to and speechwriter for the Romney campaign. More recently, Rees has gone to work for the White House Writers Group - "No one can match our experience in shaping corporate strategies and crafting complex messages so that they are readily understood and accepted by the public" - which has received $22,500 from Romney for communications consulting.
The recipient of one of the smallest GOTV payments ($500), Michael Bahr, a student at Ellsworth Community College in Iowa Falls, said his involvement began with an e-mail to the Romney campaign asking the governor to come speak at his school. He then got a call asking if he'd like to help out, and was asked to set up student organizations at his school and to run and participate in phone banks. "I wait for them to call," he said. "I'm constantly talking to people, but I don't do anything until I'm instructed."
One of Romney's top-dollar GOTV consultants is Drew McKissick in Columbia, South Carolina , another crucial early primary state. McKissick, who has received $20,000, describes himself as an active social conservative, and says he is "plugging them (the Romney campaign) in with the pro-family community. I've got a network of people, I've been involved in the conservative movement and the Republican Party for over 20 years."
McKissick said Romney's Mormon faith becomes "less of a problem once you begin talking issues with people."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research for this report assisted by Jack Muse.
Comments
Hey Paulo,
Just think of the votes Edwards could buy if he just let his hair grow out!
Bruce,
Can't wait for your "You think this is bad, just wait till I tell you about what the Democrats have done (or are doing)" post. Be sure to add the reason why the demonic Trib is not reporting your finding.
Thanks and Good morning to all.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 27, 2007 7:59 AM
Romney can entertain himself with a play run for the Presidency but he is wasting our time. He can't get above the low double digits in the polls and his combination of weird religious background (not his fault, but what can you do)conservative beliefs and pro war stance make him virtually unelectable; Massachusetts has to have been a fluke. Maybe his election there was a reaction to the state's extremely liberal Senators and Representatives.
The Republicans, because of their candidates' insistence on supporting Bush's war and "immigration reform" as opposed to supporting real national security have already lost the election. No point in listening to their debates, unless you are a political junkie.
The race for President will be over at the Dem nominating convention.
The real Presidential debates are between Barack and Hillary. That is where the decision will be....because of their strong adherence to Bush's war, the Republicans candidates, including the
slightly sleazy Giuliani,
have already lost.
If you have something to complain about, say it to Barack and Hillary. And there is a lot to complain about.
Posted by: Helena | July 27, 2007 8:33 AM
Is he the only one doing this or are other candidates as well? If so, why aren't the other camps talking about how unethical it is?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | July 27, 2007 9:31 AM
So the "Swamp" now gets its stories from the far-left Huffington Post. The HuffPo where commenters routinely call for the death of Pres.
Bush and VP Cheney.
Why not just link to the DNC website, or to Pravda, and eliminate the middleman?
Posted by: Bruce | July 27, 2007 9:50 AM
Varmint Hunter $$$scouts$$$.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 27, 2007 10:45 AM
The land of denial is a delusionary place. It is so simple to ignore what's really very interesting in the political realm with a dogmatic rejection of a source of information. Take the Huffington Post, for instance. You may not subscribe to its views. But when its reporters -- in this case a hugely credentialled and senior correspondent such as Tom Edsall, who also has assumed an esteemed teaching role at Columbia -- produce interesting work, it behooves all of us to read it. Huff at the Huffington Post all you want. It has published a revealing piece of work, worth relaying here in this forum. And like my old friend Dave Barry likes to say, we aren't making this stuff up.
Posted by: mark silva | July 27, 2007 12:18 PM
Romney is actually looking for money this time around instead of giving his campaign more of his own money?
I'm shocked.
Posted by: John E | July 27, 2007 12:21 PM
Mark Silva,
Thanks for your response. I get so tired of hearing people on this blog simply dismiss what others are saying because it comes from a "partisan" site. Take the reaction anytime anyone posts a link from the NRO or other conservative site. Or, in this case, the knee-jerk dismissal of something from Huff. Sometimes, the truth is out there, whether we like the messenger or not.
Posted by: JB | July 27, 2007 12:40 PM
Mark,
You know Dave Barry?
Posted by: John E | July 27, 2007 1:01 PM
Well put Mark.
Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears. Bruce complains every day about bias in the media but routinely cherry picks polls and news stories to support his warped views. Then you have John D, who has somehow passed himself off as an editor but doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion. He also struggles with basic grammar.
Ultimately, it's the tired old response you get from these dopes every time they're backed into a corner:
1. Point out an ugly democrat to prove that two wrongs still don't make a right.
2. Blame Bill Clinton for something. Anything.
3. Question the source. Always question the source when you have nowhere else to go.
However, take comfort in the fact that these guys represent the flat earth crowd. We should give them all the respect they deserve; about 10%.
Posted by: Bubba | July 27, 2007 1:13 PM
I do indeed.
Posted by: mark silva | July 27, 2007 1:17 PM
Mark Silva,
So what's your dream laugh you're behind off dinner party?
Perhaps, Barry, Mike Royko, Molly Ivins?
I am soooo envious.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 27, 2007 1:59 PM
Dave Barry's article on the Clarence Thomas hearings is one of the funniest things I have ever read. Barry is a national treasure. Orrin Hatch, on the other hand, is a national embarrassment. He makes an effective spokesman for a certain soft drink company, though. I can see Borin' Orrin at one of the cafeterias on the Hill; "I'd like some freedom fries and a Coke, sans the pubic hair".
Posted by: dt | July 27, 2007 3:24 PM
Why can't Mitt enlist all those pimply-faced 19-year-olds in white shirts and name tags to "spread the word" for him. Since conservatives don't believe in separation of Church and State, and inasmuch as Mitt, like Bush, would be getting his consul from a much higher source, what's the problem?
Posted by: dt | July 27, 2007 3:33 PM
Since the "Swamp" won't mention this, I will, to provide equal time:
If you actually read HuffPo, you'll notice that the article was written by Tom Edsall, Ethan Hova and Jack Muse, with help from newassignment.net. Edsall is well known from his work for various left wing pubs, including the Washington Post. Hova appears to be an actor. Muse proclaims on his website that "I'm a proud member of the left..." New assignment is co-run by Amanda Michel, who was director of outreach policy for Howard Dean's 2004 campaign.
Ever wonder why "Swamp" reporter Mark Silva left this info out, info which helps the reader understand the bias of the sources used to denouce Republican Mitt Romney?
I'll be happy to criticize any "Swamp" article that similarly tries to pass off Conservative activists as unbiased sources. That hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it ever will.
Posted by: Bruce | July 27, 2007 6:28 PM
Bruce,
Thanks for your posts. You may be right, you may be wrong, but you sure are monotonously consistant. But you left out the part about how the democrats are do this vote buying thing too and how what they're doing is so much worse.
Hasn't the fair and balanced media give you these talking points yet?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 27, 2007 7:38 PM
Since Bruce implies that there is some kind of inherent bias in the reporting but fails to point to anything that supports that claim, I will.
If he cared to actually read the article, he would learn that it is a fantastic piece of fact based reporting.
Bruce, please explain to us how the writers used biased sources to denounce Romney. They are writing a piece on "walking around money" and interviewed five sources that are directly involved in the movement. They managed to get quotes and dollar amounts from the very people that are directly involved, all of whom are social conservatives. The article even takes a dig at the Democrats by claiming that they "cherished walk around money and the suburban Republicans hated it"
The fact that any of the writers are involved in left-leaning issues is irrelevant.
So please find anything in the article that is actually biased or innacurate.
I can only hope, for your clients' sake, that you are a better attorney than media watchdog.
Posted by: Bubba | July 27, 2007 7:38 PM
Romney's platform title;
'I ROBOT!!'
Posted by: C.Morris | July 27, 2007 9:16 PM
"Bubba", if you could read, you'd know that I was pointing to the bias in the "Swamp's" choice of what article to run, and the "Swamp's" failure to provide the necessary contesxt on who wrote the article. NOT the bias in the HuffPo article.
But since you can't respond in any intelligent way to what I wrote, you prefer to offer up personal attacks and truly silly commentary.
While I didn't address this point in my earlier post, yes the HuffPo article is hopelessly wrong. The authors put the label "walking around money" on the payments the Romney Campaign makes to its organizers. "Walking around money" was and is a term for the way big city machines (mostly Democrat) passed money to precinct workers in order to BRIBE voters. To PURCHASE votes, illegally. That's not what the Romeny campaign is doing.
They can label your dog a cat, but that doesn't mean your dog is a cat.
Posted by: Bruce | July 27, 2007 11:56 PM
Nice spin Bruce. From your own words:
"Ever wonder why 'Swamp' reporter Mark Silva left this info out, info which helps the reader understand the bias of the sources used to denounce Republican Mitt Romney"
Sorry Bruce, you are implying that there is bias by the writers in the HuffPo piece as to the sources they chose to use. Nice spin job claiming you are going after The Swamp's choice of articles. The sources used were all social conservatives directly tied to the "walking around money". Would you rather have them interview Obama supporters for the piece?
The fact that Mark Silva left out the useless drivel you provided linking the reporters to other left-wing pubs is because it is entirely irrelevant. By applying that standard to journalism, you could discredit anything ever written by anyone from any position. You can't find anything factually inacurate or even remotely biased in the piece but continue ad nauseum with the claim. You should try a different hobby.
Posted by: Bubba | July 30, 2007 10:52 AM