2 o  o 2 SELECTION new zeroing the ballot count big brother wins Rep. P. Deutsch media melt machinations & manufacture earliest candidate protection initiative Bustamante re '03 CA gub. recall émigré ballot payroll Zion Ilan Ramon Soviet Hispanola AZ 2006 dirt gap viral video 9.11.01 malfunction patriot Ashcroft top gun Patsy Mink Common Dreams Talion.com Vote Watch Black Box Voting Did GWBush steal 2004 election Paul Kocher Scoop Deacon Alexander Larry Sinclair Democracy 21 LoC Eric Blumrich D.C. sniper impact The Party's Over Myth of the Rational Voter He got on the wrong train. He was headed to New York from Philadelphia, but wound up in Baltimore instead. We can't be sure of how it happened. [   ed.   He was drunk from partying all night with friends not long after being beaten so soundly by a thug commissioned by an affronted woman that Poe was left with brain lesions. ] We can't be sure of a lot of things that happened to Edgar Allen Poe between Sept. 27 when his train arrived and October 7, 1849 when he died of something in Washington College Hospital. We don't know what killed him. People have spent 160 years sifting through the clues trying to figure it out. Even if he was exhumed and exhaustively tested, the results might definitively indicate cholera or a brain lesion or alcohol poisoning but that would only explain why he died, not what killed him. We know Poe was going to be married a few weeks later. His first wife Virginia, a first cousin and love of his life, had died two years earlier, age 13 to his 27 when they married. One day in 1842 when she was playing the piano, she started coughing. As her consumption got worse, so did her husband's already problematic drinking. After she died, he met a poet who he asked to promise marriage if he stopped boozing. She did, but he couldn't. Soon he was calling on his childhood sweetheart who he was going to marry before he got on the wrong train. We know that Poe was in rough shape before he arrived in Baltimore. Something made him wind up delirious and battered near death stretched out on a wooden plank outside a saloon on Lombard St. wearing another man's filthy clothes. Something made him shiver and hallucinate, slipping in and out of coma, shouting and flailing until he had to be strapped into his hospital bed. It was probably local politics. In that saloon was a polling place in the city's 4th Ward and the Whig party needed a big turnout. Poe seems to have spent his last day before fatal hospitalization voting. Kidnapped by thugs and dragged from polling place to polling place forced to vote over and over again, sometimes forced to switch clothes so they could vote repeatedly at the same polling place, compliance assured by getting the involuntary voters drunk or high on opium, beaten and locked in small rooms until time to go back out to vote, common practice of the time called cooping, because the dragooned voters were cooped up. The first American writer trying to make his living by writing without family money, or a reverend's or professor's salary, spent his last day forced into voter fraud before being dumped to die in a bar. Memory Palace   episode 22,   N. DiMeo

Wash.D.C.   A much-delayed bill to create a new domestic security agency gained key congressional support Tuesday and appears all but certain to become law, a development that would hand President Bush a long-sought legislative victory. As Congress returned for a lame-duck session, support for the president's proposed Dept of Homeland Security fell rapidly into place as Democrats concluded they could no longer resist Bush in a dispute over the rights of govt employees who would move into the agency.

House GOP leaders planned to force a vote as early as today on a final version of the bill that would give Bush most of the management powers he wanted, incl right to waive labor agreements when the president determines national security is at stake. A critical stumbling block in the bill's approval has been whether the administration could revise civil service rules and void labor agreements to boost the president's ability to respond to terrorist threats.
The Senate was poised to act within days despite the misgivings of senior Democrats, as the erosion of opposition reflected GOP electoral gains. The GOP will maintain control of the House and take over the Senate in the next Congress. "There is no doubt that the supporters of [Bush's bill] are in a better negotiating position following the elections of last week," Sen. Ben Nelson D-NE, Sen. John B. Breaux D-LA and Sen. Lincoln Chafee R-RI acknowledged in a joint statement. The three centrists announced that they plan to vote for a slightly modified version of the Bush bill, giving the White House position a small majority. Most GOPs back the president on the issue; most Democrats oppose him.
Democrats could still mount a filibuster to block the bill, but an aide to Senate majority leader Daschle D-SD said such maneuvering was unlikely to succeed. A filibuster could damage the reelection hopes of another Senate Democrat in a runoff election in Louisiana. Democrats do not want to force Sen. Mary Landrieu to explain a homeland security impasse as she campaigns in her 12.7.02 runoff against GOP challenger Suzanne Haik Terrell.

In addition to giving Bush a major legislative victory, the bill's enactment would clear the way for a belated adjournment of the 107th Congress. Other legislation remains to be settled, incl bankruptcy reform, terrorism insurance and annual govt spending, but homeland security had been the predominant outstanding issue. The bill would create a mammoth new Cabinet dept, with roughly 170,000 employees drawn from 22 federal agencies. Thousands more workers could be heading into the department as the fast-growing federal aviation security force takes shape.
The final push came after months of stalemate. The House passed its first version in July with a large bipartisan majority, an action Bush praised. The bill then bogged down in the Democratic-led Senate as the two parties failed to reach agreement on worker rights. With White House support, GOP senators filibustered a Democratic version of the bill before the election.

After the GOPs gained enough seats in last week's election to take full control of Congress, Bush pressed his advantage. He called for passage of the bill during the lame-duck session despite the initial suggestion from Senate GOP leaders that the bill be held over until next year. Sen. Trent Lott R-MS, who will soon become majority leader, called Nelson on Friday night to begin negotiations. On Sunday, staff members of Nelson, Breaux and Chafee met with those of Lott and the White House. Lott then vetted the proposal with House GOP leaders. Afterward, the 3 centrists met and reluctantly agreed Tuesday to give their support. Govt unions denounced the labor-management provisions in the bill. They said GOPs had yielded little to their demands for a stronger union role in the new civil service rules and a stronger check on the president's national- security waiver power. "The modifications are so negligible as to be meaningless," said American Federation of Govt Employees legislative dir. Beth Moten. She said the union would "strongly oppose" the bill. National Treasury Employees Union pres. Colleen Kelley also was opposed. The two unions represent nearly 50,000 of the workers heading into the new department. Many details of the final bill were not immediately known Tuesday night. But a 450-page draft circulating on Capitol Hill contained these provisions, according to congressional aides:   The secretary of the new dept could revise civil service rules to give the president more latitude to hire, fire, demote and promote the workers he wants. If govt unions object, they could seek changes and ask a federal mediator to step in. But the mediator's recommendations would not be binding. The president could also waive collective bargaining rights of govt employees if he notifies Congress that national security is in jeopardy.   Much of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not previously affected by the legislation, would move from the Treasury Dept to the Justice Dept.   A Homeland Security Council would be established within the White House to coordinate domestic response to terrorist threats, somewhat analogous to the National Security Council's role in foreign affairs.   Airline pilots would be permitted to carry firearms as a last defense against hijackers. Also, there would be a potential extension of up to one year of a deadline for airports to ensure that all checked baggage is run through bomb-detection machines. The deadline is 12.31.02, but many airports are likely to fail to comply. The bill, however, apparently omits a proposal to establish an independent commission to investigate 9.11.01. Daschle was not won over by the compromise, even though it appears likely he will not seek to kill the bill through filibuster. "We all recognize the need for a fundamental overhaul of the way in which we approach America's homeland security," Daschle said in a statement. He said he favored a preelection proposal offered by Nelson, Chafee and Breaux that would give workers more power and would not support "any attempt to weaken that compromise." Daschle added: "There may be differences of opinion on different components of the legislation, but there is no disagreement that we need to complete our work on this bill promptly." Bush met with GOP leaders and the new interim senator from Minnesota, independent Dean Barkley, who was sworn in Tuesday to fill out the term of the late Democrat Paul Wellstone, to push for final approval of his plan. "I'm going to press people right now in a very gentle way in saying let's get a homeland security bill done, one that enables this country to be able to respond to threats, one that enables the president to be able to put the right people at the right place at the right time," Bush told reporters. At its core, the dept would be an anti-terrorist organization, spearheading defense of the nation's borders, airports and seaports from sudden attacks. It would include the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service, the Border Patrol and many other agencies. It would be the third-largest federal dept, following Defense and Veterans Affairs. Conceived in response to 9.11.01, the department was first pushed by Democrats. Bush embraced the idea last June and then shaped it to his liking. If the bill is enacted, he would preside over the most significant govt reorganization since Pres. Truman oversaw the creation of the modern Pentagon & national security agencies after World War II. Advocates said the reshuffling would bring a much-needed focus to an often-scattershot govt response to terror. "Finally, we will have a strategy to protect the homeland," Rep. Jane Harman D-Venice CA said. "This is the beginning of the solution to homeland vulnerability. It will become law I'm hoping this week."   [ Legislating against foreign mercenaries & irregulars turned banditti is useless. Put the military at the command of public safety & law enforcement, not in command of them since the issue is security, not defense. Diplomacy can be negotiated, but not mandated, least by imperial plutarch scions. ]

Bush purges tax-cut foes 12.6.02   Matthew Goldstein The Street.com On a day the nation's unemployment rate reached its highest level in 7 months, Pres. GWBush moved to shake up his economic policy team and eliminate one of the staunchest administration critics of further fiscal stimulus. Economic experts say the resignations of Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill & Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay weren't a surprise. There's been speculation in political circles for months that the White House would move to revamp its economic policy team after the November election. … O'Neill, whose habit of speaking his mind on everything from Enron to the economy had caused political headaches for the Bush administration and occasionally thrown currency markets into turmoil. It's likely the White House could name a successor to O'Neill as soon as next week to avoid unsettling the stock market. "My guess is these resignations wouldn't have been announced if they didn't have a name ready," said credit rating agency Standard & Poor chief economist David Wyss. "O'Neill had lost credibility. There was this feeling they needed to do a housecleaning on the economic policy side." … speculation … for a successor to O'Neill. Several weeks ago, Charles Schwab's name circulated. The discount brokerage king played a major role in a White House economic policy forum. Other potential candidates, according to Bank of America Securities chief economist Mickey Levy, are Treasury undersecretary Peter Fisher; White House Council of Economic Advisors chair Glenn Hubbard and Harvard Univ. prof. Martin Feldstein. Fisher, who voted this week to deny an emergency govt loan to United Airlines, …. Economic & policy experts say the president also may want to send a message to the public that the White House is going to spend more time focusing on the economy, especially in light of the surprising three-tenths of a percent rise in the nation's unemployment rate. But experts differ about the kind of fix the White House may settle upon to stir the ailing economy. In recent days, there have been rumblings in Washington that the Bush administration will push for a new round of tax cuts, esp. now that the Republicans will control both houses of Congress. One the White House is said to be looking at is a reduction in the tax on stock dividends. Yale Univ. finance prof. Roger Ibbotson, economic consulting firm Ibbotson Assoc. president, said reduction in tax on dividends is useful because it encourages more investment in the stock market and prompts more companies to make payouts. He favors taxing dividends, such as capital gains, rather than an outright elimination of the tax. "If you tax capital gains & dividends differently, then you end up setting up tax arbitrages," said Ibbotson. Right now, dividends are taxed twice, once at the corporate level and a second time for individuals. Push for new tax cuts may be speeded by O'Neill's departure because the former Alcoa chief executive was believed to have been resistant to more tax changes. "O'Neill has been the most opposed to Pres.GWBush's tax cut plan," said Merrill Lynch's sr economist Gerald Cohen in a research note to customers. "With O'Neill's departure, Bush now likely has full support from his cabinet for his tax cut." However, liberal economic policy experts fear the White House will now seek to replace O'Neill with an aggressive tax-cutting proponent. They say more tax cuts won't necessarily create more jobs. "Unfortunately, the administration seems to think that a tax cut is the sole solution to every economic problem," said liberal think tank Economic Policy Institute pres. Lawrence Mishel. In his resignation letter, O'Neill, first member of Bush's cabinet to resign, said: "It has been a privilege to serve the nation during these challenging times." His tenure at Treasury was controversial almost from day one after he initially vowed to keep nearly $100 million worth of Alcoa stock while in office. After a firestorm of controversy, he agreed to sell the stock. While O'Neill is the first cabinet member to resign, he is the second high-profile Bush appointee to announce he was stepping down under fire. Last month, SEC chair Harvey Pitt announced he would step down after a series of missteps. 9.11.01 commission complains of "intimidation" & stonewalling   7.18.03   Patrick Martin WSWS … "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon U.S." was established last fall, more than a year after 9.11.01 after opposition by Bush admin. The White House backed down only in the face of protests by 9.11.01 victims' families which threatened to embarrass the admin weeks before Nov. 2002 congressional elections. Bush initially appointed former Sec. of State Kissinger as commission's chair … Kissinger stepped down within 2 weeks, refusing to make public his MidEast business connections & activities. … New 9.11.01 commission chair had business ties with Osama's brother-in-law   12.27.02   CRG   ¹ Michel Chossudovsky, prof. economics, Univ.Ottawa Former NJ gov. Thomas Kean, chosen by Pres.GWBush to chair 9.11.01 commission also has business ties with bin Mahfouz & Al-Amoudi. Kean is a Amerada Hess Corp. dir. & shareholder, which is involved in the Hess-Delta joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia (owned by bin Mahfouz & Al-Amoudi clans). Thomas Kean also sits as co-chair of the Homeland Security Project (HSP) under the auspices of the Century Fdtn. In this capacity, Kean played key role in draft recommendations of Century Fdtn which laid groundwork of Office of Homeland Security legislation. Kean is also a Council on Foreign Relations member, together w/ prominent Amerada Hess bd member former Sec.Treasury Nicholas Brady. Deutsch skipped Patriot Act vote   Hollywood congressman campaigned for the U.S. Senate instead of casting a vote watched closely by civil libertarians.   7.10.04   Beth Reinhard Miami Herald U.S. Rep. Peter Deutsch missed a tie-breaking vote in Congress on Thursday in which his fellow Democrats fell one vote short of stopping govt from demanding records from libraries and booksellers, one of the most controversial provisions of the antiterrorism Patriot Act. Instead of participating in the vote, which ended 210-210, the congressman representing Broward & Miami-Dade counties was campaigning for the U.S. Senate. He attended a Ft Lauderdale rally for the Democratic presidential ticket, a debate in Sun City, near Tampa, and a Democratic club meeting in St. Petersburg. Deutsch said he has skipped campaign events before when House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi signals he is needed for a critical vote. That didn't happen this time. "If she needs my vote, I come," Deutsch said in a telephone interview Friday. He added: "I want to spend the next six years fighting for Florida in the U.S. Senate. If I'm not campaigning, I can't do that." Deutsch's absence during the vote in Washington reflects the challenge of balancing public and campaign responsibilities. Of Deutsch's main Democratic rivals, Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas faces a similar challenge, while former state education commissioner Betty Castor does not currently hold elected office. Castor & Penelas campaigns said they support amending the Patriot Act. Deutsch said he too would have voted for the amendment and that he backs another proposed change, which would prevent law enforcement from conducting searches without a judge's oversight. "The Patriot Act needs to strike a balance between its benefits and intrusions on civil liberties," said Deutsch, who voted in favor of the original, post-Sept. 11 legislation. Patriot Act presents a tricky issue for Democrats eager to assert their anti-terrorism credentials but uncomfortable with some of the govt's new detention and surveillance powers. The vote among the Florida delegation followed party lines, with Democrats voting in favor of barring federal inquiries into suspects' reading habits and Republicans voting against it. U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings of Miramar also missed the vote, because he was in Scotland at a pan-European security conference with 11 other members of Congress. The vote triggered fierce criticism of Republican leaders, who delayed closing the vote so that some members could switch sides and kill the amendment. "It's a slap to democracy, and it's unfortunate that the House leaders would hold a vote open like that for political reasons," said U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, who advocates the creation of a federally appointed privacy watchdog. "It's another setback for the civil liberties afforded all Americans."

Running against the boogeyman Party of ideas? Not the GOP 10.29.06   Jonathan Chait L.A. Times When Republicans explain their strategy for the upcoming election, the two phrases they always use are "referendum election" and "choice election", and the latter is how they want to frame this year's vote. A referendum election is one in which voters make their decision on the basis of whether the party in power deserves to stay there. From the Republicans' point of view, that's very bad because almost everybody believes they have failed miserably. A choice election, on the other hand, is one in which voters weigh the two parties against each other. That kind of election gives the Republicans a fighting chance. The subtext of a choice election is: We may have screwed everything up, but the other party is worse. That's how President Bush won reelection. In principle, the Republicans are right about this. Democracy is a process of compromises and imperfect choices. Asking the voters to compare the two sides is the right thing to do. The trouble is, that isn't really what the Republicans want to do at all. Democrats running for the House of Representatives actually have an agenda. Republicans aren't saying why the Democratic agenda is wrong, or why their own is better. They're just ignoring it. If you're like most people, you probably have no idea what that agenda is. Let me list it:   Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation.   Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.   Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.   Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half.   Allow govt to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.   Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.   Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax hikes. Republicans disagree with all these items. Indeed, the reason these items are on the Democratic agenda is that Republicans in Congress have blocked them from coming up for a vote. Shouldn't the GOP offer some rebuttal? "Raising the minimum wage would kill millions of jobs," or, "Pay-as-you-go budget rules will require tax hikes or cuts in your Medicare benefits," or, "Why should we waste billions of dollars preventing terrorist attacks that haven't even happened yet?" Republican political consultants could do better. We're not even getting a debate about a caricature of the Democratic position, let alone the actual one. Instead, we're getting things like this: GOP Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana is running an ad warning that if Democrats take power and California Democrat Nancy Pelosi becomes House speaker, she "will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home." What is the homosexual agenda? The ad does not say. Apparently it involves raising the minimum wage and cutting the interest rate on govt backed student loans. If the Democrats win, all those gay Wal-Mart employees, cackling with glee as they use their fat $7.25-an-hour salaries to pay off their suddenly puny college debts. Which is my point. Republicans don't want an actual choice election, they want to run against a mythological Democratic Party so frightening that the voters overlook all the GOP's failures. Not all the Republican campaigns are as vicious and mindless as Hostettler's. But nearly all of those campaigns are trying to run against a boogeyman. They raise the specter of a radical Democratic agenda, but they refuse to say what they don't like about that agenda for a good reason: It's popular.

Spinning out of an electoral beating   The GOP is wrong to assert that its electoral thumping doesn't really reflect voters' values. 11.12.0606   Jonathan Chait L.A. Times At his news conference after Tuesday's elections, President Bush struck a note of reassurance. "I have a message for those on the front lines," he said. "To our enemies, do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will…. To our brave men and women in uniform: Don't be doubtful. America will always support you." Why would terrorists or U.S. soldiers think electing Democrats would suggest a lack of will or support for the troops? Because Bush had been saying so. "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses," he told a GOP crowd in October. "That's what's at stake in this election." It's a political tradition for candidates on both sides to immediately change their tune after an election. Last week, Democrats were ripping Bush to shreds, and now they're promising to work with him. Still, even by these standards, the GOP turnabout has been unusually abrupt. Suddenly they're all but admitting that everything they had said before the election was a lie. Beginning as early as election night, the conservative spin asserted that Democrats had won by running as ideological ciphers. "Democrats, in my mind, don't have a mandate because they stood for nothing," said conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. From a Wall St Journal editorial: "While a thumping defeat for the GOP, the vote was about competence, not ideological change." Of course, the Journal, and every other Republican organ, has been insisting for months that Democrats are a bunch of left-wing tax lovers. They have endlessly repeated a quote by incoming Democratic House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel of New York, who, when asked which Bush tax cuts he'd extend, replied that he couldn't think of one. Bush repeated this quote as recently as 2 days before the election. Presumably, some people actually believed the president when he said this. Now they tell us that a vote for the Democrats was really a vote to continue GOP policies. Conservatives are right that there were plenty of nonideological reasons for the Democratic victory. People were frustrated about Iraq, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Republican corruption and scandals and (though conservatives won't admit this last one) an economy that isn't raising most people's living standards. So it's perfectly true that the election should not be interpreted as a line-item endorsement of the Democratic agenda. Yet that's almost always the case. 4 years ago, George W. Bush won reelection in large part because he happened to be in office 9.11.01, 2001, and also because nobody could stand John Kerry. That didn't stop conservatives from insisting that voters had signed up for his domestic and foreign agenda in its entirety. The Journal's 2004 postelection editorial called Bush's victory "a decisive mandate for a second term" and proceeded to explain why voters had endorsed measures such as privatization of Social Security. Possibly the funniest about-face in last week's elections came from Rush Limbaugh, who gleefully declared that, with the elections over, "I no longer am gonna have to carry the water for people who I think don't deserve having their water carried." It's nice for Limbaugh to concede that up until this point he had simply been a GOP mouthpiece. But maybe he should have let his listeners in on the secret before.

Not-so-true believers   Once again, GOP candidates are pandering to the religious right. Why believe them? 12.17.06   Jonathan Chait L.A. Times Looking over the field of potential GOP presidential candidates, one odd thing jumps out at me: Most of them have expressed deep hostility to the religious right's point of view in the past, and several of them are now insisting that they didn't mean a word of it. One way to look at this is to conclude that they all said or did things they didn't mean, or that they have genuinely come around to the social conservative position. Oddly enough, this is the interpretation many social conservatives seem inclined to accept. The other, more logical interpretation: The Republican Party's governing class is deeply hostile to social conservatism, and its leaders manage to fool the base over and over again. This delicate situation was thrown into stark relief last week when Bay Windows, a Boston newspaper covering gay and lesbian issues, published an interview it had conducted with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 1994. Romney, now a leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, had characterized the religious right as "extremists," said he essentially had the same position on gay rights as Ted Kennedy and cast himself as an heir to his moderate father, George Romney, the Michigan governor who walked out of the 1964 Republican convention to protest Barry Goldwater. Those positions certainly seem believable. Mitt Romney had run as a supporter of abortion rights and legislation protecting gays from on-the-job discrimination. But he has since reversed both positions, and an advisor insisted that Romney had been "faking it" as a pro-choicer, explaining that he had to do it because social conservatism is unacceptable to the voters of Massachusetts. Social liberalism is unacceptable to GOP primary voters, right? So maybe, just maybe, Romney is faking it now, and all that stuff he said about gay rights and the influence of his moderate father was genuine. This would be bad enough for social conservatives if Romney were the moderate in the race. But, in fact, he's the current favorite among social conservatives. Indeed, social conservatives don't even want to hear about Romney's scandalously tolerant past. Brian Camenker, a right-wing activist who has been sounding the alarm bells about Romney, has gotten a frosty reception from his fellow religious conservatives. " 'Why are you attacking Romney?' " they keep asking him, according to my colleague Ryan Lizza. "He's better than Giuliani and McCain.' " The GOP primary is indeed a sorry state of affairs for the religious right. Sen. John McCain of Arizona once described religious-right leaders as "forces of evil" and has mused that he would not support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. More recently, McCain, like Romney, has backed off his moderate statements, not surprising, given the furor they provoked. But McCain is even less credible in his newfound conservatism; only a total naif could believe him now. A general rule of political life is that when a candidate says something unpopular off the cuff and then takes it back in prepared remarks, you can be sure that the original statement is what he really thinks. Meanwhile, the other leading contender, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, is pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights. When he left his second wife, Giuliani actually moved in temporarily with a gay couple. I have to give Giuliani credit. Unlike Romney and McCain, he has admirably declined to discover a new set of deeply held social convictions. Of course, there's plenty of time until Iowa.

spin Voter News Service meltdown halts exit poll data 11.6.02   Howard Kurtz Wash.Post pA25 The polling service that humiliated the television networks on Election Day 2 years ago suffered a meltdown yesterday, depriving news organizations of the crucial data used to project winners and analyze voting patterns. Voter News Service, a consortium of the major networks and the Associated Press, pulled the plug on its exit polls after concluding that its computer analysis could not be trusted. The result was to greatly slow the usual drumbeat of television projections in a midterm election filled with tight races. "It's a very big disappointment," said VNS exec. dir. Ted Savaglio. "We have been testing a new system over the last several months. We still were not satisfied with the results of our testing. We very much wanted to provide both state polls and national polls." Was the multimillion-dollar efFt to revamp the computer system a failure? "I wouldn't like to use that word," Savaglio said. VNS was under intense pressure from its members to avoid a repeat of the debacle during the 2000 presidential election, when the networks used its data to project first Al Gore and then GW Bush the winner in Florida before pulling back in the middle of the night and declaring the contest too close to call. Network executives tried to put the best face on the situation last night, saying they would use Associated Press exit polls and other information to try to offset the loss of the VNS data. The consortium was providing only raw vote totals. "We all like to have winners," said Fox News political programming exec. producer Marty Ryan . "We all obsess about who won. In the old days, we would have called at least half the 15 races when the polls close at 8 o'clock." Ryan said Fox would rely on telephone surveys done for the network yesterday in 10 states, but that such information was not reliable enough to project winning candidates. "There are no secrets between us & our viewers," he said. CNN political director Tom Hannon said the networks understood that the new system might not work until 2004. "It does hamper us a little bit," Hannon said. "We're going back to the way we did in the '70s, with old-fashioned political reporting. The only entirely bad thing would be not to be up front and be wrong, two years after Florida." "Obviously," said ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider, "the lack of exit-poll data is not great. But it's not an overwhelming issue for us." He said ABC never planned to do more than suggest "likely" winners, and that "accuracy trumps speed and being first." MSNBC spokeswoman Cheryl Daly said her network was relying on NBC telephone surveys, dubbed "entrance polls," taken Saturday through Monday. CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said that "VNS was always going to be one tool" in the network's analysis. By 10:30 p.m., the networks had called just one of the 10 most contested Senate races, Elizabeth Dole's victory in North Carolina, and only CBS had projected that GOPs would retain control of the House. Despite a series of warning signs during test runs in recent days, VNS held out hope that it would be able to provide its clients, incl newspapers such as Wash.Post, with at least some of the traditional poll data based on questioning of voters as they left the polls. Two years ago, a VNS investigation found that the group had underestimated by half the number of absentee ballots in Florida and had dramatically underestimated the number of votes still uncounted at 2 a.m. Savaglio said there was no problem with VNS's exit interviews in 44 states but that the new software could not adequately process the data. "We chose to keep working right up to the last minute," he said. "We just were not able to feel we had enough confidence. The project to replace the systems top to bottom after 2000 was always a four-year plan." The networks were largely unable to offer the usual breakdowns of how people voted by age, sex, education, income and political views. By 8 p.m. last night, they had projected as winners 8 Senate incumbents whose reelection had never been in doubt. CBS projected at 10 p.m. that the GOPs would hold the House, but it was not until nearly midnight the network anchors began suggesting that the GOP would likely take over the Senate. The losers' circle Media flunk the midterms 11.7.02   Howard Kurtz Wash.Post pC1 They said the Democrats were a solid bet to hang on to the Senate. They said many of the races were tight as a tick. They said these were primarily local contests in which a president couldn't have much impact. Were journalists, slavishly wedded to conventional wisdom that turned out to be wrong? How did so many miss Tuesday's GOP tide? "It caught everybody by surprise," says L.A. Times political correspondent Ron Brownstein. "Why limit it to the press? If you talked to GOP professionals on Thursday and Friday, they were not expecting a 2-seat Senate gain." There were exceptions, of course, but such conservatives as Weekly Standard ed. Bill Kristol, Wall St Journal editorial pg ed. Paul Gigot and columnist Peggy Noonan predicted a Democratic Senate, as did many liberals, incl New Republic ed. Peter Beinart, Washington Monthly ed. Paul Glastris, Fox's Juan Williams and CNN's Al Hunt, Margaret Carlson and Mark Shields. NBC correspondent Campbell Brown also gave the Democrats the nod. "If you're a conservative and give an optimistic scenario, you get such a drubbing," says National Review Online ed. Jonah Goldberg. "Everyone says you're just in the tank. There's incredible social pressure to hedge your bets, to stay within the 40-yard lines in what you predict." Goldberg says other panelists gave him "grief" after he predicted on CNN that Norm Coleman would beat Walter Mondale in the Minnesota Senate race. Kristol, who believes there was "a late break" toward the GOP, credits the president: "We missed the fact that it was a special year. No one seriously thinks this could have happened if you hadn't had 9.11.01 and Bush's reaction. I underestimated how much Bush as commander-in-chief would be worth." liberal website Talking Points author Josh Marshall says pundits should have placed more emphasis on a trend in some final polls. "It was the conventional wisdom momentarily blinding people to the data that was there in the last few days," he says. "I certainly didn't call this one. The night before, I really started wondering. But I definitely didn't think it would go this badly for the Democrats." The polls, however, were all over the map. Minneapolis Star Tribune survey in the final days had Mondale leading Coleman, 46% to 41%; Zogby Intl survey gave Mondale 47% to 44%; St. Paul Pioneer Press had Coleman ahead, 47% to 41%. Many of the weekend papers said while GOP seemed assured of keeping control of the House, Tom Daschle was more likely to hold the Senate reins than Trent Lott. "Democrats seem positioned to maintain or enlarge their one-seat Senate majority," L.A.Times' Brownstein wrote, while adding that a GOP takeover was not out of reach. GOP faces stiff odds in their bid to reclaim Senate majority," Wash.Post said. "Voters are as likely to elect divided govt in this era of anxiety as they did 2 years ago," the Philadelphia Inquirer said. Journalists may not have had exit polls on election night, thanks to a computerized fiasco at Voter News Service, but they leaned heavily on a blizzard of conflicting preelection polls showing tight races from coast to coast. In the end, many GOP won easily, incl FL Gov. Jeb Bush by 13%, TX Senate John Cornyn 12%, NC Senate Elizabeth Dole 9%, GA Senate Saxby Chambliss by 7% and CO Sen. Wayne Allard by 6%. Media don't have a great history of calling midterm elections. In 1998, when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, the pundit consensus was that the GOP would gain 5 to 15 House seats; instead, Democrats +5. In 1994, few predicted GOP landslide that captured control of both houses of Congress. This time around, some prognosticators incl Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report, Weekly Standard's David Brooks and CNN's Tucker Carlson & Robt Novak correctly forecast that GOP would recapture the Senate. They get bragging rights for at least a week. In an environment as tight as the 2002 campaign, says Brownstein, "races are very tough to call, and it's almost irresponsible to call them. There's so much polling at the end of a midterm election that it becomes more of a distraction than an illumination." Inquirer political correspondent Dick Polman says reporters got caught up in "echo chamber wisdom". For example, Paul Wellstone's death would energize MN Democrats and that war-hero Sen. Max Cleland couldn't lose GA. "Nobody really picked up a stiff breeze that could blow the GOP into office," he says. Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared on "Hardball" Monday night the GOP had "an outside shot" at seizing the Senate; he journalists missed a rather large elephant in the room. "We always overthink it," he says. "We always focus on the trees instead of the forest. The forest here was GW Bush's approval rating, anywhere from 60% to 70%. We've all had a history of underestimating Bush at every turn." Not that Fineman's crystal ball was perfect: "Based on covering Elizabeth Dole's 2000 presidential campaign, I confidently predicted on the 'Today' show that she was like a tire with a slow leak that would go flat on Election Day. Boy, was I wrong." But is the press pack now overinterpreting Tuesday's results? Who really knows whether the president's frenetic campaigning made the difference? Besides, a switch of roughly 29,000 votes in Minnesota, 11,500 in Missouri and 9,500 in New Hampshire would have produced a Democratic Senate and gobs of stories about how the White House blew it.   [ 51,000 votes, anything but a mandate, gave majority rule to bellicose & repressive public policy wielded by dynastic kleptocracy. ] "The cycle for the next few days," says Polman, "will be to beat up on ourselves for having said for days that this is a 50-50 nation: Boy, aren't we foolish! But the underlying fundamentals haven't changed all that much."

The networks, counting slowly 11.6.02   Howard Kurtz Wash.Post pC01 At 7 last night, MSNBC's Lester Holt said: "Let's go to the state of Virginia." Holt confidently projected Sen. John Warner the winner, as did the other cable networks, with a check mark next to his name. Warner, it might be noted, had no Democratic opponent. The anchors & correspondents were not quite so bold when it came to the rest of the races, in large measure because a computerized fiasco had blown up their exit poll data. In fact, they looked as if their favorite toy had been taken away. So the same networks that rushed to award Florida to Al Gore 2 years ago preached the virtues of caution in the midterm election. "We are going to call races off real votes," said CNN's Jeff Greenfield, and it sounded like a novel concept. It was a back-to-the-future night, filled with lots of talk from Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Peggy Noonan, Pat Caddell, Donna Brazile, Paula Zahn, Aaron Brown, Judy Woodruff, Bill Schneider, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Bill Kristol, Juan Williams, but few answers to the overriding question of which party would control the House or the Senate. They called a couple of blowout Senate races early, Jay Rockefeller in WV, Mitch McConnell in KY but most of the other contests were, to coin a phrase, too close to call. As midnight approached, there was no call in the Senate showdowns in SD, MO, CO and MN. The networks' usual panoply of red & blue states were replaced by gray or gold spaces. Multimillion-dollar consortium of the major networks & Associated Press, Voter News Service, pulled the plug on its exit polls yesterday afternoon after an embarrassing computer meltdown. Some meaningless numbers flashed on the screen early on. In the South Carolina Senate race, MSNBC showed GOP Lindsey Graham leading Democrat Alex Sanders, 57% to 43%. That meant Graham had a grand total of 331 votes, Sanders 248. MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell used an NBC telephone poll to report that President Bush has a 61% approval rating and that 6 in 10 people said their view of Bush would not affect their 2002 vote. But the poll was conducted from Saturday through Monday, meaning it didn't necessarily reflect who voted yesterday. Fox's Snow, using a 10-state telephone poll the network conducted yesterday, said Bush had a 77% approval rating in Georgia and 72% in Missouri. "The president is very popular in these states. Whether it will be enough to pull GOP Senate candidates over the finish line, we'll have to wait and see." By 8:30, the networks had given the nod to a grand total of 8 Senate incumbents, such as Joe Biden D-DE, who never broke a sweat. Hanging over the proceedings was the Florida fiasco, when ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox were humiliated by first calling Florida for Gore, then for George W. Bush (projecting him as president), then saying it was too close to call, a spectacular blunder that helped set the stage for a 36-day recount. This was evident when CNN projected Gov. Jeb Bush as winning re-election in Florida, followed moments later by Fox. "If it were any other state and any other governor not named Bush, we probably would have made this call earlier," said CNN consultant Joe Lenski. MSNBC held off, even when Matthews reported later that the president had called his brother with congratulations. Fewer results often meant more partisan spin as the anchors whipped around to their correspondents. In the Senate faceoff between Elizabeth Dole & Erskine Bowles in NC, CNN's Jeanne Meserve said Democrats were reporting a "very strong" African American turnout while GOPs were claiming a "very good" turnout in GOP precincts. Moments later, Fox's Carl Cameron reported: "The Democrats are acknowledging that the African American turnout in North Carolina was not as strong … as they had anticipated." Dole won. At another point, "Crossfire" co-host Paul Begala related a "rumor" that Florida House candidate Katherine Harris, the former state official who played a controversial role in the Bush-Gore recount, was having trouble. A moment later, however, CNN's Brown said the network had already projected her an easy winner in a heavily GOP district. Tim Russert showed up about 9 p.m. on CNBC with his white board of key races, made famous in 2000. But it was blank. Fox made the first error, with Hume correcting a call that GOP Mark Fernald had won the NH governor's race; Fernald is a Democrat, Hume said, and he lost. There was an odd time lag as events seemed to outpace the networks' cautious approach. Fox reported that Bush had called Dole in NC to congratulate her; Fox had not yet pronounced her the winner, although CNN had. Raw vote totals could provide a misleading snapshot. One minute, CNN had GA GOP Saxby Chambliss leading incumbent Sen. Max Cleland, 55% to 44% and its panel spoke of how pessimistic Democrats had become about that race; the next, MSNBC had Cleland leading, 51% to 48%. Chambliss ended up unseating Cleland. The broadcast networks deigned to interrupt their sitcoms and dramas and provide an hour of coverage at 10 p.m., and their approaches differed sharply. Dan Rather came on like gangbusters: "CBS News projects the GOPs will keep control of the House." But ABC's Peter Jennings said his team was "sitting on the edge of our seats, wondering which way this race is going to go and that race is going to go, based on very little information so far." NBC's Tom Brokaw opened with interviews instead, chatting up Senate majority leader Daschle, Sen. John McCain and, in a bold move, Rush Limbaugh, who said the Democrats had been "running a fear campaign." Just at the hour when the networks would usually be calling race after race, they were flashing yellow lights. Rather said the Minnesota Senate race between Walter Mondale & Norm Coleman was "tight as the pages in a book." His colleague Bob Schieffer noted that John Sununu was beating Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in NH Senate race, but "we're still not ready to make a projection yet." When Schieffer noted that Mark Pryor D-AR was leading Sen. Tim Hutchinson, Rather quickly added, "Leading, but we don't yet estimate a winner." Despite his early call on the House, Rather assured viewers that "we would rather be last than be wrong." But then he said of the GOP goal of taking over the Senate: "It's first & goal at 4 yards out and they have not yet scored. They've got a very good chance." Now the pundits began leaning: "It just has the feel of a slowly gathering GOP night," MSNBC's Fineman said. The key word, though, was slow. MSNBC had breaking news at 10:40: Coleman leading Mondale in Minnesota, 791 to 508. Still, the GOP dominoes were falling into place. "There's a lot of confidence at the White House," said NBC's David Gregory. Russert finally trotted out the white board: The Democrats had to win Arkansas & Colorado to be assured of holding the Senate. "This is disturbing news for the Democratic Party tonight," he said. It took a while, but the networks seemed to be oozing toward a conclusion. If there was a moment when television seemed to declare a GOP victory, it was when the liberal "Crossfire" team threw in the towel. Begala said it was time for the Democrats "to form one of our classic firing squads, in a circle." James Carville grabbed a trash can and put it over his head. The dice-rolling continued. MSNBC was the only network, at 12:08 a.m., to project GOP Sen. Wayne Allard the winner in Colorado, making a GOP takeover seem tantalizingly close. Still, as Jennings noted, the absence of exit polls will have one unmistakable effect: "Everyone's going to have a chance to spin it the way they like, the White House, Senate, Democrats, Congress, not to mention the press." Who won? who lost? who knows? 11.6.02   Tom Shales Wash.Post p C1 Broadcast & cable networks proved they weren't exactly helpless without exit polls in covering election results last night, but they often had to persevere without revealing such tiny little details as, say, who won and who lost. Dan Rather of CBS News held up three fingers in a "W" formation and did a kind of "this little piggy" gesture with his hand; the three fingers stood for the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, all of which the GOPs could end up controlling, he said. Could, but not necessarily would. After all, it wasn't even 11 p.m. yet. Boyish George Stephanopoulos on ABC used a Telestrator to help him make little green letters that pinpointed the most crucial Senate races but didn't tell viewers who won them. On NBC, Tim Russert gave Tom Brokaw all the historical context any anchor could want, but just before 11, Brokaw signed off having given few results and telling viewers he'd be back after "The Tonight Show" with some actual results. Though the networks avoided exit polls, they still were able to make some projections, though with little consistency. Fox News Channel gave FL to Jeb Bush, the incumbent GOP governor, by 8:47 pm, but NBC held off almost a full hour before making the same declaration. An hour later, Bush himself fielded squishy softball questions from anchor Peter Jennings on ABC. Other politicos making the rounds last night included Sen. Daschle D-SD and Sen. John McCain R-AZ. Rather went easy on the Texas colloquialisms that always give his reportage a distinctively tangy flavor, but did say during a 9 pm news break that one race was "cracklin' like a hickory fire." Broadcast networks eschewed wall-to-wall coverage and opted for updates instead, not signing on for full coverage until 10. What was not cracklin' like a hickory fire were network predictions of who'd win what. Rather spelled it out clearly for viewers: "We want to be quick and we want to be right, but we'd rather be last than be wrong." It was all very civic-minded & proper, but it also proved unsatisfying & tentative. Election coverage without results is like pornography without nudity. The liveliest coverage of the night was that provided by an extended edition of the Chris Matthews verbal slugfest "Hardball" on MSNBC. This was by far the most electrically charged channel, and its substitute for results proved the most watchable. A panel of experts assembled by Matthews incl passionate Democratic pollster Pat Caddell who spoke out emotionally against both GOP & Democrats for taking huge donations from the kind of corporate fat cats now facing prison terms. He esp. derided the Democrats for failing to exploit an issue that seemed most damaging to GOP, then lamented Democrats "take about as much money as GOP do from these crooks." CNN offered a special edition of "Larry King Live" with salty Texas politico Ann Richards, a valuable guest. Its special edition of "Crossfire" was less compelling by far. Fox News Channel's coverage seemed surprisingly sedate & tame in tone, at least as compared to the house afire over on MSNBC under Matthews's direction. Jennings preceded one graphic of sketchy information by saying, "It doesn't mean a heckuva lot at the moment", true of almost everything hamstrung networks aired between their evening newscasts & 11pm. This was the Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time-Election.

Science confirms 'The Colbert Bump'   Candidate appearances boost funds for Democrats but not Republicans   4.18.08   Andrea Thompson Live Science With the intense competition between the two contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, pundits have mused over whether Hillary Clinton’s appearance on "The Colbert Report" last night will give the former First Lady a so-called "Colbert bump," a surge in popularity which the show’s host claims will accrue to any politician that appears on the show. Stephen Colbert first coined the eponymous term on his show after John Hall won in a close election to become a representative from New York in 2006 after an appearance on the "Report." Hall defeated incumbent Sue Kelly, who had declined to make an appearance on the show.

Colbert himself commented on this after the election:
"And how did he beat Kelly? According to the American Prospect, quote, 'Her refusal to appear on cable's popular "The Colbert Report" may have also proved somewhat costly,'" Colbert reported, adding, "Somewhat? All what. She could've gotten the 'Colbert bump,' instead she got the 'Colbert dump'."
Ever since, Colbert’s fans have been touting the powers of "the bump" in blogs, claiming it has boosted support for numerous politicians.

But most of the evidence cited lacks a certain amount of scientific rigor, said University of California San Diego political scientist James Fowler, fan of the show.
"I saw people talking about the 'Colbert bump' online, but ... [they] took no account of the fact that most of the candidates who agreed to go on the show were running against candidates who really didn't have a chance of winning. They were very protected," Fowler said.

So he decided to put Colbert’s claim to a real test. To really see if a "Colbert bump" exists, you have to compare the performance of political candidates who did appear on the show with those who didn't, Fowler says, and you have to do it by comparing apples to apples.

Incumbents must be matched to other incumbents, Democrats to other Democrats (same for Republicans). Because the study measured increased popularity by comparing campaign donations before and after an appearance, the amount of money candidates were taking in before their stint on the show had to match up.
Fowler jokes that the set-up is like running a medical study, where you have a control group and a treatment group. In this case, "Colbert is the treatment," Fowler said. His results will be published in an upcoming issue of PS: Political Science & Politics.

Fowler used Federal Election Commission data on all individual contributions made to U.S. House campaigns between Jan. 1, 2005, and Oct. 30, 2007, and used them to find matches for 47 candidates who appeared on "The Colbert Report" segment, "Better Know a District."
He compared both the number of donations and the amount of money received by each "Colbert candidate" to their match. The results showed that there might be, as Colbert himself would put it, some "truthiness" to the "Colbert bump" claims after all, at least for Democrats.

Democrats who appeared on the show raised about 44 percent more money after their appearance than they did before. Republicans, on the other hand, didn't fare as well after their Colbert appearance. Their appearance either had no effect, or a slightly negative one.
Difference between the two parties is the show's audience, which has a perceived liberal leaning, though Fowler says there's no specific evidence of that. Fowler says this reason is plausible, but that the viewership of the "Report" is small, with a Nielsen average viewership of just 1.3 million for 2007.
"I think it's incredibly unlikely that any of Colbert's viewers watch the show and then, you know, get out their checkbook," Fowler told LiveScience.

Fowler also rules out any agenda on the part of the show, since their main aim is to be funny. "They're just trying to get a laugh," he said. "Comedy first, news second." More likely, Fowler says, is that the candidates are self-selecting their appearances on the show based on how they're doing beforehand.
"Republicans who agree to go on the show have to be doing much, much better than average in order to appear on the show," Fowler said his results showed. "So what this looks like is that Republicans have to be in an extremely confident position before they're willing to take a chance in being made fun of, whereas Democrats are just the opposite."

Democrats who agree to appear on the show are actually doing worse than the average candidate, "so Colbert seems more like an opportunity than a risk of destroying the campaign," Fowler added.
Just how the show can have an effect with such a comparatively small audience, Fowler attributes to a ripple effect through the mainstream media.
"When someone goes on his show, the fact that someone went on his show becomes news," Fowler said. "And a single appearance turns into an incident that's reported to 30 [million], 50 million people."
"His show is very influential among people who influence others," he added.

This could explain Mike Huckabee's upsurge in popularity after his "Colbert" appearance, which Colbert touted by saying he increased Huckabee's polling percentage by 300 percent, from 1 to 3 percent.
"The whole struggle in presidential primaries is just getting your name on people's minds," Fowler said, so Huckabee's appearance probably wouldn't have increased campaign donations given the apparent Republican bust, but could've bumped him from a fifth to a second-place finish in a primary.

Whether or not Clinton's appearance on the show last night will boost her flagging popularity remains to be seen, but Fowler did notice that she made the announcement about her appearance the day after an editorial he wrote about his research appeared in The Los Angeles Times.

When Obama calls Livni, is he dialing for jewish dollars?   3.11.08   Mondoweiss Obama called Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni while she was visiting the U.S. to offer his condolences on the latest Israeli victims of terror and make the right noises about a non-nuclear Iran and Israel's right to defend itself. I wonder how many other foreign ministers Obama is calling. One reason for the call is Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia suburbs are a battleground, and a lot of liberal Jews live there. The older they are the more likely they are to vote for Hillary. More intriguing is the money angle. Wash. Post reported that half of Democratic giving is from Jews. Democratic giving is way outstripping Republican giving. It's not even close. Hillary and Obama have raised about $270 million from their contributors, while McCain is at a paltry $53 million. Is Jewish money the biggest game in town? Is Jewish wealth one of the great engines of our economy?

Unofficial tallies in city understated Obama vote 2.16.08   Sam Roberts, K.Hammer, R. Stein NY Times Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama. That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district. City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly and unofficially on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city. In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn, where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton, she now barely leads, 118 to 116. The history of New York elections has been punctuated by episodes of confusion, incompetence and even occasional corruption. Election officials and lawyers for both Obama and Clinton agree that it is not uncommon for mistakes to be made by weary inspectors rushing on election night to transcribe columns of numbers that are delivered first to the police and then to the news media. That said, in a presidential campaign in which every vote at the Democratic National Convention may count, a swing of even a couple of hundred votes in New York might help Obama gain a few additional delegates. City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times’s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Clinton received zero votes in the initial results. “It looked like a lot of the numbers were wrong, probably the result of human error,” said Marcus Cederqvist, who was named executive director of the Board of Elections last month. He said such discrepancies between the unofficial and final count rarely affected the raw vote outcome because “they’re not usually that big.” On primary night, Clinton was leading with 57 percent to Mr. Obama’s 40 percent in New York State, which meant she stood to win 139 delegates to Obama’s 93, with 49 others known as superdelegates going to the national convention unaffiliated. Jerome A. Koenig, a former chief of staff to the State Assembly’s election law committee and a lawyer for the Obama campaign, suggested that some of the discrepancy resulted from the design of the ballot. Candidates were listed from left to right in an order selected by drawing lots. Clinton was first, followed by Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who in most election districts received zero votes, and by John Edwards, who got relatively few. Obama was fifth, just before Representative Dennis J. Kucinich. Koenig said he seriously doubted that anything underhanded was at work because local politicians care more about elections that matter specifically to them. “They steal votes for elections like Assembly District leader, where people have a personal stake,” he said. A number of political leaders also scoffed at the possibility that local politicians, even if they considered it vital that Obama or Clinton prevail in the primary, were capable of even trying to hijack such a contest. Still, for those inclined to consider conspiracy theories, the figures provided plenty of grist. The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Clinton. Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright, a Clinton supporter who represents the same area, said he was confident that there was an innocent explanation for the original count giving Obama zero votes. “I’m sure it’s a clerical error of some sort,” Wright said. “Being around elections for the last 25 years, no candidate receives zero votes.” But Gordon J. Davis, a former New York City parks commissioner and an Obama poll watcher in the district, remained skeptical, even after being informed of the corrected count. “First it was reported at 141 to 0, now it’s 261 to 136 in an Assembly district that went 12,000 to 8,000 for Barack,” Davis said on Friday. “I was watching like a hawk, but how did I know the machine had a mind of its own?” he added. “And I speak as one who grew up on the South Side of Chicago where we delivered the margin of victory for John F. Kennedy at 4 in the morning.” At the sprawling Riverside Park Community apartments at Broadway and 135th Street, Alician D. Barksdale said she had voted for Obama and her daughter had, too, by absentee ballot. “Everyone around here voted for him,” she said.

The 53rd Assembly District, in Brooklyn, is represented by the borough’s Democratic chairman, Assemblyman Vito P. Lopez, another Clinton supporter. He said the party faithful have produced lopsided margins of as much as 160 to 4 and that on Primary Day he fielded election captains in every district to galvanize Hispanic voters for Mrs. Clinton.
“We ran it the old-fashioned way,” he said. Still, he said, the 118 to 0 vote “has to be a mistake.”
At the Archive, a cafe and video store on the border of Bushwick and East Williamsburg, the manager, Brad Lee, agreed. “There were Obama posters in everyone’s windows,” he said. “There was even Obama graffiti".

Most election-night anomalies are later reconciled by the official canvass of the machines and in the formal count of absentee returns and of paper affidavit ballots issued on Primary Day, to people who do not appear to be eligible but demand the right to vote, and later validated.
On Feb. 5, Clinton carried 61 of the state’s 62 counties but won Brooklyn by a margin of less than 2 percent. Because delegates are awarded proportionately on the basis of the primary vote in each Congressional district, Obama supporters expressed hope that if the official count continued in their favor, they might gain an additional delegate or two.

Welcome to the machine Glitch wins by a landslide 2.20.03   Ben Tripp Scoop (NZ) … the American Experiment, as it is known, ended 11.4.02. Not much has been made of this, but it seems like a noteworthy subject. Until that day, this country had a pretty simple system for choosing its leaders: candidates ran against each other for public office, and then the voters would come out in very small droves to vote for the candidate with the most money. There were anomalies that tested the efficacy of the system once in a while, if efficacy is the word I want. But in general the arrangement was unsatisfactory to everyone, and so we kept it. … Electoral College, … in 1824 & 1876, there wasn't a clear winner, in the first case because nobody got a majority, and in the second case because there was so much fraud in the South they sort of drew straws and chose Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1888, when one candidate got the most popular votes but the other candidate got the most votes from the Electoral College. It was all perfectly legal, and not nearly as boring as I make it sound. In the year 2000, the presidency was won by the loser again. But this time it wasn't just an anomaly. The Supreme Court jiggered the election, the Electoral College's votes were skewed, and GWBush was declared president. … install digital voting machines. Instead of 'open source' software to tabulate the votes as they are entered into the machines, private companies got to write private code for the purpose. Now Australia has computerized voting, and the source code is readily available (http://www.elections.act.gov.au/EVACS.html). … so short & simple a monkey could understand it. The American code is not only secret, it's also 200,000 lines long, which makes it 'spaghetti code', so called because it's impossibly tangled and complex, or because it's made of pasta. Not only is the American voting code secretly held by private companies for copyright reasons, but private companies manufacture the voting machines. Those companies are owned, predominantly, by GOP interests incl Sen. Chuck Hagel R-NE, who won by a landslide on machines made by Election Systems & Software (ES&S), a co. he owned a considerable interest in. He wasn't the only one. Computerized voting machines in the 2002 election did all kinds of weird things: if you pressed the Democrat's name in some counties in Texas, for example, the Republican's name was chosen. In Comal County, Texas, 3 Republican candidates won by exactly 18,181 votes apiece, the kind of coincidence the FBI loves. In 2 other races elsewhere in this great nation, Republicans won by 18,181 votes. The odds of this are similar to the odds of waking up on the surface of Mars with your underwear on your head and a bowling trophy gripped between your knees. These results were eventually 'adjusted', proving it was all just a wacky coincidence. There is no physical evidence of how a vote was cast. No punch card, no paper ballot. They stopped doing exit polling in 2002 so we can't even get an objective comparison of the digital results with the voter's intentions by asking them how they voted as they leave the polling place. There is a complex connection between the companies that make voting software & machines and the GOP, as mentioned above. It's not some remote connection that only folks with tinfoil beanies & radios in their fillings could understand. These are partnerships, blind trusts, corporate ownership kind of connections, connections that make sense of some of the most astonishing outcomes of 2002, where vast majorities of black voters voted for anti-black candidates, for example, or where GOP votes skyrocked and Democratic numbers plummeted, reversing historic trends, or machines tallied more votes than were actually cast (according to a Florida official a 10% margin of error is acceptable; that would be over ten million votes nationwide). In Alabama, Democrat Don Siegelman won the election for governor and went home. The next morning, 6,300 of his votes were gone, and GOP Bob Riley took the job instead. ES&S is looking into the problem. Not the govt, not an independent commission. ES&S shows up in many of the problem areas, but they're not the only ones. 'Computer glitches' accounted for the loss of hundreds of thousands of votes nationwide, and the irregularities everywhere are both mystifying & highly suggestive, considering the system was supposed to smooth the way for fair & glitch-free elections in America. … In the year 2002, Americans lost the right to vote.

Gore calls 2000 verdict 'crushing,' assails court 11.15.02   Dan Balz Wash.Post pA1 In his first interviews since conceding presidency to GW Bush almost two years ago, former vp Gore calls the outcome of the 2000 election "crushing disappointment" and criticizes 5-4 Supreme Court decision that put Bush in the White House as "completely inconsistent" with the court's conservative philosophy. "I believe that if everyone in Florida who tried to vote had had his or her vote counted properly, that I would have won," Gore said in an interview with Washington Post magazine writer Liza Mundy for article published Sunday. "I strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision and the way in which they interpreted and applied the law. But I respect the rule of law, so it is what it is." Gore told ABC's Barbara Walters, in an interview to air tonight on ABC's "20/20," that he "absolutely" believed he would become president when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of all disputed ballots in the state, making the result all the more emotionally difficult to accept. His wife, Tipper, said in the Post interview, "I still believe we won." Gore gave the interviews as part of a promotional tour for "Joined at the Heart," a book he & his wife have written about the American family, and "The Spirit of Family," a book of photographs the Gores have selected depicting American families. He will do other interviews, televised and in print, in the coming days, including an appearance on CBS's "Late Show With David Letterman" tonight and NBC's "Saturday Night Live" next month, as part of a carefully planned political reemergence. In neither the Post Magazine article nor in excerpts of the Walters interview released yesterday by ABC does Gore answer the question of whether he will run for president in 2004, a decision he says he will make by the end of the year. But as he began his book tour this week, Gore already was making political news. Wed. night he told NY audience he has "reluctantly come to the conclusion" that the only solution to the "impending crisis" in health care is a "single-payer national health insurance plan" for all Americans. That marks a sharp break with his past position, pushing him sharply to the left on what could be an important issue in the next presidential campaign. In campaign 2000, Gore battered rival Democrat Bill Bradley for advocating a health care plan designed to move the country toward universal coverage. He said Bradley's bold plan would wipe out projected budget surpluses and damage the country. Gore offered no details of what kind of single-payer system he favors. Spokesman Jano Cabrera said yesterday Gore will address the issue in a speech. Cabrera called Gore's comments on health care consistent with his recent vow to "speak from the heart and let the chips fall where they may." In the Walters interview, Gore reflects not only on the 2000 election but also on last week's balloting in which Democrats lost control of the Senate and seats in the House. "I think that it was a sweeping loss," he said. "It was a massive defeat for the Democratic Party, and we have to accept that and come out fighting as the loyal opposition, not just in name but in reality. … " Gore acknowledged his shortcomings as a presidential candidate in 2000, telling Walters, "I think I could have communicated much better, more clearly & forcefully." He said his debates with Bush hurt his candidacy, adding that he wishes he had not sighed audibly during the opening debate while Bush was talking. "I was exasperated by some of the things, a lot of the things, that he was saying," he said. Gore said he does not believe Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions contributed to his defeat, telling Walters that voters were "plenty smart enough to distinguish between his [Clinton's] personal life and his accomplishments as president." He acknowledged that he and Clinton had a stormy meeting in Dec. 2000 over campaign strategy. "I wanted to clear the air," Gore told Walters, adding that "it worked" and that he and Clinton remain "comrades in arms."   [ Gore's heart chips still ignore what actually cost him the throne, Citizen Nader's Green Party candidacy ] After the 2000 election, Gore chose to stay in the background, against the recommendations of some supporters. "I could have handled the whole thing differently," he told the Post Magazine, "and instead of making a concession speech, launched a 4 year, rear-guard guerrilla campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Bush presidency and to mobilize for a rematch. And there was no shortage of advice to do that." Gore rejected that advice, he said, because "I just didn't feel like it was in the best interest of the U.S. or that it was a responsible course of action." Gore also told Walters, "I wanted some time off." The emotional impact on Gore's family was significant. Daughter Kristin Gore called the 2000 election experience "pretty devastating," while Gore said, "I'm not saying it was easy for me emotionally. It wasn't easy." He said he and his family prayed together not to turn bitter over what had happened. Before 9.11.01, Gore was gearing up to challenge Bush, particularly on the economy. "I felt the economic plan that the administration had enacted was a catastrophe and would create serious problems," he told the Post Magazine. "And so I was looking forward to speaking out on that." Instead, he embraced Bush as "my commander in chief" in a speech to Iowa Democrats a few weeks after the attacks. "I didn't have an impulse to criticize him because I felt that he did a terrific job in the aftermath of 9.11.01" he told Walters. Gore appeared to take back comments attributed to him during a private meeting with contributors last summer, in which he suggested that he listened too much to his political consultants in 2000. "I take full responsibility for not being able to get more votes than I did," he told the Post Magazine. "I give full credit to the people who helped me in the campaign." Gore said his 2000 running mate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), should run for president if he wants to, regardless of Gore's eventual decision. Lieberman has pledged publicly not to run if Gore does. "He hasn't made that pledge to me," Gore told Walters. "If he wants to change that, that's … his prerogative." Gore's comments on supporting a single-payer health care system caught many Democrats by surprise. VT Gov. Howard Dean, the only announced candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, called it "politically untenable." Dean favors moving the country toward universal coverage but by using the current employer-based system, not through a single-payer mechanism. U.S. to get intl election observers 8.11.04   Jim Lobe OneWorld US Wash.D.C.   An effort by more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers to bring international observers to monitor November elections has paid off with an invitation by the State Dept to the Vienna-based Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe). The 55-nation group has already responded positively to the invitation, although it has yet to determine how many observers will be sent and how precisely they will be deployed. A delegation is scheduled to visit U.S. next month to nail down details. State Dept officials stressed that the OSCE delegation will not have the authority to assess the fairness of the vote, but its will be expected to issue a report on any problems or shortcomings as part of a new program for all OSCE members. In addition to Washington's NATO allies, the OSCE consists of virtually all the countries of Central & Eastern Europe, as well as the new states created out of the former Soviet Union in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Democrats greeted the announcement as a victory in their efforts to draw international scrutiny to the elections process, particularly in the wake of the 2000 presidential elections in which GWBush squeaked out a tiny electoral majority, thanks to an especially controversial vote count in Florida, despite losing the popular vote by some half a million votes. "It's a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent," said Rep. Barbara Lee, California congresswoman who was one of 13 lawmakers who asked UN Secretary Kofi Annan to send UN observers to oversee this year's elections. "Given the deeply troubling events of the 2000 election, the growing concerns about the lack of necessary reforms and potential abuse in the 2004 election," the lawmakers wrote, "we believe that the engagement of international election monitors can be the catalyst to expedite the necessary reform, as well as reduce the likelihood of questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day." When the UN responded that the U.S. govt would have make the request in order for the world body to respond, the 13 lawmakers sent a second letter to Powell asking for his help in securing UN monitors. The letters drew outrage from many GOP lawmakers in the House of Representatives. They promptly attached an amendment to the 2005 foreign-aid bill banning the use of any of that money to finance UN monitoring of the election. "For over 200 years, this nation has conducted elections fairly and impartially, ensuring that each person's vote will count," said Rep. Stephen Buyer during debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. "Imagine going to your polling place on the morning of November 2 and seeing blue-helmeted foreigners inside your local library, school or fire station." While Powell did not act on the request for UN monitors, he did send an invitation to the OSCE pursuant to special program that encourages all member countries to observe each others' elections. "OSCE members, including U.S., agreed in 1990 in Copenhagen to allow fellow members to observe elections in one another's countries," Asst Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Paul Kelly replied in a letter to the 13 lawmakers. "Consistent with this commitment, U.S. has already invited the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to observe 11.2.04 presidential elections." In fact, the OSCE also sent a small delegation of monitors to the 2002 mid-term elections, but the 2004 mission is expected to be much larger. Nonetheless, the 2002 delegation, which observed voting in Florida, submitted a critical report that included recommendations for improvements. The invitation to OSCE drew scorn from far-right groups that apparently were unaware of the 2002 mission. "Obviously, somebody over at Foggy Bottom misread the Constitution," stated VA based group (founded during the Iran-Contra scandal in support of then-Lt. Col. Oliver North) Freedom Alliance president Tom Kilgannon. "According to our Founding Fathers, it is the 'States', not the 'State Dept', which are in charge of overseeing federal elections." In their letter to Annan and Powell, the Democrats cited a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that concluded that the 2000 electoral process in Florida was flawed and that the "disenfranchisement of Florida's' voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters." They drew particular attention to the purging of names from voter-registration lists, an issue that continues to draw controversy in Florida. In hearings just last month, the Commission heard testimony indicating that purge lists in some counties had not been updated and that several thousand people were still wrongly listed as felons ineligible to cast ballots. San Francisco-based Global Exchange invited foreign observers who have monitored elections outside their countries to observe the November balloting in at least six states, including Florida. "Our experience monitoring elections in ten countries around the world has shown that the presence of non-govtal observers can help boost public confidence in electoral processes," said Ted Lewis, who directs the group's Fair Elections project.

Diebold backs off legal challenge 12.2.03   Wired   e-voting Diebold Election Systems is withdrawing legal threats against voting activists & Internet service providers for publishing copies of internal staff e-mails that the company says were stolen from its servers. The documents pointed to security flaws with Diebold's computerized voting machines and suggested the company knew about those flaws long before it sold machines to several states, including California, Maryland and Georgia. Beginning in August, Diebold issued cease & desist letters to more than a dozen individuals who posted the documents or links to sites hosting them on the Internet. The company claimed copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, a law designed to guard against the improper use of creative works. Diebold said the documents revealed proprietary information about the workings of its e-voting system that would benefit its competitors. The nonprofit ISP Online Policy Group and 2 Swarthmore College students sought a court order in Oct. 2003to block Diebold's action. On Monday, Diebold reversed itself without explaining its decision, saying only that it would not sue over the copyright claims. In a conference call with U.S. Dist. Judge Jeremy Fogel and a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation , which is representing the Online Policy Group and the students, Diebold said it would send letters to the ISPs retracting demands that they take down the documents. Diebold spokesman David Bear said no one should interpret the move as a sign that the DMCA did not apply in this case. "We've simply chosen not to pursue copyright infringement in this matter," he said. More than 13,000 internal Diebold e-mails & documents were taken from a Diebold staff server last March and delivered to voting activist Bev Harris and her publisher, along with a Wired News reporter, in August. Harris has written a book based on a year's worth of research into companies that make e-voting machines. After Harris posted the memos on her website , Diebold sent cease & desist letters to her and her ISP. A Swarthmore student who subsequently published the memos also received a letter. Other Swarthmore students then launched a civil disobedience campaign against Diebold calling for greater scrutiny of e-voting machines. Students at Harvard, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Duke University, UC Berkeley and numerous other campuses followed suit. In Oct. 2003, the Online Policy Group and 2 Swarthmore students filed for the court order to prevent Diebold from issuing further legal threats, aided by the Electronic Frontier Fdtn and the Ctr for Internet & Society Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School. They charged Diebold with misusing the DMCA to stifle discussion about the reliability of electronic voting machines in general and about the insecurity of the company's machines in particular. The Diebold e-mails consisted of internal correspondence sent by co. employees to several staff mailing lists related to bug fixes, technical support and company announcements. They detailed information about the internal workings of the electronic voting machine maker and pointed to difficulties with the company's machines cited by employees & election officials. Among revelations contained in the memos was information that the Microsoft Access database used by the Diebold system to collect & calculate votes was not protected by a password. This meant someone could alter votes by entering the database through physical access to the machine or remotely using the phone system. The memos also revealed that the audit log, which records any activity in the Access database, could be easily altered so that an intruder could erase a record of the intrusion. These security flaws were pointed out to Diebold in 2001, but a Diebold engineer responded by saying the company preferred not to password-protect the database because it was easier to do "end-runs" in the system, a term that describes when someone changes software to fix or work around coding problems. Other memos indicated that patches were installed in systems after they were already certified and delivered to states. In a January 2002 memo, a Diebold engineer discussed modifying its machines in California but noted that because the state was likely to reject a change so late in the game, they'd install it as a bug fix to pass muster with election officials, rather than undergo lengthy certification procedures. Diebold was recently chastised by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley for violating California election law by loading uncertified software onto machines used in at least 2 counties in that state. The state discovered the information only after the uncertified software was used in at least 2 California elections. In memos dated January 2003, Diebold employees also discussed making the cost of upgrading its machines in California "prohibitively expensive" if Shelley decided to require a voter-verifiable paper audit trail for e-voting machines, a feature sought by voting activists. The memos appeared at the time that Shelley was convening a task force to discuss security issues with e-voting. 2 weeks ago Shelley mandated that e-voting machines used in the state must produce a paper receipt that voters can use to verify their ballots. The machines must comply by July 2006. Electronic Freedom Fdtn staff atty Wendy Seltzer said publication of the Diebold documents was an important ingredient in the growing public debate about electronic voting systems and the companies that manufacture them. "We're pleased that Diebold has retreated and the public is now free to continue its interrupted conversation over the accuracy of electronic voting machines," she said. Despite Diebold's retreat, the EFF is still seeking a ruling from the judge that states that posting the memos did not violate copyright laws. The group also wants Diebold to pay damages to the students & ISPs. "This tells companies like Diebold who are thinking of doing what Diebold has done that it's not free to send out these letters," Seltzer said. "If the letters are baseless, there's a price to be paid for that. And there's a price to be paid for trying to suppress free speech." Fogel is expected to rule on EFF's requests Feb. 2004. Diebold spokesman Bear said he hopes to reach a settlement in the matter before Fogel makes a ruling. With regard to anyone who wants to post the memos, Bear said, "They are free to do as allowed. We are not going to pursue copyright infringement."

GOP hurt by redrawn Texas district
8.4.06   April Castro AP

Austin TX   Three federal judges on Friday reunited a south Texas county into one congressional district under a Supreme Court-ordered Hispanic voting strength and made one Republican incumbent's re-election campaign more difficult.
Several districts were affected by the plan, but no House incumbent was bumped into another district. The judges emphasized that they made the minimal changes possible to fix the violations ordered by the Supreme Court.

The revision came after the Supreme Court in June found that the congressional map drawn by Republican state lawmakers in 2003 unconstitutionally diluted Hispanic voting power by dividing Hispanics in Webb County into 2 different districts represented by GOP Rep. Henry Bonilla and Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar.
The new map places Webb County, which includes Laredo, entirely in Cuellar's district, and gives Bonilla the heavily Hispanic and Democratic neighborhoods of south Bexar County.
"The court has given me the opportunity to represent my old neighborhood, the school I attended, the house I grew up in and so many old friends," Bonilla said. "Perhaps most importantly it has given me the opportunity to be my mother's congressman and trust me, she will make me work to earn her vote."

Bonilla's district is now more evenly divided between Democratic and Republican voters. Bonilla, whose support among Hispanic Democrats has been dropping, also is seeing his district's Hispanic voting-age population rise from 51 percent to 61 percent.
Democratic former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez said he is considering running for Bonilla's seat. Rodriguez lost to Cuellar by just 58 votes in the 2004 Democratic primary and by a larger margin in the 2006 primary. Because the districts have been redrawn after the primary elections, the seats are open now to anyone who wants to run. Candidates have until 8.25.06 to file for the race. A special election will be held alongside the general election for congressional seats in the affected districts.

The 2003 map revision was engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was indicted on state charges in connection with alleged money-laundering during the 2002 campaign for legislative seats and resigned from Congress.
"All we want as Hispanics is for everyone's voting rights to be respected," said state Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo. "Not just ours but everyone's; and when you trample ours we won't stand by. I hope the Republicans learned a lesson."

process   per 5.11.04   Catherine M. Shaw 9.25.02   Ronald A. Faucheux 7.01   Paul Richards 4.01   Wm S. Bike 4.25.99   Lawrence Grey 4.12.99   Robt J Thomas 10.1.98   Ann Beaudry 4.29.97   Susan Guber 1972   Stephen C Shadegg Election turnout rose slightly, to 39.3% GOP mobilization credited; participation was down in some Democratic areas 11.8.02   Edward Walsh Wash.Post pA10 GOP mobilization effort, incl Pres. Bush's almost nonstop travels in the closing days of the campaign, boosted overall voter turnout in Tuesday's elections even as the number of voters declined in some traditionally strong Democratic areas, according to an analysis of the returns. A total of 78.7 million votes were cast on Tuesday, 39.3#37; turnout of all voting age citizens, according to independent elections expert Committee for the Study of the American Electorate dir. Curtis Gans. That was slight increase from the 37.6 % turnout in the previous midterm elections, in 1998, and interrupted a steady decline in voter participation, he said. But Gans said the increase in voter turnout was uneven. "The GOPs got their vote out better than the Democrats," he said. "The Democrats lost votes nationally, and the GOPs gained votes. The GOPs did nationalize the vote. As far as I can see, the Democrats tried to raise the economy as an issue but offered no program." The pattern that boosted GOP candidates in key races could be seen in Florida, where president's brother Gov. Jeb Bush withstood a furious Democratic assault, and in Maryland, where Democrats lost the governorship for the first time in 36 years. After the 2000 presidential election debacle in Florida, Democrats vowed revenge against Jeb Bush for his role in the ballot recount battle there, which eventually delivered the presidency to his brother. Nowhere did feelings run higher than in the South Florida Democratic bastions of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, which were at the center of the recount storm. But on Tuesday, voter turnout in 2 of those counties declined even as the statewide turnout increased to 53.6%, 4% more than in the previous 1998 gubernatorial election. Democrat Bill McBride carried Palm Beach County, where turnout slipped from 52.7% in 1998 to 45.8%, and Broward County, where it plunged from 45.6% to 34.5% , lowest turnout there in at least 3 decades. Turnout increased in Miami-Dade County, from 47.7% in 1998 to 52.9% on Tuesday. But Jeb Bush carried Miami-Dade just as he did most of the rest of the state, incl McBride's home county of Hillsborough, where the turnout rose from 50.7% to 59.5%. It was the same story in Maryland, where the statewide turnout was down slightly from 1998. Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend carried only 3 jurisdictions, but they were the populous Democratic strongholds of Montgomery & Prince George's counties and the city of Baltimore. But in all 3, the turnout was down compared with the turnout in the previous gubernatorial election, in 1998. It slipped from 64.4% to 60.7% in Montgomery County, from 59.6% to 52.4% in Prince George's County and from 55.9% to 53.4% in Baltimore. GOP Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. swept the rest of the state, incl his home base of Baltimore County, where the turnout increased from 61% in 1998 to 65.6% on Tuesday. According to Gans, 30 states had higher voter turnouts on Tuesday than they did in the 1998 elections. The highest turnouts, more than 61% of voting age citizens, were in Minnesota & S.Dakota, traditional high-turnout states that were also the scenes of heated battles for Senate seats. Only in those two states and in Maine & Vermont did turnouts exceed 50%. Officials in several states said they have not had time to analyze voting & turnout trends. Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt (R) spokesman Spence Jackson said the turnout appeared to be slightly greater in rural parts of the state than in the St. Louis & Kansas City metropolitan areas. Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox (D) spokesman Chris Riggall said voting was heavy in suburban GOP strongholds around Atlanta, but was also high in the Democratic bastion of DeKalb County, providing no obvious explanation for the GOP's success in the state, where GOPs were the upset winners of a Senate seat & the governorship. Gans said the overall increase in voter turnout was due to several high-profile races and "the mobilization efFts at the grass-roots level that were done in those states." Still, he said, turnout continues to decline, with occasional interruptions, such as the one this year. The turnout of voters in 2002 was 20% lower than the turnout in midterm elections in the 1960s, Gans said. In states outside the South, where turnout has increased largely due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other efFts to enfranchise black voters, turnout was 25% below levels of the 1960s, he said. "I don't think [Tuesday's turnout] speaks to any permanent reversal," Gans said. "We had some very peculiar conditions this year. Both houses of Congress were at stake and enormous resources were poured into those races and, still, in some states turnout went down. You would expect an uptick in all the close races. We didn't get that." GOPs: big cash edge Advantage likely to grow 11.7.02   Thomas B. Edsall Wash.Post pA27 The GOP Party and such allies as the pharmaceutical industry and the National Rifle Association outspent & outmaneuvered their Democratic opposition in Tuesday's elections, crushing bids to create a pro-Democratic debate on such issues as Social Security, prescription drugs and the economy. GOP committees held a huge advantage over their Democratic counterparts going into the election, $183.7 million, or the difference between the GOP's $527.4 million and the Democrats' $343.7 million, and they targeted their cash precisely to protect vulnerable incumbents, probe for weak opponents and pour money into competitive races. The GOPs' cash lead this year is seen as a precursor to an even greater advantage in 2004: Starting yesterday, the parties were legally banned from raising and spending "soft money" contributions, large donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, on which the Democrats have depended far more than the GOP. In addition, with GOP controlled White House and both branches of Congress, they will have an advantage in raising smaller, still legal contributions known as "hard money." It is a fact of political life that sources of special- interest cash, business and trade associations, political action committees, lobbyists and others, give far more to the party in power. Sources said the National GOP Congressional Committee yesterday transferred an estimated $1 million in unused soft money to the Leadership Forum, an independent soft money committee run by GOP lobbyists Bill Paxon &amnp; Susan Hirschmann. Money does not guarantee victory; many well-financed candidates were defeated on Tuesday, incl a number who raised more than their opponents. But party money has come to serve a key role, paying for polling and other studies to identify weaknesses & strengths on both sides and supporting both challengers & candidates for open seats, who often have trouble raising money on their own. In Florida, for example, spending by the National GOP Congressional Committee boosted the successful challenge of Ginny Brown-Waite (R) to Rep. Karen L. Thurman (D). Without party backing, Brown-Waite would have been outspent 2 to 1, $1.3 million to $694,519. As it was, she could match Thurman almost dollar for dollar. "We put a lot of money into that race, and so did a lot of our allied groups," said NRCC chair Rep. Thomas M. Davis III R-VA. "We controlled the air on that one," meaning they dominated the tv ad war. The same pattern of equalizing spending prevailed in MN House race, where challenger John Kline (R) defeated Rep. Bill Luther (D). Without party support, Kline would have been outspent by Luther by nearly 2 to 1, $2 million to $1.1 million. In House races overall, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee analysis showed it was outspent on tv buys by $12 million, or $50 million to $38 million. A number of strategists for both parties credited a last-minute tv buy by the National GOP Senatorial Committee in halting, and then reversing, a trend in the polls that briefly suggested NH Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) was on her way to defeating Rep. John E. Sununu (R) in the fight for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Robert C. Smith (R). Independent groups spent far less than the parties, but Democrats privately acknowledged that the $12 million-plus spent by the United Seniors Association, biggest spender in House races, gave crucial help to the GOP. The group, which is partially financed by the pharmaceutical industry, ran tv & radio ads intended to insulate GOP House members from Democrats trying to make a major issue out of prescription drug prices. The NRA invested more in get-out-the-vote activities than in tv, almost all of it on behalf of GOP candidates. Yesterday, the gun-rights group said it had helped elect an absolute House majority in support of NRA positions: The number of representatives with an NRA rating of "A" will grow from 217 in the 107th Congress to 228 in the 108th. Officials at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who had hoped the midterm election would favor the party out of power, said they recognized in mid-Oct. that "the wind was blowing in our face" and switched spending strategies to protect Democratic incumbents they saw as vulnerable. This strategy, the officials contended, prevented larger losses, especially in the cases of Reps. Julia Carson D-IN, Chet Edwards D-TX, Mike Ross D-AR, Joseph M. Hoeffel III D-PA, Ken Lucas D-KY and Jim Matheson D-UT, all of whom ended up winning tight contests. However, patterns of campaign contributions to the parties will change radically now that the McCain-Feingold finance law has taken effect. It has banned all donations from unions & corporations and limited individuals to $25,000 a year to a national party committee. The law will end the huge donations, $50,000 to $1 million or more, to the parties from unions, tobacco companies, and a host of other interests. As the ban on soft money takes effect, Democrats face devastating consequences: Of the $343.7 million its 3 national party committees raised, 63% ($216.3 million) was in soft money and 37% ($127.4 million) was in hard money. By contrast, the GOP not only raised far more money through Oct. 16, $527.4 million but it raised 127% more hard money ($289 million). Largely because of soft money, the Democrats this year held the GOP advantage to a 5-3 ratio. If the two parties had been limited to hard money this year, as they will be in 2004, the ratio would have been 2.3 to 1 in GOP favor. Fundraising focus earns DeLay wealth of influence   ¹   Ð 7.21.03   Juliet Eilperin, Alice Crites Wash.Post In early 2001, Rep. Tom DeLay R-TX was driving around Austin with his top political aide Jim Ellis, brainstorming about how to create more GOP-leaning U.S. House districts in Texas. State legislators were redrawing congressional borders to reflect the latest Census figures, and the Democrats who controlled the state House were preventing GOP senators & governor from approving a plan that would give GOPs maximum advantage. The 2 men devised a bold idea: create a political action committee whose sole purpose was to give GOPs control of the state House in the 2002 elections. Then, they surmised, the legislature could draw the districts again in 2003, this time ensuring more GOP seats in Congress. DeLay's gambit, building a political money operation in Austin to increase his clout in Washington, is typical of innovative & aggressive techniques that helped make him the House's second-ranking leader, and a politician with extraordinary reach into the worlds of lobbying, federal elections and state politics. Details of DeLay's fundraising efFts have been reported before. For the first time, however, a public interest group, Washington-based Democracy 21, assembled a comprehensive picture of his interlocking system of committees, which raised a combined $12.6 million in 2000-2002. DeLay is far beyond being a typical congressional member who sets up a reelection committee and perhaps a separate PAC. The GOP from Houston has established a maze of fundraising & consulting operations, each tailored to address a certain goal or take maximum advantage of federal or state laws governing donations. Among the first to create independent "527 groups" at a time when, unlike now, they could raise & spend campaign money without disclosing their sources. He has raised millions of dollars through state GOP organizations, which operate under looser campaign laws than do federal committees. He demanded senior GOP lawmakers raise $100,000 each and give the money to 10 vulnerable House incumbents. "If you want to understand power & influence of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in Washington, you have to understand the role played by DeLay Inc., his multimillion-dollar money machine," said Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer. "Tom DeLay is the king of congressional influence-money. In DeLay's world, the operating rule is you have to pay to play." The group's analysis of DeLay's top 100 contributors from 2000 to 2002 reveals a pattern: Each donor gave to at least 2 political operations linked to the Texan. These committees included his reelection campaign; Texans for a GOP Majority (TRMPAC); short-lived GOP Majority Issues Committee; and his "leadership committee," Americans for a GOP Majority (ARMPAC) , which had a federal arm and non-federal arm that could collect unlimited "soft money" donations before new campaign finance laws were enacted last year. 2000 to 2002 data testify to DeLay's expansive network. Texas home manufacturer Bob Perry gave to every committee connected to DeLay, for a total of $427,000. Philip Morris Co., 6th ranked donor, gave $138,000, with $110,000 going to ARMPAC's soft-money arm. Many of DeLay's contributors fall into categories that mesh with his legislative positions. DeLay fought higher tobacco taxes during Clinton's second term, and 3 of his top 20 donors are tobacco companies: UST Inc., R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, now part of Altria Group Inc. DeLay oversaw the drafting of the GOP's energy bill in the previous Congress, and energy companies, which favored the measure, gave his groups nearly $350,000 between 2000 & 2003. One co. was Kansas-based Westar Energy Inc., whose donations have come under scrutiny after the publication of e-mails in which company executives wrote about obtaining "a seat at the [congressional negotiating] table" by giving money to political committees chosen by DeLay & other GOP lawmakers. Westar gave $25,000 to TRMPAC in May 2002, and a month later Westar executives joined DeLay at a 2 day retreat at the Homestead resort in Virginia. Although DeLay said he never asked Westar for money, he met with company officials after they contributed to TRMPAC, and he backed a provision in the GOP energy bill that Westar keenly wanted. The provision was deleted after Westar came under federal investigation. Non-Texas donors, many of them companies & associations with interests before Congress, accounted for 43% of TRMPAC's take. Those giving at least $25,000 could send executives to the Homestead retreat. Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, represented by lobbyist & Mississippi GOP gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour, gave $100,000 to the PAC while Barbour was lobbying to block Medicare cuts that would cost the industry tens of millions of dollars. DeLay confidante Jack Abramoff, lobbyist who represents Mississippi Choctaw Indians, persuaded DeLay in 1995 to reverse course and kill a provision that would have taxed gambling revenue on Indian land. The Choctaws gave $6,000 to TRMPAC. TRMPAC's exec. dir. John Colyandro said professional fundraisers, not DeLay's associates, had control over who was tapped. Those fundraisers included DeLay's daughter, Danielle Ferro. Ellis said the Texas-based PAC targeted DeLay allies when seeking donations. "It makes sense to go to our friends in Washington because we share the same ideological views," he said. Boosting GOP congressional seats through redistricting, he said, was "part of the pitch." Money & politics watchdog group Texans for Public Justice dir. Craig McDonald questioned whether TRMPAC violated state law by using soft money to pay for political expenses rather than strictly administrative ones, and whether it illegally funneled corporate dollars to campaigns. DeLay is "using his access to special interests who want access to Congress, and he's leveraging that to control the politics & agenda of the Texas legislature," McDonald said. Ellis denies this, saying his group operated under the same rules as other PACs. All co. officials interviewed for this article said they supported DeLay because they agreed with him ideologically, and because DeLay helped achieve their companies' legislative priorities. "We believe those committees are really effective in accomplishing their goals in terms of party-building and get-out-the-vote efFts that have elected pro-business candidates," said UST spokesman Mike Bazinet. But donors' interests often are more complex. Some contributors, including a tobacco official who asked not to be identified, said DeLay's leadership position played a critical role in how they spent their money. Corporations have given to congressional leaders, but rarely has a leader been so explicit about rewarding friends and punishing opponents, this official said. Rep. Mark Foley R-FL said, "They know, obviously, that he's the second-most powerful person in the House. He controls a lot of legislation." According to many lobbyists, DeLay offers access that others do not, such as holding select golfing tournaments in Florida, Puerto Rico and elsewhere. He also invites donors to support a nonprofit foundation that he & his wife established for foster children, holding a retreat at Florida's Ocean Reef Club that netted more than $1 million from unidentified donors this year. "You have more quality time with Tom," said lobbying firm Podesta-Mattoon's Dan Mattoon . "You feel like you have a reasonable opportunity to bring up any political issues a client's interested in." DeLay delivers. Abramoff worked doggedly in 1998 on a bill allowing a referendum on Puerto Rican statehood. DeLay brought it to a floor vote and it passed overwhelmingly, although it stalled in the Senate. DeLay also was attentive to rum manufacturer Bacardi involved in a bitter contest with Pernod Ricard over right to market liquor labeled "Havana Club." Bacardi has fought vigorously against any lifting of the U.S. embargo of Cuba. When lawmakers considered relaxing it in 106th Congress, DeLay intervened, pulling several colleagues out of trade talks to persuade them to uphold the embargo. Bacardi & people associated with it donated $20,000 to ARMPAC's soft money arm, and another $20,000 to the Texas PAC. Bacardi officials declined to comment. Just as DeLay delivers legislatively, he delivers in elections. Some leaders use their leadership PACs to subsidize their travel & pay for a large political staff. DeLay puts his money into races. In the last election, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott R-MI gave less than 7% of his money to GOP candidates; DeLay gave nearly 367%. One of the first GOP congressional leaders to recognize the importance of grass-roots mobilization, DeLay devised "STOMP." The program, run by the National GOP Congressional Committee but subsidized in part by ARMPAC, poured volunteers into key districts 72 hours before last fall's elections. TRMPAC provides the best example of how DeLay translates his agenda into action. The group identified a slate of promising conservative legislative candidates in Texas, then provided them elaborate services. DeLay & Ellis assembled TRMPAC, which raised more than $1.5 million from individuals & corporations. They hired Colyandro, former colleague of senior White House adviser Karl Rove, to run the operation. In addition to cash contributions, the PAC gave the candidates nearly $35,000 in political research, $52,000 in phones to contact potential voters and $12,600 in direct mail. The group paid $27,000 to the Washington polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates; $27,600 to DeLay's daughter's fundraising firm, and $3,300 to Ferro herself. 85% of TRMPAC's candidates won their primaries, Colyandro said, and 77% won the general election, adding 17 new GOP to the Texas House. With the Texas legislature fully under GOP control, lawmakers forged ahead with a congressional redistricting plan strongly favoring GOP. TRMPAC's success has generated controversy in Texas, where Travis County district atty Ronnie Earle is investigating whether a group that issued a joint mailing with DeLay's PAC violated the state's corporate contribution laws. Ellis described as tenuous the connection between TRMPAC and the Texas Association of Business's PAC, noting that prosecutors have not identified TRMPAC as a target of the investigation. Corporations no longer may contribute to PACs aimed at federal elections, so Ellis is exploring the possibility of establishing state-oriented groups similar to TRMPAC in California & Florida. "We're going to do more of that under the new law," he said. "Our role is to direct resources to campaigns." Court files shed light on DeLay's PAC ties   Evidence in a lawsuit may show deeper involvement with the controversial Texans for a Republican Majority than the congressman has acknowledged. 6.12.05 Scott Gold, Lianne Hart L.A. Times Austin TX   When a judge said last month that a political committee founded by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had broken the law by failing to report $500,000 in donations, the Texas congressman distanced himself from the matter. DeLay's representatives insisted that he was a mere figurehead of the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority. He had no control over its day-to-day operation, they said, and his lawyer dismissed suggestions of impropriety as "outlandish." But in summer 2002, a crucial period of fundraising and activism for the committee, DeLay stepped off an airplane in Austin and received a list of people who were to attend a fundraiser billed as "a private meeting with Tom DeLay." 3 days earlier, a Texans for a Republican Majority staffer had e-mailed 3 other DeLay associates to ask for the list. "Have that on the ground in Austin for T.D.," he wrote. The 11 lobbyists & executives on the roster had an ambitious wish list in Austin & Washington. Among them were representatives of the chemical industry, a wheelchair distributor and a powerful Texas law firm with strong ties to the GOP. A database analysis shows that between 2000 & 2004, the groups represented that day gave at least $323,000 to DeLay's campaigns or political committees, including $77,500 to Texans for a Republican Majority. None of that money was donated at the meeting itself, and the donations were just a tiny portion of the millions DeLay has helped raise in recent years to dispense to conservative politicians through an innovative operation that has given him rare power in Washington and Texas. But the roster of attendees, DeLay's interest in the event and the ensuing donations do illuminate the private world where DeLay builds his political base. The fundraiser was one of several similar events described in GOP activists' files, which were subpoenaed in a lawsuit brought by 5 Democratic candidates here. Watchdog groups say the documents suggest that DeLay's involvement in the committee, which he founded in 2001 using $50,000 provided by a parallel group he had run for years in Washington, Americans for a Republican Majority, was deeper than he has acknowledged. In one August 2002 e-mail, for instance, a DeLay fundraiser asked a fellow aide for a "top 10 list" of potential donors to Texans for a Republican Majority. The e-mail said DeLay would personally contact certain prospects. Another exchange suggested that two donor checks would be delivered to DeLay himself. Fred Lewis, director of Campaigns for People, an Austin group that tries to reduce the influence of money on government, said it was telling that during the fundraising drive that summer, DeLay was cited as a donor draw. "Now that there are scandals, it turns out he wasn't involved," Lewis said. "Both can't be true. I find it almost comical … The evidence is overwhelming that he was much more involved than what they say." DeLay's representatives have denied that the congressman handled checks personally. In an interview, his Washington lawyer, Bobby Burchfield, said DeLay had no control over how donations were accepted or how money was spent. Critics "want to get rid of Tom DeLay, and they make no bones about it," Burchfield said. "Anything can appear improper to someone who is looking for a problem. There is nothing that violates legal standards or recognized standards of ethics here." Late last month, a Texas judge ruled that the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority broke the law when he failed to report $532,233 in corporate money raised during the 2002 campaign. The ruling came in the lawsuit brought by Democratic Party candidates who lost that year. The elections of 2002 were pivotal for Texas Republicans, who, using, in part, $1.5 million raised by Texans for a Republican Majority, took control of the governor's mansion and both chambers of the Legislature. At DeLay's urging, Texas lawmakers used their clout to draw new congressional district maps. Those maps produced a 6 seat swing in the Texas congressional delegation last year, shoring up the GOP majority in Congress. Democrats and campaign finance watchdog groups have alleged wrongdoing, largely because about a third of the money raised by Texans for a Republican Majority, founded by DeLay in 2001, came from corporations. Texas law bans corporate contributions to legislative candidates. The dispute over whether the corporate money was used illegally in the election has prompted several lawsuits, and a prosecutor in Austin is conducting a criminal investigation. Three of DeLay's political aides have been indicted on charges of money laundering and of unlawfully accepting and soliciting corporate contributions. DeLay has neither been named as a defendant nor charged with a crime, but prosecutors have not ruled out charging him. The details of his involvement in Texans for a Republican Majority will be important to determining whether prosecutors or Democrats' lawyers attempt to hold him personally liable for the fundraising operation. DeLay was "substantially" involved in Texans for a Republican Majority, "from its founding to the raising of money to figuring out how it would be spent," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group in Austin that also fights the influence of money in politics. "He was involved in helping to raise corporate funds. Those are essentially the same activities that [Texans for a Republican Majority] staff has been indicted for." DeLay is closely aligned with several of the lobbying groups represented at the July 2002 fundraiser. One attendee was Austin lawyer R. Kinnan Golemon, a lobbyist for oil & chemical companies and general counsel of the Texas Chemical Council. Golemon represents, among others, Koch Industries, a privately held Kansas firm that owns a host of petroleum, chemical, energy and finance companies. Koch is a prominent manufacturer of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has been found in drinking water. DeLay has been a key player in the effort to grant chemical companies immunity from liability associated with MTBE contamination. Koch & one of its executives, according to financial disclosure forms, have donated $17,500 to DeLay's last two campaigns and, since 2001, $63,500 to Americans for a Republican Majority. It does not appear from Texas Ethics Commission records that Golemon represents Koch anymore.   [ Koch, surname of GWBush's brother-in-law (husband of sister Margaret) & sister-in-law (wife of brother Marvin) ] Another attendee was Terral Smith, a former Texas legislator, onetime legislative director to then-Gov. George W. Bush and, at the time of the fundraiser, a lobbyist for the powerful Texas law firm Locke Liddell & Sapp. The firm has given at least $14,000 to DeLay's campaigns and committees since 2001. A prominent Locke Liddell lawyer, Andy Taylor, advised Texans for a Republican Majority and an affiliated group, the Texas Assn. of Business, during the 2002 campaign. Later, when GOP leaders in Texas launched their effort to draw new congressional district maps, Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott hired Taylor to defend the GOP plan in court. Taylor's bill came to $772,399. At the time, one Democratic lawmaker asked why the attorney general had allowed "Tom DeLay's attorney to draw the map for the state of Texas." Taylor has since left Locke Liddell. Watchdog groups say the connections support their belief that DeLay was more directly involved than he has acknowledged. Burchfield, DeLay's lawyer, called that contention absurd and naive. "Whenever a politician shows up for a fundraiser, there are going to be people there that have interests in the govt," he said. "If they didn't, they wouldn't be attending a political fundraiser. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these people were contributing money or otherwise acting in an improper way to get any sort of quid pro quo." DeLay associates face more ethics charges 9.14.05   AP Austin TX   2 associates of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay R-TX were indicted 9.13.05 on additional felony charges of violating Texas election law and criminal conspiracy to violate election law for their role in the 2002 legislative races. The indictments were the latest charges from a grand jury investigating the use of corporate money in the campaigns that gave Republicans control of the Texas House. In Texas, state law prohibits using corporate contributions to advocate the election or defeat of state candidates. The two men indicted Tuesday, Jim Ellis, who heads Americans for a Republican Majority, and John Colyandro, former executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, already faced charges of money laundering in the case. Colyandro also faces 13 counts of illegally accepting a corporate political contribution. The money-laundering charges stem from $190,000 in corporate funds that were sent to the Republican National Party, which spent the same amount on 7 candidates for the Texas Legislature. Joe Turner, representing Colyandro, said attorneys for the Republican National Committee examined and cleared all the questioned transactions. "We don't believe a crime was ever committed," Turner said. Once DeLay helped Republicans win control of the state Legislature in 2002, the majority leader engineered a Republican redistricting plan that gave the state's U.S. House delegation a 21-11 majority in the current Congress. DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee on 3 matters last year, including what the panel said was improperly getting the Federal Aviation Administration to intervene in a state political dispute. The dispute involved tracking down Democratic legislators who fled the state to avoid voting on the redistricting plan. DeLay has not been charged in the criminal case in Texas, though he has close ties to individuals and groups that have been. Americans for a Republican Majority is DeLay's national fundraising committee, and he helped create Texans for a Republican Majority.

Colorado election workers are still tabulating votes 'Provisional' ballots to become widespread under new law   11.15.02   T.R. Reid Wash.Post pA3 Brighton CO   Adams County Elections Dept has seen the future and it's slow. 10 days after the polling places closed, election workers are still plowing methodically through a mountain of ballots as they struggle to figure out who won the closest congressional election of 2002, in Colorado's new 7th District. The preliminary result on election night showed GOP Bob Beauprez leading Democrat Mike Feeley by 386 votes for the House seat. But that left a few thousand "provisional ballots" uncounted. And before those votes can be tallied, every ballot must be verified individually by election workers. With luck, officials say, the remaining votes should be ready to count by the start of next week. This time-consuming slog represents the future of U.S. elections. Under the new federal election law, the "provisional ballot" system in use here will become mandatory in every state beginning with the 2004 election. "What Colorado is going through right now will not be unique, or even unusual, 2 years from now," says Washington-based Election Reform Information Project dir. Doug Chapin. "We are entering an era when a lot of elections won't be over on election night," Chapin predicts. "Colorado's 7th District is going to take, what, two weeks or so, or even longer if there's a recount. This is something we're going to get used to." One undecided congressional race did reach conclusion yesterday when freshman Rep. Felix J. Grucci Jr. conceded to Democratic newcomer Timothy H. Bishop in NY 1st District. But in Colorado, waiting continues. "We're not at the point of counting the votes yet," says a weary Adams County clerk & recorder Carol Snyder. "We are just checking the databases to determine which of our provisional ballots meets the tests. I mean, there are pages & pages in the law on this." The "provisional ballot" system is designed to protect the voting rights of people whose names might otherwise get lost in the registration system. Some registered voters aren't listed at the polling place because they have moved to a new precinct since the previous election. Some states have had problems transferring the names from driver's license forms to voter registration tables. Voters who asked for absentee ballots, but then didn't get around to mailing them in, may be turned away if they show up at the polling place on Election Day. In the 18 states that have "provisional ballot" plans, voters in such circumstances are allowed to cast a ballot anyway. But the ballot won't be counted until election workers can verify that the voter was indeed entitled to vote. Congressional researchers found that the cohort of registered voters who can't get a ballot on Election Day can reach into the hundreds of thousands in a national election. The most notorious instance of registered voters denied the right to vote took place in Florida in 2000. Extensive investigations of the contested presidential count there showed that thousands of registered voters, many of them minorities, had been purged from voting lists and were denied ballots. Florida debacle prompted Congress to rewrite the nation's election laws. The resulting Help America Vote Act includes a provision mandating "provisional ballots," or similar measures, in every state. This year, the provisional votes in 3 suburban Denver counties will decide who goes to Congress from Colorado's new district. Jefferson County says it has about 345 provisional votes in the House race; Adams County has 993; Arapahoe County has as many as 3,800. "We have to check each name against the databases," says Adams County clerk Snyder, "and find out if the person is really registered. Some of them you can verify easily; some take a lot of work." Unlike most congressional districts, which have been mapped to produce a safe seat for one party or the other, Colorado's 7th District was specifically designed to be an electoral tossup. The district has one-third registered GOP, one-third Democrats and one-third unaffiliated voters. With about 160,000 ballots cast, the difference between the two contenders is less than a quarter of 1%. If the margin stays this tight after the "provisional" votes are counted, there will be an automatic recount. That could make it a few more weeks before Colorado figures out who its new House member is. While they wait the belated result, both men are acting as if they have won. Both have attended this week's orientation session for new House members at the Capitol, and both voted in their parties' leadership elections. Florida vote officials to talk felon list 6.6.04   Rachel La Corte APf Miami   Many of Florida's local elections supervisors are concerned about the accuracy of a list of 47,000 possible felons to be purged from voter rolls, and they want the state's help in ensuring that no voters are disenfranchised in November. The summer conference of elections supervisors from Florida's 67 counties opens Monday in Key West. The list is expected to be a hot topic, in part because CNN recently filed a lawsuit seeking access to it. "We know the outcome of using inaccurate lists," said Ion Sanchez, Leon County supervisor of elections. "The outcome is that legal voters are disenfranchised." The issue is particularly sensitive because in the 2000 presidential election George W. Bush was declared the winner by just 537 votes after 5 weeks of recounts & challenges in Florida. During the recounts, reports surfaced that people had been removed from voting rolls even though they were not felons. Information for the felon list is provided by the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement. Under state law, validating the information is part of the local supervisor's job. "This is not something that was sprung on the supervisors, they knew all along this was going to begin again," said Florida Dept of State spokeswoman Jenny Nash, which includes the elections division. Florida Dept of Law Enforcement spokeswoman Kristin Perezluha said officials are considering ways to assist the elections supervisors, incl web site that voters could access if they learn they are to be removed erroneously. GOP expands its majority Midterm gains defy history 11.6.02   Jim VandeHei & Juliet Eilperin; A.Crites & M.Lebling Wash.Post pA23 GOPs defied history by expanding their House majority in yesterday's midterm elections, winning all but a handful of their reelection chances, ousting several Democratic incumbents and claiming most of the nation's newly created districts. The GOP appeared poised to add about a half-dozen seats to its House margin. Combined with the GOP takeover of the Senate, the achievement will enhance President Bush's efFts to translate his legislative priorities into law. For Democrats, it was a day of disappointments & missed opportunities. GOP Reps. Jim Leach (IA), Anne Northup (KY), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (MS), Jim Nussle (IA), Mark Kennedy (MN), Rob Simmons (CT) and Nancy L. Johnson (CT), all top targets of Democrats, won reelection, despite heavy spending by their opponents. All but 4 GOP members running for reelection won, holding off well-funded challengers. Rep. Heather Wilson R-NM was unexpectedly trailing in returns early this morning but she had not conceded defeat. GOPs won 3 of 4 incumbent-versus-incumbent races created by the once-a-decade redistricting process. They also upset 2 Democratic incumbents: Rep. Karen L. Thurman FL & Rep. Bill Luther MN. GOPs picked up a key swing seat in northern Indiana and at least one new Georgia seat that was tailored for Democrats. These were the types of seats that Democrats had to win if they were to regain the House majority they lost 8 years ago. Overall, GOPs benefited greatly from redistricting & population growth in the South and the West, winning the vast majority of the country's newly created competitive House seats. It wasn't a clean sweep for the GOP, however. Chris Van Hollen D-MD knocked off 8 term Rep. Constance A. Morella R-MD in Washington's suburbs, and C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger defeated GOP Helen D. Bentley in Baltimore-area seat held by a GOP. Rep. Felix Grucci R-NY, whose campaign imploded after he ran a vicious attack ad against his opponent, was trailing by more than 1,000 votes late last night. In Tennessee, Democrat Lincoln Davis won a seat previously held by GOP Van Hilleary, who resigned to run for governor. But the party's hopes of winning control of the House faded as Democrats failed in several other must-win races. GOPs went into the elections holding 223 seats, 13 more than the Democrats' total. There are 2 independents, one who typically votes GOP, the other Democrat. Given the GOP head start, Democrats needed to win most of the truly competitive races to have any hope of ousting GOP from House control. Instead, they lost ground. The results marked a victory for Bush, who spent more time on the campaign trail than any president in history, rallying support for his party's candidates. He became the third president this century, and the first GOP, to help his party expand its ranks in midterm elections. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it in 1934, and Bill Clinton in 1998. "This race was really like having the president on the ballot," said GOP businessman Chris Chocola of Indiana, who defeated Democrat Jill Long Thompson after Bush campaigned for him twice. The seat is currently held by a Democrat. "People really want to support the president's leadership on cutting taxes and also on national security." The party not holding the White House has won an average of 26 seats in midterm elections since World War II. With GOP Senate win, continued GOP control of the House will help Bush as he approaches his 2004 reelection bid. House GOP, obedient followers of the president in his first 2 years in office, should have enough votes and party discipline to pass the Bush agenda, incl welfare reform and new tax cuts. That would pressure Senate Democrats to bend to the president's will or face another 2 years of partisan gridlock and White House criticism. Heading into yesterday's elections, Democrats were considered a long shot to win back the House, despite picking up seats in each of the past 3 elections. No party has gained House seats in 4 consecutive elections since the 1930s. Results were worse than many Democrats had expected. Redistricting didn't help their cause. Over the past 2 years, Democrat & GOP in Washington and many state capitals struck deals to protect lawmakers by redrawing House districts to protect incumbents of both parties. Latest reapportionment of the House's 435 seats, conducted every 10 years, after each census, helped GOP, because most of the nation's growth was in pro-GOP regions of South & West. The result: Only a tenth of all House seats were truly in play yesterday. In California, home to 53 of the nation's 435 districts, the only competitive race was to replace Democratic Rep. Gary A. Condit, who announced his retirement after admitting his relationship with a murdered intern. The two parties spent mammoth amounts of money fighting over a relatively tiny slice of America. GOP, backed by many businesses & wealthy individuals, outspent Democrats in most major House races. The GOP also spent a record amount of money on get-out-the-vote efforts. Soon after polls in the East closed, GOP took comFt in victories such as Northup's, Capito's and newcomer Tom Feeney's win over Democrat Harry Jacobs in a newly created Florida district. In another closely contested race, GOP Jeb Bradley won the seat being vacated by Rep. John E. Sununu R-NH, who was elected to the Senate. In Georgia, GOP Phil Gingrey defeated Democrat Roger Kahn in a newly created district that supposedly had a Democratic tilt. However, Rep. Julia Carson D-IN won her hard-fought race against GOP challenger Brose McVey. Overall, this year's political landscape didn't seem to favor Democrats. Memories of 9.11.01, were fresh in voters' minds, as were worries of a possible second war with Iraq looming on the horizon. Despite deflated stock prices, rising unemployment, a raft of business scandals and broader economic uncertainty, all of which historically have hurt the party in power, Bush has remained one of the most consistently popular presidents of modern times by focusing on terrorism and on confronting Iraqi Pres. Hussein. GOP House candidates gladly grabbed his coattails and followed his lead on the campaign trail. While recent polls showed few voters deciding their ballots on whether a candidate supported war with Iraq, there's little doubt that GOP benefited significantly from the attention paid to national security in the weeks leading to yesterday's elections. House GOP leaders purposely delayed votes on controversial domestic issues, such as funding for labor & education programs, before the elections, so their candidates, and, more importantly, voters could focus on Bush's Iraqi war resolution and his proposal for a new Dept on Homeland Security. It was a strategy hatched months before the elections, GOP strategists said. The long, voluble debate over Iraq seemed to drown out bleak economic news, such as sagging consumer confidence, that typically imperils the party in power. This allowed GOP candidates to focus on local concerns and to call in Bush, VP Cheney and other White House celebrities when they needed help revving up the base and appealing to swing voters. While the 108th Congress may look much like the current one, there will be plenty of intrigue and tantalizing story lines. Majority Whip Tom DeLay R-TX is likely to become majority leader, and to fight even harder to put his conservative stamp on the new Congress. Widely regarded as the House's most powerful member, DeLay is expected to play a larger role in crafting his party's platform and in deciding which bills will reach the floor for votes. If Bush moves to the center on domestic programs such as welfare reform & education funding in preparation for his reelection bid in 2004, DeLay might resist. Further enhancing his stature, DeLay handpicked the leading candidates for most of his party's other leadership positions, and he enjoys their fierce loyalty. It is the Democrats who might be torn by internecine warfare. Minority Leader Gephardt D-MO, under fire from liberals for his strong support of Bush's war resolution, is considering relinquishing his leadership position to run for president in 2004. Democrats' House losses might force Gephardt out, lawmakers said. Should that happen, Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi of California is a strong favorite to replace him as House Democrats' leader. She is considered more liberal than Gephardt and less of a compromiser. She opposed the Bush war resolution, for example. Pelosi's ascension might prompt conservative Democrats such as Ralph M. Hall TX, Ken Lucas KY and others to switch parties, further padding the GOP majority, according to Democratic officials. She is expected to be challenged by Rep. Martin Frost, a Texas moderate and Gephardt protege. In GOP win, a lesson in money, muscle, planning 11.10.02   Jim VandeHei & Dan Balz, M.Allen & D.S.Broder Wash.Post pA1 Ten days before the congressional elections, Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss R-GA needed help, and fast. His polls showed him 7 points down in his long-shot bid to oust Sen. Max Cleland, veteran who returned from Vietnam with one arm and no legs, in a red-white-and-blue election year colored by fears of terrorism & Saddam Hussein. So Chambliss did what virtually every hard-pressed GOP candidate in the country was doing: He implored President Bush to jet to his state and fire up potential voters. "There's only one guy who can juice" such voters, Chambliss strategist Gene Ulm told the White House. Could the president please visit the vital suburbs of either Atlanta or Savannah? To the campaign's amazement, Bush agreed to rallies in both places. 3 days after his Nov. 2 appearances, Chambliss upset Cleland, helping GOPs retake control of the Senate. It was by no means the first time the White House aggressively inserted itself in the 2002 congressional races, nor would it be the last. Starting early last year and culminating on Election Day, Bush and his political team used well-timed, well-placed and sometime heavy-handed strikes to restore GOPs to power on Capitol Hill. The Bush White House certainly wasn't the only big factor in last week's surprising & dramatic elections. Local issues, Democratic mistakes, attack ads, pro-GOP efforts by lobbies such as the drug industry, Texas Rep. Tom DeLay's political machine and the intangibles of luck and fate all played key roles, too. "We had the message and mechanics and moment," said Senate GOP top political strategist Mitch Bainwol. GOP stunned most political handicappers by regaining the Senate, expanding their House majority and holding their loss of governorships, thought to be an esp. vulnerable GOP spot, to a mere handful. Crucial to it all was Bush and, in the words of Ulm, his "precision weapons." Starting more than a year ago, the administration's obsession with discipline & detail was shaping 2002 election. Under the leadership of White House sr adviser Karl Rove and political director Ken Mehlman, GOP financed the most expensive & sophisticated GOP get-out-the-vote & polling operations ever. Rove, DeLay and others concluded that GOPs had lost the turnout battle in recent elections by focusing too much on paid advertising and too little on the ground war that Democratic allies such as the AFL-CIO do so well: getting potential voters to the polls. Beginning in early 2001, the party registered thousands of new GOP voters, particularly in fast-growing states. It invested heavily in a program, dubbed the "72-hour project," that would later help spur record turnout in key regions. GOP National Committee spent millions of dollars honing a system to identify voters, down to specific households, and contact them repeatedly with phone calls, mail and visits from party activists. With so many campaign ads confusing so many voters, most political strategists saw old-fashioned, door-to-door politics, augmented by new-age resources such as the Palm Pilot, as a critical element. DeLay's top political hands, incl little-known but influential figures such as Dan Flynn & Timothy Berry, started meeting with RNC Deputy Chairman Jack Oliver last summer to discuss their own get-out-the-vote project, designed to complement the national party's efFt in especially tight races. DeLay drew 200-mile-diameter circles around each competitive House district and called on non-threatened GOP legislators who fell inside them to bring volunteers to the area. The party offered to pay for transportation, while lawmakers & business groups covered hotels & meals. Around this time, GOPs aggressively raised money specifically to scare off potential Democratic challengers. The strategy included early negative ads, such as the attacks on House candidate Dario Herrera (D) of Nevada, whose campaign eventually faltered. More than a year before the elections, in Alabama, where GOPs feared that popular Rep. Bud Cramer (D) might challenge Sen. Jeff Sessions (R), Bush held a fundraiser for Sessions. The GOP campaign bank account soared, and Cramer stayed out of the race. In Missouri, GOP worried about a potentially tough challenge to Rep. Sam Graves (R). VP Cheney went in early to raise money for Graves, and an administration official concluded, "We took a potentially competitive race off the table." "We tried to be very strategic, very methodical, very focused," Mehlman said. Bush, Cheney and Rove handpicked Chambliss for the Senate race in Georgia, Norm Coleman in Minnesota, and John Thune in South Dakota. (Coleman & Chambliss won, Thune narrowly lost.) In House races, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert R-IL and National GOP Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (VA) did the same, pushing weaker prospective candidates aside in key districts. It takes more than money & manpower to win elections. So by late summer, with campaigns in full swing, congressional GOPs held private talks with White House officials to plot a winning legislative & policy agenda. Polls showed that the wave of corporate scandals was not eroding support for GOP candidates, but broader economic concerns might. Once Bush had called for the creation of a Homeland Security Dept and talk of war with Iraq intensified, GOP saw an opening. GOP congressional leaders decided to delay action on controversial domestic items until the elections were over, according to people familiar with the discussions. That would allow national security matters, the GOPs' best issue, to carry the day. In Georgia, Chambliss's ads attacked Cleland for opposing Bush's version of Homeland Security Dept legislation, even though the issue centered on a somewhat arcane dispute over civil service rules. Democrats' interest in protecting govt union rights, Chambliss and other GOP claimed, meant they weren't serious about national security. GOP congressional leaders postponed votes on spending bills for labor & education programs, which would have put several fiscally conservative GOPs in the uncomFtable position of voting against school construction and other projects that appeal to swing voters. Democrats believed they had a chance in the campaign's closing weeks to turn the debate back to the economy in a way advantageous to their candidates. But the absence of a clear Democratic alternative, and Bush's emphasis on tax cuts & economic stimulus efFts, prevented Democratic nominees from gaining traction on the economy, despite public sentiment that the country was heading in the wrong direction. An RNC poll taken during the campaign's final weekend showed GOPs actually winning the economic argument by a narrow margin. At the same time, GOPs pulled a page from former president Bill Clinton's playbook, co-opting issues such as Social Security & Medicare that typically favor Democrats. Using the bully pulpit of the presidency, they offered their own solutions that left many voters unsure which party would best serve their interests. "When I was on the street, the talk among union members was, 'Where was everyone else?' " said 13 million- member AFL-CIO political dir. Steve Rosenthal . "There was a big partner missing at the table, and that was the Democratic Party. Democrats can't ride in with vans and sound trucks on Election Day without having an agenda." To make matters worse, major drug companies were airing positive ads for GOPs, defending them on what Democrats thought was their ace in the hole: prescription drug coverage for seniors. The Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America and the deceptively named United Seniors Association, largely funded by the big drug companies, spent more than $12 million on tv & radio ads such as one that lauded GOP nominee Jim Talent, who won the hotly contested Missouri Senate race, for backing a market-based prescription drug program. As the campaign's final weeks approached, Bush enjoyed the highest overall approval ratings of any modern president heading into his first midterm. More important to GOP thinking was his standing with GOP-leaning voters. Since 9.11.01, Bush's approval rating among self-identified GOP has hovered just above 90%, giving him extraordinary draw on the party's base. "We'd earlier thought there was a necessity in these high-profile Senate races for him to go in, most of them twice," first to raise funds and then to boost turnout, a senior White House official said. In Missouri, for example, Bush held fundraisers in St. Louis & Kansas City for Talent, followed by get-out-the-vote visits to the St. Louis area and Springfield. There were often strings attached to Bush's help, however. Rove micromanaged some races down to details as fine as how long candidates could talk before the president took the stage. A NJ GOP official involved in the losing Senate campaign of Doug Forrester described the Rove- Mehlman operation as "ruthless" in demanding results. Mehlman called the candidates on their cell phones with good news, such as a planned presidential visit, and he called campaign managers with bad news. When Forrester wanted Bush to headline a fundraiser, Mehlman demanded that his campaign sell $1 million in tickets. The White House later insisted on more polling data to prove that New Jersey was worth the efFt. "We're going to be making decisions about where the president is going the last 10 days, and those decisions are going to be guided at least in part by how the campaigns used a presidential visit earlier in the cycle," Mehlman said, according to the GOP official. The White House had tentatively scheduled a presidential visit for Forrester in the campaign's last 5 days. But with Forrester's numbers sinking, his staff learned the bad news 8 days before the election, in a weekly conference call with Mehlman deputy Alicia Davis. "There was deathly silence," said a participant. Several key races were decided in the final 72 hours. DeLay had rented 73 buses & 245 vans to move 8,000 volunteers to targeted districts. As recently as 6 weeks before the election, DeLay was hitting up businesses for an extra $600,000 in soft money to make sure candidates had enough for the final push, according to people familiar with the drive. Hundreds of those volunteers went to Colorado's 7th District for a race so close a winner has yet to be declared. For the entire state, "we had a couple thousand people on the ground the last couple of days," Oliver said. While voters often say they loathe negative ads, they frequently elect candidates who use them, and GOP generally had more money for such efFts than did Democrats. National GOP Campaign Committee also spent an extraordinary $5 million on polling, much of it in the campaign's final 8 weeks. NRCC chair Davis said the total was five times the amount spent on polling in the 1998 midterm elections By election day, GOP polls showed that in 21 key House districts, a plurality of voters had an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic nominee. This was the handiwork of beefed-up GOP opposition research and a concerted strategy to put Democrats on the defensive early, forcing them to spend their limited resources, GOP operatives said. Even when Democratic candidates outraised their GOP opponents, the national GOP operation would flood the districts with money. Rep. Jim Leach R-IA, whom Democrats expected to knock off, won in part because the NRCC poured $2 million into his district. Rove & Mehlman made some last-minute adjustments to Bush's schedule based on their sense of movement in competitive House races. The president went to Springfield, IL, in the campaign's late stages to help Rep. John M. Shimkus (R), who was in one of 4 races nationwide pitting GOP & Democratic incumbents. "The polling showed Shimkus close," the official said. Bush also made a late WV visit when public polls showed Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) narrowly ahead of Democrat Jim Humphreys. Bush's trip had 2 purposes in a state he surprisingly won in 2000. "She was ahead, but she was not ahead by the margin she needed," a White House official said. "It would have been a big blow to us to lose her, and it also would have had ramifications for us" in 2004. Whenever possible, Rove & Mehlman tried to put Bush in places where he could influence both a competitive Senate race and a House race or two. His two Nov. 2 stops in Georgia not only helped Chambliss upset Cleland but also contributed to GOP victories in two new House districts drawn specifically to favor Democrats. And his visits doubtlessly played a role in Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes's surprising loss. "In our universe," a senior White House adviser said, "we're going to first try to affect the Senate, second try to affect the House and then, if we have an opportunity, to affect governorships. In the closing stages, we tried to have twofers." Bush supporter leaves campaign over role in ad 8.21.04   Adam Entous Reuters Crawford TX   A Vietnam veteran who worked with President Bush's campaign has left over his appearance in a commercial by a group challenging Democratic candidate John Kerry's war record, a campaign spokesman said on Saturday. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Ken Cordier was a Bush supporter during the 2000 election and served as a member of his a steering committee to help reach out to veterans during this election. "Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement being run by (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)," Schmidt said. "Because of his involvement with this 527 (group), Col. Cordier will no longer participate" in the steering committee. The disclosure of Cordier's involvement came one day after White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot denied the campaign coordinated with the group on the ads, which claim that Kerry lied about his Vietnam War service. Kerry has called the ads inaccurate and accused the group of being a front for the Bush campaign. On Friday the Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission seeking to force the ads' withdrawal. New advertisements by the group are set to debut next week in states where Kerry has touted his military service. Kerry won several medals and his record is often contrasted with Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the war. McClellan has refused to specifically condemn the ads and instead has urged Kerry to join Bush in calling for an end to all commercials funded by unrestricted donations. U.S. advocacy groups can collect vast sums of money to run their own political advertisements but are barred from coordinating their activities with campaigns or political parties. "There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence that the Bush campaign is behind this," Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. "So it's no surprise that the president refuses to condemn these scurrilous ads." The Bush campaign has said Kerry ignores the fact that his backers run attack advertising aimed at the president. Over the last 12 months, groups favoring the Democrats have spent $63.5 million on ads attacking Bush, according to the Bush campaign, which filed its own FEC complaint earlier this year alleging coordination between Kerry and the left-leaning groups. payroll GOP can't beat '3rd party' groups, so it forms them   After their failed FEC challenge of unaffiliated fundraisers, such as the liberal MoveOn.org, reluctant catch up   6.6.04   Lisa Getter L.A. Times Wash.D.C.   After their failed efFts to outlaw what they called "shadowy third-party groups," GOP now plays a fast & furious game of catch up in the race for campaign cash. They're finding it's not that easy. In the weeks since the Federal Election Commission decided not to rein in the mostly Democratic groups this election cycle, several top GOPs have formed their own 527s, so-named for the tax-code section that governs the organizations. But other GOP leaders have decided to stay on the sidelines, echoing earlier rhetoric from President Bush's campaign that the groups are against the law. "I got several calls that said, 'Let's do this,' " said Bush fundraiser Fred Meyer, who is also Texas finance chair for RNC Victory 2004 campaign. But he & fellow Bush fundraiser Jeanne Johnson Phillips decided not to take any chances. They are continuing to raise money for the president's campaign, the RNC and state races, but not for any 527s. "I'm close to the [Bush] campaign," Meyer said. "I'm not interested in causing anyone any trouble. We're following the law." Many corporations, traditionally large givers of campaign cash, shrank their political budgets after passage of a 2002 federal law that significantly limited how much they could contribute. As a result, they have little money to funnel to groups just now forming. The Leadership Forum is among the GOP 527s that has met some resistance. It accelerated its fundraising drives after the FEC decision last month, but the GOP's aggressive stance against 527s has had "a chilling effect" on donors, said forum vice president former Rep. Bill Paxon R-NY. "We're definitely playing catch up. We have a long way to go." Even if fundraising improves for such groups, their late start poses other problems. Under federal law, ads funded with corporate or union money face content restrictions in the 30 days before an opposing party's national convention and in the 60 days before the general election. For instance, such ads cannot attack a candidate by name. With the Democratic convention set for late July, that essentially leaves only the next few weeks and August for the broadcast of corporate & union backed 527 ads that target presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA. "The GOPs miscalculated" in their legal war against 527s, said a GOP strategist who asked not to be named. "It was a gamble. They went with a legal course of action as opposed to a political course of action. We essentially ceded 3 months of time to [the Democrat-allied] groups … " 527s have become major political players in response to the 2002 campaign finance reform act, which banned individuals, corporations and unions from making unlimited contributions to political parties. Such contributions, known as soft money, were a mainstay of the Democratic Party. Last summer, a group of Democratic insiders met at the Long Island estate of billionaire George Soros ¹ and hatched a plan to create several interlocking 527s that would raise millions of dollars to help defeat Bush. They contended that the soft money ban did not apply to 527s. Other Democratic groups followed their lead. So far, the major liberal 527s, which include America Coming Together, Media Fund and MoveOn.org Voter Fund, combined have raised more than $100 million. Since March, the liberal 527s have spent about $32 million on television ads, according to independent monitor TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group. Most of those ads have criticized the president, and many ran at a time when Kerry could not afford to respond to a barrage of Bush attack ads. In late March, the Bush campaign and the RNC filed a formal complaint with the FEC, alleging that Kerry was benefiting from an "illegal infusion of soft money." The complaint claimed that Kerry's campaign was part of a criminal conspiracy to illegally coordinate with the 527s. The FEC, however, has not acted on the complaint. In a separate action in mid-May, the agency effectively kept the 527s in business at least through election day. Even as GOP strategists pursued their fight against the 527s, some top GOPs were hedging their bets. Las Vegas publicist Sig Rogich said he met with Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer who serves as national counsel for the Bush campaign, and 2 others several months ago to discuss a revised GOP game plan if the FEC did not shut down the 527s. Rogich did not remember the names of the others at the meeting at his Las Vegas office, but he said they represented Progress for America, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group that set up a 527 5.28.04. "They were seeking people who might be effective in raising money," said Rogich, who has raised more than $250,000 for the president's reelection. "I was one of many, many people that they were looking at to see what we could do to even the playing field." Ginsberg said he was at the meeting as a lawyer for Progress for America, not as the president's campaign counsel. "I was asked to be there to provide legal advice on a new and confusing law. The people in attendance wanted to know what could be done within the bounds of the law," he said. Ginsberg's dual role is not unusual. The law firm representing Kerry's campaign also represents Media Fund and America Coming Together, and the Democratic National Committee's top lawyer represents MoveOn.org. Progress for America is hoping to have a strong role in helping Bush and hindering Kerry. "We've started reaching out to any & all GOPs," said group's president Brian McCabe. "One of the things we have said is we'll work with other groups to quarterback on the conservative side to move the ball forward." Among the groups it will work with is the Leadership Forum, which Paxon said "was on the runway for a year-and-a-half waiting for clearance from ground control" to promote the GOP cause. The Leadership Forum's advisory board includes a number of prominent GOPs, incl Ken Duberstein, White House chief of staff under President Reagan, former NC Sen. Lauch Faircloth, and former House members Bob Livingston R-LA, Tillie Fowler R-FL, Susan Molinari R-NY and Bud Shuster R-PA. The group is planning a 7.6.04 dinner featuring House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert R-IL. The group has not set a fundraising goal. "It's clear the GOP 527s collectively will not have enough resources as the Democrats," Paxon said. The Club for Growth, a conservative 527 that raised about $2 million before the FEC decision, said it had received another $2 million since then. The group wants to raise $20 million to spend on the presidential race. It has spent about $500,000 in advertising and plans another $500,000 ad buy this week. "I would definitely say people are a lot more willing to do this than before," said group exec. dir. David Keating. But he said there was still some resistance. "We've been hearing for months that this was wrong, wrong, wrong. I guess people don't realize there's this new climate." Club for Growth founder & president Stephen Moore said the Bush campaign was "ill-advised" when it filed its complaints against the liberal 527s. "It was a setback," he said. "It froze out the money on the GOP side while the Democrats went hog wild on raising it." New GOP group Americans for Jobs & Growth, was formed by a group of Washington lobbyists & political strategists, incl Cesar Conda, VP Cheney's former asst for domestic policy. Conda is also one of the Bush campaign's top fundraisers. The group hopes to raise $7 million.

Donors underwrite DeLay's deluxe lifestyle 12.20.05   Larry Margasak, Sharon Theimer AP As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and 4 star restaurants, all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire. Over the past 6 years, the former House majority leader and his associates have visited places of luxury most Americans have never seen, often getting there aboard corporate jets arranged by lobbyists and other special interests. Public documents reviewed by Associated Press tell the story: at least 48 visits to golf clubs and resorts; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two. Instead of his personal expense, the meals and trips for DeLay and his associates were paid with donations collected by the campaign committees, political action committees and children's charity the Texas Republican created during his rise to the top of Congress. His lawyer says the expenses are part of DeLay's effort to raise money from Republicans and to spread the GOP message. Put them together and a lifestyle emerges. "A life to enjoy. The excuse to escape," Palmas del Mar, an oceanside Puerto Rican resort visited by DeLay, promised in a summer ad on its Web site as a golf ball bounced into a hole and an image of a sunset appeared. The Caribbean vacation spot has casino gambling, horseback riding, snorkeling, deep-sea fishing and private beaches. "He was very friendly. We always see the relaxed side of politicians," said Daniel Vassi, owner of the French bistro Chez Daniel at Palmas del Mar. Vassi said DeLay has eaten at his restaurant every year for the last three, and was last there in April with about 20 other people, including the resort's owners. The restaurant is a cozy and popular place on the yacht-lined marina at Palmas del Mar. Dishes include bouillabaisse for about $35.50, Dover sole for $37.50 and filet mignon for $28.50. Palmas del Mar is also a DeLay donor, giving $5,000 to DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC in 2000. Since he joined the House leadership as majority whip in 1995, DeLay has raised at least $35 million for his campaign, PACs, foundation and legal defense fund. He hasn't faced a serious re-election threat in recent years, giving him more leeway than candidates in close races to spend campaign money. AP's review found DeLay's various organizations spent at least $1 million over the last 6 years on hotels, restaurants, golf resorts and corporate jet flights for their boss and his associates. While it's illegal for a lawmaker to tap political donations for a family vacation, it is perfectly legal to spend it in luxury if the stated purpose is raising more money or talking politics. Until his recent indictment in Texas on political money laundering charges, DeLay was the second most powerful lawmaker in the House and as such, could command an audience of donors wherever he went. DeLay attorney Don McGahn declined to identify which trips listed in the reports were taken by DeLay and which by his associates. But he said all the travel was legal and not done for DeLay's benefit. "Raising political money costs money," he said. "Mr. DeLay has done extensive fundraising, and traveled far and wide to do so, but you would be hard-pressed to find someone who has raised more for others, whether for candidates or political parties," McGahn said. Special interests routinely make donations and attend fundraisers to gain access to govt decision makers. And while other congressional leaders accepted trips and used political money to cover travel, none compares with DeLay: &149; Campaign & PAC reports filed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist R-TN show several payments to companies for travel, including Cracker Barrel, Union Pacific, Schering-Plough and Home Depot. But there were few visits to golf courses, and those were mostly close to home. &149; Reports from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid D-NV show expenses at resorts in South Carolina, New Mexico and Puerto Rico. But he too holds most events closer to home, like Las Vegas casinos and Lake Tahoe resorts. &149; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi D-CA has held events at ritzy hotels such as The Mark in New York and the Four Seasons in Atlanta, but had few corporate flights or visits to resorts, her reports show. &149; House Speaker Dennis Hastert R-IL comes closest to rivaling DeLay's travels, reporting fundraisers at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in Florida, the Ritz-Carlton in Kapalua, Hawaii, the Phoenician Resort in Scottsdale AZ and the Waterfall Resort in Alaska. Hastert's groups also paid for dozens of corporate jet flights and restaurant meals. Some say DeLay pushes the limits, and risks alienating donors. "I don't think the people that contributed to me would believe it was a good expenditure of their hard-earned dollars for me to go and play golf and enjoy life anywhere," said former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, a fiscally conservative Texas Democrat who lost his House seat following DeLay led redistricting. A $50 contributor to one of DeLay's political groups wasn't phased by the spending, saying he gives to politicians who share his political views. "I guess it's almost an automatic fifty bucks to anybody who's on my side," said George Wrenn, a retired architectural historian from Freedom NH. DeLay's travels with recently indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff are now under criminal investigation. But those trips were paid by special interests directly under the banner of congressional fact-finding. DeLay's own political empire has underwritten far more travel. The destinations for DeLay or his political team include a Ritz-Carlton hotel in Jamaica; the Prince Hotel in Hapuna Beach, Hawaii; the Michelangelo Hotel in New York; the Wyndham El Conquistador Resort & Golden Door Spa in Fajardo, Puerto Rico; and the Phoenician Resort in Scottsdale AZ built by Charles Keating before he became the most public face of the savings and loan scandal in the early 1990s. There's also the Ritz-Carlton in Naples FL, offering "dazzling views of the Gulf of Mexico, warm golden sunsets and 3 miles of pristine beach" plus golf, a spa, goose-down comforters, marble bathrooms and private, ocean-view balconies. Rooms run from about $389 to more than $3,000 a night in December, the month DeLay's PAC spent $4,570 on lodging there in 2004.

"He liked to talk to people," said Pedro Muriel, a waiter at Puerto Rico's El Conquistador Resort. Muriel recalled DeLay staying in an enclave of privately owned red tile-roofed villas. The villas have up to 3 bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms and French doors that open onto terraces or balconies facing the Caribbean. A moon-shape pool hugs the edge of a steep cliff, its waters spilling over and appearing to blend into the sea. Villa prices average about $1,300 a night. Guests get their own butlers. The resort offers 6 swimming pools and an 18-hole championship golf course. Its casino served as the setting for the last scene in the James Bond movie "Goldfinger."
DeLay's donors have also financed visits to country clubs and tournament-quality golf courses, including the exclusive Baltusrol Golf Club in Springfield NJ, site of this summer's PGA Championship; Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in Farmington PA, home of another PGA event; and Harbour Town Golf Links, a Jack Nicklaus-designed course on Hilton Head Island SC.

"World class. Dynamic. Luxury resort. Spend a day, spend a week, spend a lifetime," another DeLay fundraising spot, the ChampionsGate golf resort near Orlando FL, invites on its Web site. The resort, where a round of golf typically costs $70 to $80 per player on top of lodging, has 2 championship courses designed by pro golfer Greg Norman and offers players a Global Positioning Satellite system it boasts "acts as a professional caddie."
Dining at fine restaurants also is routine. The stops for DeLay and his associates include Morton's of Chicago, where the average dinner for two goes for about $170 before tax and tip, and "21" in Manhattan, a longtime glamour spot where American caviar goes for $38 for a taste.

When DeLay wants to head somewhere without the hassle of commercial travel, he often asks a company for its jet and uses donations to pay for it. Dozens of businesses have loaned DeLay their planes, from tobacco giants UST, RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris to energy companies like El Paso, Panda, Reliant and Dynegy. R.J. Reynolds let DeLay use a company plane at least 9 times since 1999, once joining Philip Morris in making jets available for a DeLay PAC fundraiser at a Puerto Rican resort in winter 2002. R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said planes are loaned usually at lawmakers' request and are only done if jets aren't needed for company business.
"It's much more convenient as opposed to your regular commercial travel," Howard said, noting there is no need to go through airport security. On R.J. Reynolds' planes, smoking is allowed and there are usually beverages and deli-style food. There's more leg room and the convenience of phones. The smoking rule suits DeLay, who likes to chomp on cigars while golfing and reported spending at least $1,930 in PAC money on cigar-shop purchases. The cigars were reported to the Federal Election Commission as donor gifts.
DeLay's political committee also reported a $2,896 shopping spree at the Amelia Marche Burette gift shop on Amelia Island FL for donor gifts. The shop carries "gourmet cookware, Sabatier cutlery and gadgets for your every need."

Campaign money finds new conduits as law takes effect   Shadow organizations to raise 'soft money' 11.5.02   Thomas B. Edsall Wash.Post pA2 With the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law taking effect tomorrow, top GOP lobbyists & Democratic operatives are putting finishing touches today on shadow organizations designed to evade the intent of the law and continue the flow of unregulated "soft money" into presidential & congressional campaigns. These new committees are being created with full knowledge of, and advance clearance by, the House & Senate leadership, incl top Democrats who led the fight for passage of the McCain-Feingold measure prohibiting the national parties and candidates for federal office from raising & spending soft money. All the party committees, Democratic & GOP national, Senate & House campaign committees, are engaged in setting up one or more special conduits for soft money, according to reliable sources, with each operating under varying degrees of secrecy. "May a thousand flowers bloom," declared a GOP legal specialist who would like to see as many soft money options emerge as possible so that financial backers can put money into media, get-out-the-vote and other election activities of their choosing. In 2000, party committees raised & spent nearly $500 million in soft money, and they are on track to beat that record this year. The new law goes into effect tomorrow, and it faces immediate court challenge with briefs to be filed tomorrow in accelerated proceedings that will put the McCain-Feingold bill before the Supreme Court within months. New committees with ties to the Democratic senatorial & congressional campaign committees will register with the Federal Election Commission today, sources said. In addition, Harold Ickes, who was an aide to President Bill Clinton, will take responsibility for a special "presidential media" soft money committee, several Democratic sources said. A GOP group called the Leadership Forum, run by 2 prominent GOP lobbyists, has already registered with the Internal Revenue Service, and officials at the National GOP Senatorial Committee say they are helping form soft-money committees that under tax law will not have to disclose who gives money or how the money is spent. Sen. John McCain R-AZ, lead sponsor of the campaign finance legislation, vowed to "fight these activities in the courts, in Congress, wherever we have to." The Democrats are generally setting up committees to channel the controversial large, unregulated donations from corporations, unions and rich people that are required by law to disclose their sources of money and how they spend it on advertising, voter registration or other political activities. Most GOP strategists are creating groups that are not required to disclose the sources of money or how it is spent. "That's a no-brainer. Most donors don't want their names in the paper," said one GOP. A new GOP committee to channel soft money to House campaigns has been set up by two prominent lobbyists, former representative Bill Paxon R-NY &and House majority whip Tom DeLay R-TX former aide Susan Hirschmann. Leadership Forum vp Paxon has 51 clients incl drug companies, Japanese banking interests, the chemical industry and waste disposal companies. Committee pres. Hirschmann works in a firm with a list of lobbying clients very similar to Paxon's. In its registration with the IRS, the Leadership Forum said it would "engage in nonfederal political activities on state & local levels and to engage in dialogue on issues of importance to all Americans." A number of GOP lawyers who are not directly involved in the Paxon-Hirschmann venture said the 2 lobbyists are opening themselves up to a host of potential legal difficulties because the McCain-Feingold law sets severe restrictions on the ability of those tied to soft-money groups to communicate with federal officials, the essence of lobbying work. "I don't know what Bill is up to, but he is going to have Fred Wertheimer on his back demanding depositions explaining every conversation he has with any congressman. He & Hirschmann have clients who pay them to talk to the leadership. How can they put that at risk?" said one GOP election-law specialist. Wertheimer runs Democracy 21, which is a leading McCain-Feingold bill advocate and has gone into court to force tough enforcement. The GOP chairman in a major state volunteered: "I hope Paxon & Hirschmann help my candidates, but there is no way I'll talk to them. I'm not going to spend my days in court explaining who said what when and where." Neither Paxon nor Hirschmann returned phone calls. In addition, 2 other people are listed on the Leadership Forum IRS filing: , Epiphany Productions pres. Julie Wadler and National GOP Congressional Committee former deputy finance dir. J. Randolph Evans, Atlanta lawyer, who declares on his Web site that his clients include "former & current U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich R-GA & Dennis Hastert R-IL" Wadler & Evans did not return phone inquiries seeking comment. Many of those involved in creation of soft-money groups declined to provide detailed specifics on the record, for fear of legal challenges by Wertheimer, Common Cause and other groups that support campaign finance legislation. "It would be unfair to my clients," pleaded one source.

'Soft money' ban evasion alleged 2 Political parties accused in complaints filed with FEC 11.22.02   Thomas B. Edsall Wash.Post pA10 4 campaign finance advocacy groups filed a formal complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission accusing officials of both parties and two prominent GOP lobbyists of conspiring to evade the new ban on party- raised "soft money." The complaint appears likely to become a test of the enforcement of the McCain-Feingold law, which went into effect 11.6.02. The political parties & a number of political operatives are openly, and in some cases secretly, forming groups to get around the law and continue the flow of large contributions known as soft money from corporations, unions and the wealthy into federal campaigns. "The attitude in Washington of some of our elected representatives & the political parties is that there is no sheriff, there is no judge and therefore there is no need to comply with the nation's campaign finance laws," said Democracy 21 pres. Fred Wertheimer. The most significant provisions of the McCain-Feingold law prohibit the national parties & federal candidates from raising & spending soft money. The complaint filed by Democracy 21, Common Cause, the Campaign & Media Legal Ctr and the Ctr for Responsive Politics names the Democratic & GOP Congressional Committees; Democratic National Committee and its chair Terence R. McAuliffe; Democratic State Parties Organization (DSPO) chair Joseph Carmichael; Leadership Forum and 2 GOP lobbyists, Bill Paxon & Susan Hirshmann, who are forum officers. Wertheimer contended that the Leadership Forum is particularly vulnerable to legal challenge because it received $1 million the day before the McCain-Feingold law took effect. This puts the forum in direct violation of the prohibition against soft money fundraising and spending by "any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled" by a national party committee. A spokeswoman for McAuliffe dismissed the complaint as "completely laughable." She said it is based on inaccurate "third-hand" newspaper accounts, and McAuliffe "had nothing to do with setting up" a new soft money committee. Separately, a key GOP operative acknowledged yesterday telling a postelection meeting in Florida of the National Association of Business Political Action Committees that "the Leadership Forum would give PACs, individuals, corporations and trade associations an avenue for providing soft money for an entity that at some point may well get involved in political activities at the state, local and federal levels in support of GOP candidates." Forum lawyer Randy Evans disputed Wertheimer's charges. He said the forum, which is a tax-exempt political committee, has separately asked the FEC for an advisory opinion on the $1 million from the NRCC, which has been kept in a separate account and which will be returned if the commission rules that acceptance of the money puts the forum in violation of the law. As the advocacy groups were holding a news conference, PoliticalMoneyLine, a campaign finance Web site, disclosed that a new set of groups filed organization statements with the IRS,. They include the American Majority Fund, a tax-exempt group run by prominent Democrats such as Harold Ickes, John D. Podesta and Morton H. Halperin. Ickes intends to create a "presidential media fund" to support of the party's 2004 nominee. In addition, GOP lawyer Christopher Hellmich who represented the GOP National Committee and the Bush-Cheney 2000 Committee, registered 2 tax-exempt groups, Americans for a Responsible Govt and the National Committee for a Responsible Senate (NCRS). The NCRS is what is called under the tax code a 501c6 committee, which is what top officials of the National GOP Senatorial Committee privately said they were in the process of creating just before the election. On 11.4.02, 3 organizations run by Democratic operatives, the Democratic Senate Majority PAC; the PAC for a Democratic House, and Democratic Issues Agenda, filed papers with the IRS. All used the same street address as the law firm that represents the Democratic senatorial & congressional committees. High court to weigh nonprofits' political contributions   N.C. antiabortion group says First Amendment protects its support of candidates 11.19.02   Charles Lane Wash.Post pA13 In warm-up for anticipated legal battle over McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide whether ban on political contributions by profit-making corporations should also encompass donations to candidates by advocacy groups that are organized as nonprofit corporations. At issue in the case is a challenge to a federal law that prohibits corporate contributions to candidates. The challenge was filed by North Carolina Right to Life, tax-exempt, antiabortion organization that says it is primarily engaged in community activism & political advocacy and funded by voluntary contributions from supporters. The organization contends that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech gives it the right to donate money from its own treasury directly to candidates, a practice that would be forbidden if it were a for-profit corporation. Earlier this year, the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, by a vote of 2-1, sided with North Carolina Right to Life. The court ruled that the risk of corruption associated with corporate donations to candidates in federal elections "is not present when the corporation at issue is a nonprofit advocacy corporation." The court noted that, in a 1986 case, the Supreme Court had approved independent campaign expenditures by nonprofit advocacy corporations and that the same free-speech logic could apply to direct financial support for candidates. The 4th Circuit's ruling conflicted with a decision in a different case by the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, but the Federal Elections Commission decided not to appeal. However, Justice Dept asked the Supreme Court to review the matter, with Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson urging the court to provide "guidance" on the issue. "There is a clear need for uniform campaign financing rules governing federal elections across the country," Olson's petition told the court. The case is FEC v. Beaumont, No. 02-403. Oral arguments are expected in March and a decision by July. Though the case requires the court to consider a perennial issue in campaign finance law, defining the types of contributions that could undermine public confidence in the integrity of elections, it touches only indirectly on issues in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), known as the McCain-Feingold law, such as a ban on "soft money" donations and regulation of "issue ads." Litigation over that statute is still going on before a 3 judge panel in the U.S. District Court in Washington, with Supreme Court review considered all but in- evitable, perhaps as early as this spring. Dethrone the kings of K Street   A plan for the president that's good politics and good policy 12.19.05   Ruth Marcus Wash.Post op-ed President Bush seems to be having trouble settling on a Big Idea for the upcoming State of the Union address. That's not too surprising: The sixth time is rarely a charm. The 2005 model, spending capital on Social Security, didn't work out too well; the president needs something a little less capital-intensive for 2006. As his advisers seem to have concluded, tax reform may not be the ticket: Are the folks out there really going to get jazzed up about fixing the alternative minimum tax? The state of the union can't be strong when the state of the capital is so sordid. Making lobbying reform a priority may sound a bit counterintuitive for this president. After all, the Bush administration hasn't exactly been at odds with lobbyists. Dozens of registered lobbyists, including Jack Abramoff, were among the Pioneers ($100,000) and Rangers ($200,000) who harvested big bundles of campaign cash for the president. From the White House chief of staff (former auto industry lobbyist) on down, the administration is teeming with the once and future kings of K Street. It would be good politics and good policy for the president to bite the hands that fund him. The Democrats can't utter a sentence these days without bemoaning the Republican "culture of corruption." How better to take the wind out of their sails than to co-opt the corruption issue? The president's most effective immunization against the Abramoff virus is one he could administer himself, by getting out ahead of the problem. Democrats didn't make much political headway with Enron and the other corporate scandals once corporate reform legislation was passed. Sen. John McCain R-AZ, fresh from hearings that exposed the extent of Abramoff's greed and duplicity, has just unveiled his own lobbying reform plan. If the president were to adopt the issue as his own, he could simultaneously upstage McCain and bask in some of the senator's good-govt glow. "Be like John" is a smart political play these days. What would lobbying reform look like? First and foremost, disclosure. Under the current rules, lobbyists report sketchy information infrequently. When they're first hired by a client, they file forms stating that fact and the issue they've been hired to lobby on. Twice a year they update that with forms listing the amounts they've been paid (rounded to the nearest $20,000), the issues they've lobbied on and the part of govt they've lobbied. To get a sense of how unhelpful this information is, consider this from the official filing instructions: "Disclose only the houses or agencies, such as 'Senate,' 'House of Representatives,' 'Dept of Agriculture,' or 'Executive Office of the President,' rather than the individual office." Real disclosure would require lobbyists to identify the specific offices they contacted, if not the individuals themselves. It would have lobbyists detail the meals or entertainment or other gifts they provided to the targets of their lobbying. It would apply to the massive sums spent on grass-roots lobbying, ginning up the folks back home, that are not reported at all. It would shine light into obscure corners such as favored charities and presidential libraries, where lobbyists can direct donations that aren't likely to be revealed. It would require lobbyists to report not only the campaign checks they write to the targets of their lobbying but also the far more telling number of how much they raise for them. The president, as it happens, is perfectly positioned to push for disclosure of these campaign "bundlers", he was there first with his own move to name the Pioneers and others who brought in big hauls for his campaigns. Lobbying reform should also deal with lavish golf junkets, skyboxes at sporting events and the like that has the public so exercised about the Washington way of life. Under the current rules, lobbyists themselves can't pick up the tab for congressional travel. Why does it make sense, then, to let the corporations and other entities they represent foot the bill? At the very least, lawmakers and congressional staff ought to be required to submit detailed itineraries and descriptions of their travel expenses. That might make members think twice before checking into a $500-a-night hotel room or hopping aboard a private jet. As with Nixon going to China, George W. Bush is just the right president to go after lobbyists.

End of 'soft money' gives way to new fundraising techniques   11.7.02   Cong. Qtrly Daily Monitor Tuesday's election may not really have marked the end of "soft money," but the national political parties sure treated it that way. The total amount of unlimited corporate, labor union and individual donations to national party committees through Oct. 16, latest figures available, exceeded all previous records, even the 2000 election cycle, which had a presidential contest. As of Nov. 5, the total amount of soft money was expected to exceed $500 million for the 2-year election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. As of Oct. 16, the 2 major national parties had combined to collect more than $422 million, with GOP accounting for more than half. They needed the money to pay for tv advertisements that flooded competitive states & congressional districts. Nearly 1.4 million spots costing more than $900 million have been aired on local tv & radio stations, according to the Alexandria, VA based Campaign Media Analysis Group. States with gubernatorial campaigns or competitive Senate races were barraged with ads; California stations aired $72 million worth of spots through Oct. 15, while Colorado got $16.3 million. Many of those were aired by state parties who received millions of dollars in transfers from their national counterparts in Washington. During the first 16 days of October alone, the Democratic National Committee sent $1,500,000 to New Hampshire, $450,000 to Wisconsin and $250,000 to Texas to aid campaigns in those states. In the same period, the GOP National Committee (RNC) put more than $650,000 into Tennessee, nearly $500,000 into Georgia and more than $800,000 into South Carolina. GOP Senate candidates in all three states won. State parties in NH & TX with tight House & Senate races have particularly benefited from the largess of the national committees during the current cycle. In the first 16 days of October, national parties sent more than $3.8 million to NH and more than $3 million to TX, records show. That total does not include any transfers by the National GOP Senatorial Committee, whose pre-general Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing was not immediately available. The national parties also have made large contributions to candidates in states that do not limit contributions from national parties & other sources. For example, the RNC sent Iowa gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross $475,000 between Oct. 1 & Oct. 11, records show. Gross was defeated by incumbent Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack. Soft money contributions & transfers are no longer legal under a campaign finance overhaul law (PL 107-155) enacted earlier this year. National parties can no longer raise or spend soft money, with the exception of the Dec. 7 runoff elections in Louisiana. In that state's 2 undecided congressional races, one House, one Senate, the 2 parties are expected to continue pouring in soft money. Both parties also asked the FEC if they were allowed to raise soft money leading up to the runoff. A ruling could come as early as Nov. 14. In every other aspect, however, the national party committees only are allowed to raise contributions limited by federal law, known as "hard money," after Nov. 5. But that hasn't stopped party operatives from thinking of ways they can continue to tap wealthy donors.The new vehicles for political contributions are expected to be organizations loosely tied to party officials or major donors that will engage in generic advertising or get-out-the- vote efforts. Shape & scope of their work is still being determined by officials, but they have a model to build on: political committees governed by Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. These groups can continue to raise and spend unlimited sums of money, as long as they do not run afoul of the new law's restrictions on certain types of broadcast advertising. Ads that air within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election and that mention a specific candidate cannot be paid for by anything but hard money. Opponents of the law are challenging it in federal district court in Washington and filed opening briefs Nov. 6. Oral arguments are set for Dec. 4, with a ruling expected within 45 days. GOP & Democrats are well aware that, in order to win in the future, they need to maximize their "hard money" fundraising. The 2 major parties combined to raise $416.5 million in hard money between 1.1.01 & 10.16.02. That represents a 43% increase over the same period during the 1997-98 election cycle, the last non-presidential election. Presidential years typically see an increase in hard money collections for parties and many candidates. Candidates also will need to concentrate on their hard-dollar fundraising skills. If last-minute contributions to House candidates were any indication, the GOP was successful in redirecting money from safe incumbents, often running for leadership positions, to competitive races around the country. A review of 48-hour filings detailing last-minute contributions shows that leadership hopefuls contributed at least $105,000 in the final 2 weeks. Rep. Jerry Weller, Ill., seeking to become chairman of the National GOP Congressional Committee, (NRCC) contributed to more than 15 potential freshmen between Oct. 16 & Nov. 5, records show. In several instances, Weller made contributions from both his campaign account & leadership committee, the REFORM PAC. His opponent for the NRCC spot, Thomas M. Reynolds, N.Y., also made contributions totaling at least $23,000. Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-OH, hoping to move up from GOP Conference vice chair to chair, also gave out at least $31,000 to potential freshmen in the final days. Most of her recipients won, but several of her largest recipients lost close races. Some candidates were inundated with donations from leadership candidates. South Dakota GOP Gov. William J. Janklow, running for his state's lone House seat, got money from at least 4 candidates in the final 2 weeks of the campaign. So did GOP Brose McVey, who failed to unseat Rep. Julia Carson, D-IN and former Rep. Helen Delich Bentley R-MD, who lost a bid to regain her old seat to Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

Even GOPs with little prospect of losing heard from their prospective leaders. Trent Franks, a GOP who cruised to victory in Arizona's 2nd District, got money from Weller and Rep. Jack Kingston, R-GA., one of 3 candidates for Pryce's vice chair post. Kingston and one of his rivals, Rep. Melissa A. Hart, R-PA, recently started up their own leadership PACs in order to give more money. Kingston's 13th Colony Leadership Committee has given out at least $20,000 since being formed, slightly more than Hart's Integrity Fund.
"I feel a little bit bad soliciting people to give checks and then you turn around and give the money to California," Kingston said. "If somebody gives to a leadership PAC, they understand what you're doing."

Changing electoral college not likely   9.5.04   Reuters     Myth of the Rational Voter

The Electoral College goes back to the birth of the U.S., when small states threatened to stay out of a union dominated by the more populous states. So the Constitutional Convention in 1787 proposed a compromise that gave greater weight in the election of president to smaller states. "When you vote for president … you are not in fact voting directly for a candidate. You are indicating who you wish the votes of your state to be cast for in the Electoral College," said Univ. of Missouri political scientist Steve Easton.
The Electoral College has 538 members, one for each of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the 100 members of the U.S. Senate and 3 for the District of Columbia, which has no voting representation in the U.S. Congress.

All but 2 states award votes on a winner-take-all basis. In Maine & Nebraska, two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each congressional district. If there were a tie, the House would select the president with each state casting one vote and an absolute majority of the states being required to elect.
Though the controversial 2000 election prompted some renewed calls for reform of the system, political scientists say it would be virtually impossible to change. "The simple reason the Electoral College will not be reformed is that three quarters of the states have a greater weight under the present system than they would have if every vote was equal," said Harvard Univ. Kennedy School of Govt political scientist Dutch Leonard.

Approval of three-quarters of the states would be required to change the U.S. Constitution, and that only after two- thirds of both the Senate and the House had approved it.
One influential voice urging change of the system recently was NY Times, which said in an editorial that the Electoral College should be abolished because it "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis."
In the past 200 years, there have been more than 700 attempts to abolish the Electoral College in Congress, 100 of them advocating election of the president by popular vote. All have been rejected. Short of wholesale change, some propose allocating Electoral College votes within states proportionally rather than awarding them all to the winner. An effort is under way in Colorado to make such a change although that too has aroused fervent opposition.

Easton argues getting rid of the Electoral College would be more dangerous than the present system in close elections because the votes in every single precinct would need to be recounted, a formula for bitterness & chaos. Leonard said most of the furor would dissipate if the winner of the Nov. 2 presidential election also won the popular vote, which he regarded as highly likely.
"That will take the wind out of the sails of the reformers," he said.

initiative ¹

On drug measures, grass rooters lost 11.7.02   T. R. Reid Wash.Post pA39 Pregnant pigs were winners, pot smokers were losers, Arnold Schwarzenegger may have launched a political career, and the late Cesar Chavez's memory took a drubbing Tuesday as voters around the nation made up their minds on a rich variety of ballot initiatives and referendums. Despite the sagging economy, voters proved willing to increase taxes & public spending at the local level. The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that 21 of 24 statewide bond measures for schools, transit and infrastructure projects were approved, incl largest in history, California's plan to spend about $13 billion for school construction. Hundreds of city & county bond issues also passed. Proposals to cut taxes in Massachusetts & Arkansas were firmly rejected. National interest groups that have used the initiative process to advance their goals state-by-state had mixed results on Tuesday. After a series of victories in the previous three election cycles, advocates of relaxing U.S. drug laws had a tough year in 2002. A proposal to legalize the possession & use of marijuana was soundly defeated in Nevada. Arizonans refused to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and South Dakota voters rejected 2 measures that might have made it easier to grow & use pot. Voters in Ohio turned down a proposal to require treatment, rather than criminal penalties, for nonviolent drug users, although a similar measure passed by a large margin in the District. Treating drug use as a medical rather than a criminal problem has become standard policy in Western Europe, and the idea seemed to be gathering momentum in U.S. until the Ohio vote came in on Tuesday. "We had been cruising along the past 4 years, winning 17 of 19 ballot measures," noted Drug Policy Alliance dir. Ethan Nadleman, well-funded group working to ease drug laws. "This year, we hit some bumps in the road. But we'll keep working with legislatures, and we will probably have more measures on state ballots in 2004." M. Dane Waters, who tracks direct democracy trends for the Leesburg-based Initiative and Referendum Institute, said a key reason for the rejection of drug-law relaxation measures on Tuesday was the active campaign by the Bush administration's drug control policy adviser, John Walters, to defeat the Nevada, Ohio, and Arizona proposals. The Drug Policy Alliance criticized Walters's involvement. "It's not even clear that it is legal for them to spend federal money to campaign on state issues, but he fought hard," Nadleman said. … Tuesday was also a good news, bad news kind of night for the national movement seeking to ban bilingual education in public schools, practice of using an immigrant student's native language in the classroom until the student masters English. California millionaire Ron Unz and his "English for the Children" organization had enjoyed a perfect record, winning approval by more than 60 percent of voters in both California & Arizona for ballot measures requiring immigrant children to take all classes in English and permitting lawsuits against teachers who use a student's native language. On Tuesday, Unz's English-immersion measure passed by more than 70 percent in Massachusetts. But in Colorado, the same proposal was defeated by a 2 to 1 ratio after opponents there crafted a message that could be used by supporters of bilingual education in other states. Colorado supporters of bilingual classes formed a group called "English Plus" and warned in TV ads that students who don't know English would be thrown into the same classroom as native English speakers if the English-only measure passed. That would slow the education of "your children," the ads said, a message aimed at the English-speaking majority. A closely fought education issue in FL, requiring schools to cut the number of students per class to a maximum of 18 in lower grades, and 25 in high school was approved 52 percent to 48 percent. That measure became a key issue in the state's gubernatorial election. Gov. Jeb Bush (R) opposed the plan, trumping his Democratic challenger, Bill McBride, in a televised debate when he challenged McBride to explain how the state could pay for the additional classrooms and teachers the measure would require. In an open-mike incident, Bush was overheard saying that he would find a "devious plan" to undermine the class-size measure if it passed. Yesterday, Bush said he will seek advice on how to put the plan in place by talking with school districts, the Education Dept and the teachers union. Californians approved an innovative education proposal requiring public schools to provide after-hours programs for students. The most outspoken champion of that measure was the "action hero" actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who toured the state promoting the plan, and, possibly, promoting his own nascent hopes to run for governor there in 4 years. At a victory party for the after-school measure Tuesday night, Schwarzenegger thrilled state GOPs by moving his most famous movie line to the political stage. "I'll be back," the Terminator said. Another well-known Californian, the late Hispanic labor leader Cesar Chavez, fared less well. Colorado & New Mexico, states with sizable Hispanic populations, had measures on the ballot to create a legal holiday in Chavez's honor in late March each year. In Colorado, 82 percent of voters opposed the idea; in New Mexico, 62 percent voted "No." As usual, Oregon was a particularly fertile field for the seeds of direct democracy this year, but voters there rejected the most ambitious measures. By nearly 2 to 1, Oregonians decided not to create a universal health care plan for every resident, and they rejected a proposal requiring the labeling of any food made with genetically modified crops. But they did approve, narrowly, a measure that will raise the minimum wage in the state to $6.90, the nation's highest. Arguably the most innovative idea on any state ballot this year was North Dakota's Amendment 3, designed to deal with the enduring problem of "out-migration" that has made North Dakota the nation's slowest-growing state for several decades. The ballot measure would have provided a reward of up to $10,000 for any college graduate who would stay in the state for five years. Last summer, polls showed that the bounty plan was extremely popular among North Dakotans. But then the governor & other GOP leaders started asking questions about how much the measure would cost. In the end, the frugal voters of that windswept high-plains state voted by a healthy margin against the proposal. UFW endorses Bustamante 8.30.03   AP Delano CA   Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante accepted endorsement of farmworkers in California's gubernatorial recall election Saturday, and fended off criticism of his past involvement with a Mexican-American student group that opponents have labeled racist. United Farm Workers union is among several groups that endorsed Bustamante while opposing recall efFt against Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. "I'm proud to stand with United Farm Workers, who I have marched with shoulder to shoulder, the farmworkers who are the heart of the agriculture industry," Bustamante, grandson of Mexican immigrants, told a cheering crowd of more than 100 farmworkers & their families, speaking first in English then Spanish. "Those hands bring food to our tables." Bustamante's enthusiastic welcome in Delano, symbolic heart of the state's farm labor movement, was countered by questions about his fund-raising and previous involvement with the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, or MEChA, while a student at Fresno State Univ. in 1970s. The group has called for a separate Chicano nation. GOP candidate state Sen. Tom McClintock called MEChA a racist organization and asked Bustamante to renounce his membership. On Fox News on Saturday, Bustamante was asked whether he renounced a slogan of the group: "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing." He responded that he loved his culture and would represent the entire state if he became governor. "My politics … have grown to a point where I'm a very inclusive individual, and all you have to do is look at the politics I've shared and the kind of politics that I've had," Bustamante said. Pressed a fourth time for a more direct answer, Bustamante said, "Racial separatism is wrong … You have to look at what people do, not just what they say, and I think I've demonstrated my ability." Bustamante asked Californians to vote against recalling Davis in 10.7.03 election, but also to choose him as a replacement candidate in case Davis is ousted. UFW 10.30.03 event was held at the site where Sen. Robert F. Kennedy embraced the union's leader Cesar Chavez after Chavez ended a 25-day fast in 1968. The union sought to emphasize distinctions between Bustamante & leading GOP opponent, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Near the speakers' podium was a photograph of the action star hugging former Gov. Pete Wilson, who inspired anger among many Hispanics for his support of Proposition 187. The 1994 initiative that denied many services to illegal immigrants has since been mostly voided by the courts. Schwarzenegger has said he supported the proposition and named Wilson as his campaign co-chair. Bustamante opposed it. With the crowd chanting, "Viva Bustamante, Viva Cesar Chavez," UFW pres. Arturo Rodriguez said the union didn't want "another governor who is against farmworkers and for corporate agriculture." Schwarzenegger spokesman Sean Walsh responded Schwarzenegger has been a consistent advocate for children, incl those of immigrants. "Arnold Schwarzenegger has been in with the immigrant community, is an immigrant himself, and through his actions has demonstrated hope, opportunity and made a real difference in the lives of Latino immigrants & all children," Walsh said. In another campaign issue, Schwarzenegger criticized Davis' recent decision to offer tribal leaders a lead role in selecting 2 of 5 members of the California Gambling Control Commission. Schwarzenegger said the offer presents a potential conflict of interest, but Davis, frequent recipient of tribal campaign donations, said he made it because he's trying to find quality candidates. California gambling tribes have reportedly spent more money on state political campaigns than any other interest group since 1998, in excess of $120 million. A $500,000 donation Bustamante received from the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians has helped fuel questions about the propriety of his fund-raising methods. The state's Fair Political Practices Commission contends he is violating the spirit of laws that limit donations to $21,200 per donor. Bustamante lawyers said it's legal to donate significantly higher amounts to a campaign committee that existed before the rules changed. The commission is supporting a bill in the Legislature that would ban the practice. In San Francisco Bay area, meanwhile, 38 of the record 135 gubernatorial candidates gathered aboard the decommissioned aircraft carrier USS Hornet in Alameda on Saturday to discuss ways of raising their profiles. Members of the group said they have grown tired of being lumped into a huge batch of recall candidates. "My goal was to change it from entertainment to a serious news event. I think we've been successful," said Cheryl Bly-Chester, one of the candidates who helped organize the informal meeting. Candidate Gino Martorana said he was frustrated that the meeting didn't produce a unified direction for the candidates, but instead highlighted their disparate voices. "Not one of us has a chance to win, so we have to be able to say something that has some kind of substance," Martorana said. "It was basically posturing. I'm not looking for that kind of publicity." Getty heir settles over Calif. campaign fund rules 3.30.04   Reuters San Francisco   A member of the Getty oil family has agreed to pay a $135,000 settlement after California's political watchdog agency accused her of violating campaign contribution rules, the agency said on Tuesday. California's Fair Political Practices Commission filed a suit last year against J. Paul Getty granddaughter Caroline Getty on charges of "secretly funneling $1 million in political contributions to support California ballot measures in 2000 and 2002." According to the complaint in the California Superior Court in Sacramento, Getty made 2 contributions of $500,000 each through Wild Rose, her firm set up to make charitable grants. She sought to help 2 voter initiatives, one funding land for public use and another to improve water quality. Getty aty Tom Hiltachk said his client had not intended to violate any rules, adding the problem arose from California's "arcane political finance laws." "We hope the FPPC or legislature clarifies this confusing, complex & vague law so that other civic-minded & well-intentioned individuals won't be discouraged from supporting the environment or other worthy causes," he said in a statement. The FPPC said a judge approved the settlement 3.25.04 and informed the agency on Tuesday. Both ballot measures passed.

Marijuana legalization backers suffer defeats 11.6.02 T.R. Reid Wash.Post pA28 Advocates of marijuana legalization had a bad night at the ballot boxes yesterday as voters in several states appeared to reject proposals to relax or eliminate the prohibition on pot smoking. The only place to buck the trend was the District, where voters strongly backed a plan to send marijuana smokers to a clinic rather than to jail. Voters in AZ & SD rejected measures that would have legalized production & use of marijuana in certain circumstances. Nevada voters turned down a proposal to legalize the sale & use of the drug. South Dakota voters rejected a proposal to let defendants argue to the jury that drug laws are unfair. Voters in Ohio rejected a proposal similar to the one that passed in the District, requiring courts to treat marijuana use as a health problem, not a crime. "Failure to relax the marijuana laws is probably the most surprising result this year," said Dane Waters, who tracks direct democracy initiatives at the Leesburg-based Initiative & Referendum Institute. "The legalization campaign scored several ballot victories in '98 & 2000, but this year they're striking out in most places." EfFts to crack down on the smoking of tobacco, meanwhile, produced mixed results. In Florida, voters approved a ballot measure that bans smoking tobacco in almost any public place, incl restaurants. Arizonans appeared to approve a big increase in the tax on tobacco products. But a proposal to quadruple the cigarette tax in Missouri appeared to have lost, by a small margin, with most precincts reporting. Michigan voters spurned an initiative that would have directed the legislature to spend much more money on public anti-smoking campaigns. Voters around the country showed they were willing to raise their state or local taxes to pay for education & infrastructure improvements. Of 24 education funding proposals on the various ballots, 17 passed, 6 were defeated and one was uncertain early this morning, according to National Conference of State Legislatures. Dozens of transportation bond issues also passed. But Washington state voters approved an initiative to cut auto license fees. Voters rejected the two strongest proposals for cutting taxes, heeding the words of state officials who had forecast dire impacts if the tax cuts went through. Massachusetts voters rejected a plan to eliminate the state income tax. In Arkansas, a proposal to end the sales tax on food & medicine was voted down. The growing efFt to ban bilingual education produced mixed results in voting yesterday. Massachusetts voters gave resounding approval to a controversial ballot measure that would require immigrant students to take all courses in English in public schools. But a similar "English-immersion" proposal on the Colorado ballot appeared to have been defeated, with well over half the precincts counted. Unlike Massachusetts, top political officials from both parties in Colorado had come out against the English-only proposal. The opposition centered on a provision in the Colorado plan that would have allowed parents to sue teachers who used a student's native language in the classroom. California and Arizona voters have already approved proposals banning bilingual education. Backers of this year's initiatives said they would move on to other states in the future despite the Colorado rejection. The vote on another controversial education measure was running close in Florida. With 97 percent of precincts reporting, a proposal to limit class sizes in public schools, it would permit a maximum of 18 students per class in lower grades and 25 in high school, had the approval of 53 percent of voters. But the margin was small enough that absentee ballots could reverse the result. Florida returns also showed voters approving an animal rights initiative that would prohibit pork farmers from holding pregnant sows in cages until delivery. If passed, the measure is likely to be put on the ballots in other pork-producing states. Animal rights groups also appeared to win in Oklahoma, where a proposal to ban cockfighting had 54 percent of the vote with about one-third of all precincts reporting. But a proposal to make abuse of animals a felony appeared to have been defeated in Arkansas. Voters in 40 states and the District confronted ballot measures yesterday. The number of citizen initiatives before the voters this year was down sharply from 2 years earlier, partly because legislatures have been tightening requirements for putting proposals on the ballot but there was still variety of laws & constitutional amendments for the electorate to consider. Some of the initiatives reflected strictly local conditions, such as the innovative idea on the North Dakota ballot that would provide a bounty of up to $10,000 to any new college graduate who agrees to live in the state for at least 5 years. That measure was specifically designed to counter the flood of "outmigration" that has made North Dakota the slowest-growing state in the union. With about half the precincts reporting, the North Dakota bounty plan was being firmly rejected. State GOP leaders had attacked the idea, saying it would break the state's budget. But many of the proposals on state ballots reflected national campaigns by interest groups that decided they would have better luck taking their ideas directly to the people than going through a state legislature. Although the relaxation of "pot" laws is generally considered an issue primarily for the young, the ballot measures around the country were pushed vigorously by 3 rich senior citizens, who poured large sums into each of the local campaigns. Financier George Soros, businessman John Sperling and insurance magnate Peter Lewis have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaigns. "It's 3 older guys who decided these laws are wrong," Lewis explained in an interview before Tuesday's voting. "You probably can't get the legislatures to ease up on drug penalties, but when you give people a chance to vote directly on the issue, the reforms get a lot of support." Total number of statewide ballot measures in 2002 is almost the same as in 2000, according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute, which tracks trends in direct democracy. But most of the measures, both statewide & local, have been placed on the ballot by city councils or state legislatures. A majority of these are proposals to issue bonds or raise taxes to pay for new public infrastructure. There has been a sharp drop this year in the number of initiatives placed on the ballots by citizen petitions. The institute counts 53 measures around the country that were initiated by citizens' groups rather than by legislatures. "We seen a real fallback in the initiative process this year, but it's not clear whether this is a long-term trend," said Dane Waters, of the Initiative & Referendum Institute. "It could be that this is because people don't have the money this year to launch a campaign. It may be that the advocates want to see how the state legislatures look after redistricting; maybe they can get what they want without going to an initiative. But the key factor is the fact that legislatures basically don't like the initiative process," Waters said. "There have been changes in several states making it harder to get a proposal on the ballot." Even in Oregon, by some measures the world capital of the citizen initiative process, there were fewer proposals placed on the statewide ballot by petition, just 12 this year, as opposed to 26 in the 2000 election. Oregon voters appeared to reject the most far-reaching ballot proposals before. They voted down a proposal to provide universal health care to all state citizens and a proposed requirement that any food containing genetically modified organisms be so labeled. However, an initiative to raise the minimum wage in Oregon to $6.90 an hour, about 25 percent higher than the federal minimum wage, appeared to pass with more than half the votes counted. Officials fear rushed recall may lead to voting fiasco   7.23.03   John Marelius SD UT Election officials sounded the alarm yesterday that the fast-track schedule for the seemingly inevitable recall election of Gov. Gray Davis could lead to a Florida-style electoral "disaster." The state constitution mandates a window of 60 to 80 days for a recall election, a fraction of the time it normally takes state and county agencies to prepare for a statewide election. Plus, a number of counties are in the throes of modernizing voting systems and had assumed they had until the 3.2.03 primary election to complete the transition. "60 days for an election is daunting in any circumstance," said a top official in Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's office. "In this circumstance, I have to tell you, I'm frightened by the potential for possible failure of the election system in a 60-day time line. In elections, it's mostly the issue of managing the potential for disaster, and that's why there's preparation time built into the process," the official said during a background briefing for reporters. "60 days is an extraordinarily short period of time to prepare for an election involving potentially 15 million people at 25,000 polling places with 100,000 volunteers, all of whom have to have the information & training to make it work." Shelley has instructed county registrars of voters to report to him by 5 p.m. today to determine if sufficient voter signatures have been validated to force an unprecedented statewide recall election. Davis, battling a $38 billion budget deficit and a recalcitrant Legislature, defiantly predicted victory yesterday. "If the people want me to present my credentials again, I do not fear them," the Democratic governor said during an appearance at a clinic in East L.A. "This election is not about changing governors, it's about changing direction, and I am confident the voters of this state will not opt for a right-wing agenda over a progressive agenda. I don't think any person's personal agenda ought to be the reason to put this state through the wringer." His comment was a clear reference to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, who has spent more than $1.7 million from his car-alarm Ftune to finance the recall petition drive. "I provided the fuel, but this recall was clearly of Gray's making," Issa told AP. "He created this deficit problem and the driving out of California's business. He lied about it in the last election, and he has no plan to fix it. That's the reason that the voters have lost faith in Gray Davis. I expect the governor to be recalled by a substantial margin. The only thing that's in doubt is who will replace him." Issa is the only announced major-party candidate to replace Davis, but he may have company soon. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger returned yesterday from an intl promotional tour for his new action movie, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines." Political advisers say they expect Schwarzenegger to launch his political career by entering the race to replace Davis. Another likely entry is businessman 2002 GOP gov. nominee Bill Simon who was reported to be assembling a campaign staff for the race. Davis supporters have filed suit to block certification of a recall election, contending that the petition drive was riddled with irregularities, such as the use of out-of-state petitioners, which is illegal in California. As of yesterday, a state appellate court had not ruled on the lawsuit, which was filed Monday. Barring any last-minute legal intervention, Shelley could certify a recall election as early as tomorrow, depending on how quickly county registrars check petitions for valid signatures and report to Shelley's office. Recall sponsors say they turned in more than 1.6 million signatures; 897,158 valid signatures are required to force an election. The running tally posted on the secretary of state's Web site showed that 988,116 signatures had been reported to the state and that of those, 390,759 had been verified as valid. Petitions from most of the largest counties had yet to be processed. The recall ballot would be in 2 parts; step one would be a yes or no vote on removing Davis. Step 2 would be choosing from a list of replacement candidates from various parties. Some election officials worry that the confluence of an unfamiliar election format, an accelerated timetable and new, untested electronic voting machines in some counties could lead to a repeat of Florida's election fiasco, which held the 2000 presidential election in limbo for 6 weeks. The Florida debacle was caused in large measure by the failure of old punch-card voting machines. Even after Florida converted to touch-screen voting for the 2002 elections, problems occurred because voters and poll workers didn't know how to use the new system. 9 California counties, including San Diego, have been ordered by a federal court to replace their punch- card systems by 3.2.03 primary election. One official said a few counties got rid of their old machines even though the new ones hadn't been installed because they thought they had plenty of time before they would be used. San Diego County Registrar of Voters Sally McPherson said the punch-card machines were put in storage and will be used for a recall election. "We have our old equipt here just in case," McPherson said. "That's why we kept it. We weren't planning for an election, but we knew just in case we needed to, we would have it."

Hang their price tags around their necks 8.3.05   Patt Morrison L.A. Times Arnold, keep the $8 million, with my blessing. When it was revealed that the governor would make millions lending his substantial name to health and bodybuilding magazines, the bluenoses wailed so long and so loudly that Schwarzenegger canceled the deal. Had any voter from Calexico to Happy Camp seriously expected the Austrian Oak to give up his movie-star, muscle-promoting day job, and the millions to be made by Arnold Inc., just to be governor? Oh pshaw, to quote my savvy granny. If he's going to moonlight on "we the people," fine, but on this condition: Come clean. He can trot out excuses: It's no big deal; Maria made him do it; it doesn't take up a lot of time (so that's a million a year, divided by, what, 10 hours a month?). But give us the facts and figures. He reports; we'll decide. The point is, if politicians have a price, let's put the tags around their necks where we can see them. On TV and in print, there's usually a descriptor line alongside a politician's name or face, "(R-Calif.)" or "(D-Wyo.)" (I made that one up. There are no Democrats representing Wyoming.) Why waste airtime and ink on mere geography? Get to the facts that matter. After Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to smack down supplement use by high school athletes, the descriptor should have read, "Schwarzenegger (R-gets a minimum million a year for flogging nutritional supplements)." When he announced he'd roll back the state's environmental protection law, the line should have been: "Gov. Schwarzenegger (R-just collected $225,000 for his political causes from business groups that hate this law)." And when Schwarzenegger's pal, Orrin Hatch, the Utah senator, talked up a constitutional amendment that would let non-natives run for president, we should have seen: "Hatch (R-son lobbies for nutritional supplements and his state is 'the Silicon Valley of the supplements industry')." We in the news biz like to out the hallelujah hypocrites who get caught with their pants down. But we should also do it routinely, succinctly, for all of our elected promise-keepers. Take Idaho's Sen. Larry Craig, whose just-passed bill protects gun makers and gun dealers from civil liability lawsuits. What does "(R-Idaho)" tell you? Not nearly as much as "(R-NRA board member)." It might make some of them look good: When North Carolina's Rep. Howard Coble defied the White House to vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, we should have read under his face "(R-couldn't turn his back on textile workers like his mama, who sewed pockets on overalls the livelong day.)" In Sacramento, we have Assemblyman Ron Calderon, whose key vote killed a consumer financial privacy bill, "(D-beneficiary of insurance contributions, including $922 that insurance companies paid to fly his wife to a Pebble Beach insurance conference, feed her and treat her to 'spa activities')." State Sen. Jim Battin endlessly champions Indian gaming, "(R-got $1.3 million from tribes over half a dozen years)." Fabian Nunez, Assembly speaker, is a major FOL, friend of labor, "(D-used to get a $35,000 annual fee from a labor group's nonprofit arm)." And you at home can play right along. If it's federal officials you want, go to http://www.opensecrets.org . For California, find the drips from the money tap at http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/. I checked out Texas' Rep. Joe L. Barton, who drafted the preposterous energy bill that Congress just passed, and there he was: "(R-took in more than $400,000 in energy industry campaign contributions last election)." Just drop in a name and see what comes up. It's almost as exciting as a slot machine. You won't get any money, but I guarantee you somebody already has.

Terminator turns left 6.3.05   Judi McLeod Canda Free Press Toronto, ON   Maria Shriver is not the only high profile American to lay wreaths at the feet of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Hubby Arnold Schwarzenegger’s soft on Gorby too. "I like this kind of man and I think we need more of them," Shriver told People Magazine in 1994. The Terminator’s name is on Gorbachev’s website as an acolyte of The Green Cross "energy glasnost" $50-billion solar energy fund, touted as "a plan to drive down the cost of solar energy over 10 years for the developing world and urban centers." "The Global Solar Fund was first proposed in Johannesburg at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, where the proposal of the Renewables 2004 conference originated, to create energy for peace. The status of solar programs in California, where Governor Schwarzenegger has called for solar on every other new home will also be presented." If the Guvenator has already given the rights to California’s municipal bonds to Saddam’s favourite bank, BNP Paribas, why should anyone ponder his signing up for solar with Mikhail Gorbachev? The Terminator’s "California Energy Czar" is none other than Joe Desmond, the same Desmond who crops up for global conferences in Canada with many luminaries, including Chairman Mo (Maurice) Strong. Strong, who recently admitted to ties to "Koreagate Man" Tonsun Park, an agent alleged to have lobbied the UN on oil deals for Iraq, is the former president of the Montreal-based Paul Desmarais-founded Power Corp. Inc. Desmarais son, Andre, married to France, daughter of former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien is on the board of Vivendi-Universal, which contributed almost $80,000 to Schwarzenegger’s campaign for California governor. Kurt Waldhelm, former head of the United Nations, is a close Arnie friend, and in fact attended his wedding to Shriver. No wonder the Terminator is in Gorby’s good books. The FPL Group Inc. has recently announced that it bought a large minority stake in five solar power assets in California, cementing its position as the biggest U.S. generator of solar and wind power. According to Planet Ark, FPL Energy, a unit of the FPL Group, said it bought five 30-megawatt solar energy generating systems (SEGS) in California’s famed Mojave Desert with private equity fund Carlyle/Riverstone, although it did not disclose any financial details. "The SEGS were purchased from a diverse group of limited partners, a company spokesman said. (Planet Ark). "Juno Beach, Florida-based FPL Energy will operate the plants and own a 45 percent stake. Carlyle/Riverstone will own 49 percent with the rest held by a group of limited partners. "The projects have long-term contracts to sell all of their power to utility Southern California Edison, a unit of Edison International. The SEGS, which were developed in the mid-1980s, mainly produce electricity during periods of high demands such as hot summer afternoons when there is heavy use of air-conditioning systems in California. Rows of troughs, which track the sun using sensors and microprocessors, focus sunlight onto specially coated steel pipes that house vacuum insulated glass tubes containing oil. The oil is heated to 735 degrees Fahrenheit and used to generate superheated steam, which drives a turbine. FPL Energy President Jim Robo said the transaction makes the company the largest generator of solar power in the United States, with 310 megawatts in operation, as well as the nation’s largest wind generator, with more than 2,750 megawatts. Private equity firms Riverstone Holdings LLC and the Carlyle Group are the general partners of the $1.1-billion Carlyle/Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund 11, which invests in the energy and power energy." Meanwhile, the "I’ll-be-back" man is more unbelievable in real life than he is on the Hollywood screen.

2008   ø   ß Texas Dem caucus still not decided 3.6.08   Kelley Shannon AP Austin TX   Fewer than half of Texas' voting sites had reported the results by Thursday from Democratic caucuses Tuesday night that were so chaotic and overcrowded by record turnout that police were called to some polling places. So there's no winner yet for the caucuses, the second stage of the state's Democratic primary, which allocates 67 delegates to the national convention this summer. As of Thursday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 44 percent based on reports to state party headquarters by 41 percent of the precinct caucuses. Clinton beat Obama in the first step of Texas' contest, a standard state-run primary. Her 51 percent of the vote, compared to his 47 percent, earned her 65 delegates to his 61 delegates. One reason for the slow caucus count is that phoning in the results to state party officials is voluntary. The 8,247 precinct officials are required only to mail the results of their caucuses to their county party chairmen 72 hours after the primary election day. County chairmen don't have to reveal those results until county or state Senate district conventions March 29. "We've gotten a lot of results back, but it's important to remember Texas is a large state, and this is a voluntary call-in system," said party spokesman Hector Nieto. But reporting results was only part of the problem with Texas' twenty-year-old, two-stage system in which a standard state-run primary is followed on the Democratic side by party-run caucuses held at the same voting sites but until 15 minutes after all primary voting ends. The primary-caucus system, nicknamed the "Texas Two-step," has never been tested like it was this week, said Gerry Birnberg, Democratic chairman in Harris County, where Houston is located. Four days before election day, Texas officials predicted a record 3.3 million would participate. But when Tuesday's voting was over, Texans had set an even higher record: 4.2 million, a third of the state's registered voters, participated in the Democratic and Republican primaries. Even though 1.84 million took advantage of a 10-day early voting period to cast ballots before Tuesday, there were still so many voting Tuesday that they produced long lines outside polling places. At one Houston high school, people were waiting to vote in the first-stage primary past midnight. The Democratic caucus couldn't start until after they finished that voting. A combination of events as rare as Halley's comet produced the turnout, Birnberg said: Primaries open to voters of any party, a virtually concluded Republican race and the excitement of the close and historic Obama-Clinton contest. When the caucuses finally began, rooms at schools and other polling places were too small for some. Some caucuses ran short of sign-in sheets. Tempers flared among emotional supporters of Clinton and Obama. Birnberg said Houston police were dispatched to a half-dozen locations to keep matters under control. "Someone walking into a room with a blue uniform on has a very calming effect", he said. State Rep. Sylvester Turner, a Houston Democrat, said he finally got a janitor at Smith Academy in northwest Houston to open up some classrooms so the caucus would have a meeting place. Turner also said few people seemed to understand the caucus process. Many people ended up leaving because they had to wait so long. At one Dallas area location, Democrats were told they had to convene in the parking lot because Republicans were holding a meeting inside. Democratic caucus-goers had to organize in the parking lot of a Baptist Church in Austin because the crowd was so large. At a San Antonio caucus, 78-year-old retired school teacher Marianne Rickabaugh, who voted for Obama, had to wait for two hours after the polls were supposed to close for her caucus to begin because it took that long for all the primary voters in line at closing to finish voting. She said she thought she could just sign in and leave the caucus, but was told she needed to stay. She sat on uncomfortable gym benches and waited. "It was just crazy," she said. "There was a lot of nasty tension. I didn't like it at all." A similar problem of unanticipated crowds overwhelmed the Democratic caucuses in much smaller New Mexico last month. New Mexico's caucuses, really a party-run "firehouse" primary with fewer polling places and shorter hours than a state-run primary, were held Feb. 5, but weren't decided until Feb. 14.

Obama-Clinton race creates security concerns for Secret Service   3.11.08   Jeff Bliss Bloomberg Political passions stirred by the Democratic presidential battle between the possible first black nominee and the possible first woman are also stirring security concerns on the part of the U.S. Secret Service. The agency began providing protection to candidates earlier this year than in any previous election in response to crowds that have sometimes topped 30,000, a record for the primary season, spokesman Darrin Blackford said. The excitement of the race pitting Illinois Senator Barack Obama against New York Senator Hillary Clinton ``definitely adds something the Secret Service hasn't seen in a while,'' said Andrew O'Connell, a special agent in the 1990s who is now a managing director at New York-based Fortress Global Investigations and Security Corp. Besides the fact that Obama is the first black candidate with a chance to win the party nomination, Clinton is a "polarizing figure'" dating back to her time as first lady, O'Connell said. Obama, 46, began receiving protection in May 2007, 18 months before the November 2008 election. That was the earliest for any candidate since the practice was instituted following the 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, shot by Sirhan Sirhan at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles moments after claiming victory in the California primary. Clinton, 60, has had protection since 1992, when her husband, former President Bill Clinton, became the Democratic nominee. Arizona Senator John McCain, 71, hasn't had Secret Service coverage, though he will get it now that he has won enough delegates to clinch the Republican nomination. The Secret Service began covering the 2004 Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, seven months before the election. President George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, received his detail eight months before the November 2000 vote. Obama, whose Secret Service codename is ``Renegade'', got his protection at the prompting of Richard Durbin, a fellow Illinois senator and supporter. Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, saw thousands of people showing up for early campaign rallies when only hundreds had been expected, said Joe Shoemaker, his spokesman. ``Roads would be choked with cars,'' blocking escape routes in the event of an incident, Shoemaker said. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, like Durbin an Obama supporter, wrote Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Jan. 9 that ``the national and international profile of Senator Barack Obama gives rise to unique challenges that merit special concern.'' Thompson's panel oversees the Secret Service, which is part of Chertoff's department. Another black presidential candidate, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, received Secret Service protection for his 1984 and 1988 runs a year before Election Day. Obama's wife, Michelle, codenamed ``Renaissance'', received protection at the request of the campaign on Jan 29. Jen Psaki, a campaign spokesman, declined to comment on the reasons. While Obama has inspired comparisons with John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. among his supporters, some of them are taking the comparison too far, said former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, an Obama backer. Kirk said he has read Internet postings from blacks saying ``we shouldn't even nominate him, because if we do something bad will happen.'' Obama has ``the best security in the world, and people should stop worrying,'' said Robert Gibbs, the candidate's spokesman. As Obama gave a speech in San Antonio on the night of the March 4 primaries, four sharpshooters were positioned on two towers behind him while four plainclothes agents stood near him. Three helicopters circled above, a level of security that is common for Obama and Clinton at large events. At least seven agents surrounded Obama at a March 4 rodeo in Houston. At rallies, agents in T-shirts printed with Obama's likeness melt into the crowd. In the past month, animosity toward Obama has increased on white supremacist Web sites, said Mark Potok, director of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama. He said that while he didn't know of any specific threats, ``the tone has begun to heat up.'' While a news report that the Secret Service had stopped scanning participants at a Feb. 20 rally in Dallas's Reunion Arena sparked criticism on the Internet, Blackford, the Secret Service spokesman, said the agency never intended to put everyone through magnetometers. ``We don't rely on any one measure,'' he said. ``The plans are multilayered.'' Security for Clinton, codename ``Evergreen'', was tightened in January, when the Secret Service began requiring people at rallies to walk through scanners.

On the candidate's plane, rows of agents separate her from the press corps. The toughest events to secure are those that are scheduled and public, O'Connell said. In assessing threats, the Secret Service monitors groups and people who have been a problem in the past, rating the risk they present, he said. Those deemed most dangerous are put under surveillance.

Agents are trained to handle a politician's interaction with the public, including handshakes and posing for pictures, he said. Joe Russo, who was in charge of the Clintons' Secret Service detail until 2004, said presidential campaigns often create a conflict between the need for exposure and security.
The candidates "have to be out there", he said. "You can't restrict them".

[ cit. delegates & superdelegates ]

Zion   Labor PM candidate Mitzna alms to Zion imported campaign funds Sanhedrin Shinui feyadeen Jenin Gaza Armageddon official Israeli govt site	Israel's Likud wins 38 Knesset seats in final count   1.30.03   CNN Jerusalem   The official count of votes cast Tuesday in Israeli elections shows PM Sharon's Likud party garnered 38 seats in Israel's parliament, authorities said Thursday. Likud's traditional rival, the Labor Party, won 19, and the upstart secular Shinui Party won big with 15, figures from Tuesday's election show. The number of seats gained by other parties include: Shas, 11; National Unity, 7; Mafdal, 6; Meretz, 6; Yahadut Hatora, 5; One Nation, 3; Balad, 3; Hadash, 3; Yisrael Ba'aliya, 2; and Ra'am, 2. Sharon's huge victory, however, will not make cobbling together a coalition govt an easy prospect. The prime minister will need to put together a coalition govt with at least 61 seats in the 120-member Knesset to have a majority. The Israeli leader wants a coalition that is politically tougher than the policies of the vanquished Labor Party but softer than those of Israel's religious right. Addressing Likud faithful in a national TV broadcast Tuesday, Sharon said, "This is not a time for celebration. It is a time to close ranks, to stand side by side to bring a victory over terrorism." Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna conceded defeat, but he repeated his vow that his party would not join a unity govt. Mitzna had called for renewed negotiations with Palestinians, while Sharon has vowed not to talk until terror attacks against Israelis have stopped. Sharon has said he wants to cooperate with U.S. on a road map for a peace plan with the Palestinians, with conditions. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said Wednesday that Palestinians are ready for peace negotiations with the newly elected Israeli govt. Under Israel's parliamentary electoral system, Israeli President Moshe Katsav will ask the leaders of the party winning the most seats to form a govt. When Sharon gets the request, he will have 28 days, which may be extended by 14 days if he needs them, to form a govt.
2 Palestinians killed as Sharon kicks off coalition talks   2.11.03   AFP Jordan Times Tel Aviv   Israeli PM Sharon's right-wing Likud on Monday officially kicked off coalition talks focused on averting a far-right govt, even as the army shot dead 2 Palestinians in the occupied territories. After President Moshe Katsav charged Sharon with forming a new govt Sunday, the premier's camp launched a first round of coalition bargaining in Tel Aviv, but was once again snubbed by the centre-left Labour Party. Likud's efFts in what was expected to be a tough horse-trading session were to focus on convincing the secular centre-right Shinui Party and its 15 MPs to join a new coalition following 1.287.03 elections. Sharon favours a broad national unity govt such as the one he formed after his Feb. 2001 poll victory and wants to avoid a narrow far-right cabinet likely to draw the ire of Israel's main US ally by pushing for even tougher policies against the Palestinians. Former Sharon adviser Uri Shani, who leads the talks for Likud, was also to meet Shinui's arch-foes from the ultra- Orthodox Shas Party Monday, as well as the extreme-right National Union bloc, before a second round including the remaining parties on Tuesday. Labour & its dovish Amram Mitzna had already declined an invitation to take part in the talks, in line with its refusal to join any govt led by Sharon. But the 74-year-old former general has up to 42 days to form a stable coalition and is still hoping to coax Labour into a national unity govt. On Sunday, the premier's office revealed that he had taken part in secret talks with the Palestinians, in an announcement whose timing prompted analysts to suspect Sharon was attempting to woo Labour, which campaigned for a resumption of peace talks. Sharon himself met with senior Palestinian officials, while his senior aide Dov Weisglass met with Palestinian Interior Minister Hani Al Hassan Wednesday and travelled to Amman Sunday for talks with Jordanian officials. A fresh meeting between Weisglass & Hassan was scheduled for later Monday.
But Sharon did not stray too far from his hawkish stance and said Sunday after being formally asked to form a coalition that "the new govt will have to finish off the battle against terrorism & remove its leadership." The remark was a stark warning to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose ouster Sharon has consistently demanded, and prompted furious reactions from Palestinian officials, who accused the Israeli premier of deliberately hampering peace efFts. Meanwhile, in the West Bank & Gaza Strip, violence continued unabated, as 3 more Palestinians died, bringing the toll for the 28-month-old Intifada ever closer to 3,000. In the West Bank, Israeli troops shot dead a member of the armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in a pre-dawn raid near the town of Nablus, a PFLP source said. The army confirmed the killing and said the occupation soldiers shot him as he tried to escape arrest. Israeli police were on high alert Monday following intelligence reports that resistance groups could be preparing a fresh spate of suicide bombings. Troops nabbed three would-be kamikazes in the West Bank, the army said, identifying one as a member of the hardline Islamic movement Hamas, and another as from Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed offshoot of Arafat's Fateh movement. Violence also flared in the Gaza Strip, as Israeli occupation troops shot dead an armed Palestinian near a Jewish settlement, military sources said. The attack was claimed by the PFLP-General Command, a Palestinian resistance group based in Syria with close links to Iran & Libya. Palestinian medical sources said a Palestinian who was critically injured by Israeli troops in the northern West Bank city of Tulkarem Saturday had also died of his wounds.
Arab nationalists call for boycott of elections 11.26.02   Jalal Bana Ha`aretz In the Nazareth restaurant-gallery The Palestinian House, dozens of Arab & Israeli youths met last week. The youths, activists in the Sons of the Village (Abna'a el-Balad) movement, discussed the group's preparations for upcoming 16th Knesset elections. The central point of discussion was the party's current campaign, calling upon the public to boycott the elections as a means of ideological resistance. "The Arab public is disappointed in its current leadership and it has no belief in the Zionist parties," explains the group's leader, Mohammed Asa'ad Cana'ana, a former security prisoner. Other groups calling upon voters to abstain from voting include the Jewish anti-Zionist movements, the Committee for a Secular and Democratic Country, the Socialist Committee, and the Committee Against Apartheid. The Sons of the Village want to reach the entire Israeli public, but will mainly focus the Arab sector. Their public relations campaign, which includes ads in newspapers & radio broadcasts, will include, among other things, the relation between Israeli establishments and the Arab public. However, the majority of their complaints are turned towards the Arab parties & Arab members of Knesset who "lack authority & influence." According to the party, the Arab leadership failed to raise the problems of the Arab sector, since Arab MK's don't really have the ability to influence actions regarding the future of the country and its citizens. The MK's agree with the last part of the statement, but harshly criticize the Sons of the Village's current campaign. "The Sons of the Village's call will mainly serve the Israeli right, which supports the transfer of Arabs," says MK Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash). "Our role is to serve as opposition to the right-wing settlers and to prevent them from making dangerous racist decisions," he added. Dr. Jamal Zahalkha, from the Balad movement said, "Most of the Arab public that will not vote will do so out of indifference, not for ideological reasons, and the people who will make the most benefit out of it are the Zionist parties." The Sons of the Village movement was established at the end of the 1960s. According to Israeli law, every group in Israel seeking to become political party must sign a statement saying that Israel is the state of the Jewish nation. The Sons of the Village refused to sign the statement, and therefore is not considered a political party. "The political party law in Israel is racist," Cana'ana states. The members of the group include attorneys, doctors and student representatives from several universities. The group is the first among Arab groups in Israel calling for the boycott of elections in Israel since it was first established. Its platform supports establishment of a secular democratic country on all of the land of Mandatory Palestine, meaning the annulling of all of the indexes portraying Israel as a Jewish country, and return of all of the Palestinian refugees who left the country since 1948. The group's platform also calls for a popular uprising against Israel. Israel delivers special aid request to U.S. 11.26.02   Nathan Guttman & Aluf Benn Ha`aretz Wash.D.C.   Israeli officials yesterday delivered to their American counterparts a request for special U.S. aid featuring loan guarantees worth $10 billion as well as another $4 billion in defense aid. to U.S. national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. [ The colored girl gets the dirty work one more time. ] Pres. GWBush is expected to quickly approve the request with minor changes, Israeli sources said. Israel's request was submitted by the Prime Minister's bureau chief Dov Weisglass, Finance Ministry Director- General Ohad Marani, and Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Danny Ayalon. The trio met at the White House with Rice. Meanwhile, Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon is in Washington for his first official trip to the U.S. capital to meet with Pentagon & White House officials. Civilian officials from the PMO did not present a formal aid request. Instead, they outlined to Rice the country's needs and the various possibilities for transfering special U.S. aid. There is room for flexibility over the way military assistance is defined and the level of the loan guarantees, the Israelis emphasized. Rice agreed to provide a prompt response to the Israeli aid request, Israeli sources said. The American govt will assent to the request, in full or in part, Israeli sources believe; however, the timetable for transferring the aid remains unclear, they said. Israel's request envisions a multi-year timetable, and features 3 components, loan guarantees, military aid, and using some money from the defense aid package to make various purchases in Israel. Israel is asking to be included in Washington's "post-Iraq" aid package, which promises assistance to all states that are liable to be hurt by an impending American attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime. Media reports have indicated that the Bush administration has already promised Turkey $2 billion in annual aid over the next 5 years as part of this program. Meanwhile, top U.S. officials will ask Ya'alon whether deployments in the territories can be altered to alleviate pressure on the Palestinian population.The conflict with the Palestinians and preparations for an impending U.S. attack on Iraq will dominate his talks with U.S. officials. Ya'alon will meet with Rice, Sec.Powell, CIA dir. Tenet, and other top American officials. Ya'alon's visit, which already has been deferred twice, has been shortened due to continuing security tensions. U.S. officials will stress that the Bush administration understands that IDF operations are self-defense acts and responses to terror attacks. However, the U.S. officials will add that the army should do its utmost to avoid causing harm to Palestinian civilians in the territories. The officials also will say that the Bush administration is alarmed by humanitarian needs in the territories. Sharon crushes Netanyahu with 15% margin 11.29.02   Yossi Verter Ha'aretz Likud election committee chair Dr. Zvi Cohen confirmed Friday morning that PM Sharon won the party leadership race with a 15% lead over Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Final results of the primary race are: Sharon: 55.88%, Netanyahu: 40.08%, Moshe Feiglin: 3.46%. Voter turnout was 46%. Sharon on Thursday predicted his party would double its Knesset strength, after a primary marred by terror attacks in Israel and Kenya. Earlier tv polls predicted a larger 17 to 24 point margin of victory for the prime minister. Sharon will now face the Labor Party's newly-elected chair Haifa mayor Amram Mitzna, in Jan. 28 general elections. After accepting the congratulations of his rival, Sharon opened his somber victory speech at the Tel Aviv Exhibition Grounds, by asking his supporters to respect the memories of the 9 Israeli killed in Thursday's terror attacks in Beit She'an & Kenya. Sharon reiterated a statement he had made earlier in the day, that the terror attacks were an attempt "to influence the elections in Israel." He added that "Israel will hunt down those who have spilled the blood its citizens. No one has immunity. It is the duty of all countries not only to offer condolences when we bury out dead, but also to support us when we fight terror." Looking ahead to the Jan. 28 election, Sharon predicted that "the Likud will double its strength; if we work together, we will achieve an even better result." Earlier, at his campaign headquarters in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu congratulated Sharon on his victory, and called on Likud members to unite around their leader to ensure that the party "wins a huge victory in the Fthcoming elections." In an apparent signal that he intends to remain firmly in the political realm, Netanyahu vowed to help the prime minister and the Likud to win a decisive victory in January. Campaign headquarters of both candidates were almost deserted when the polls were published, a far cry from the raucous scenes that usually greet the tv surveys. Sharon aides said Thursday night that in the coming 10 days, until the elections for the Likud list, the prime minister would devote a lot of time to helping his supporters win "respectable places" on the Knesset list. Those supporters include ministers Reuven Rivlin, Silvan Shalom, Shaul Mofaz, Tzipi Livni, Roni Milo and Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert. Sharon has told his associates he will not allow "political purges," but will do whatever he can to help his supporters. Netanyahu, who promised there would be no camps in the Likud, nonetheless will do the same for his backers, MKs Yuval Steinitz & Yisrael Katz, as well as minister Meir Sheetrit, MK Moshe Arens, and his former spokesman Shai Bazak. Netanyahu said he would stand by Sharon's side "to bring the Likud a victory in the general elections for the Knesset." One of Sharon's political advisers, Ruby Yisraeli, said that for three and a half years, ever since Sharon took over the Likud when Netanyahu resigned the night he lost the premiership to Ehud Barak, "we've worked to bring the results we had tonight. We knew the Likud Central Committee didn't support Sharon so we held a registration drive, recruited new people, and made the change." Voter turnout increased significantly toward the end of the day, after Sharon made an impassioned call for Likud members to cast their votes despite terror attack hours earlier on the Likud branch in Beit She'an. Turnout was believed to be between 45% & 50%, despite being below 20% with 4 hours left to vote. Sharon's camp had feared that a low turnout would serve Netanyahu, who has trailed badly in the polls for several weeks, and the prime minister called on Likud members not to allow terror "to frighten them" and force them "to stay at home. It's not important who you support. Don't let terror intimidate you. Go and vote. Go and vote." Shortly after voting began at 10 am Thursday morning, Sharon's campaign officials filed a complaint saying that campaign staff for Netanyahu were hiding Sharon ballots at polling stations. Israel Radio reported that hundreds of thousands of new ballot papers with Sharon's name on them, were quickly distributed to those stations where the ballots had gone missing. 6 killed in attack on Beit She'an Likud HQ 11.29.02   Usi Ash Ha`aretz 6 people were killed and 43 wounded in a Palestinian terror attack on the Likud headquarters in Beit She'an yesterday afternoon, as rank & file party members were there to vote in the primaries. A caller to Associated Press said the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, associated with Fatah, was responsible for the attack. The two terrorists, who apparently came from the nearby northern West Bank and arrived in the east Jezreel Valley town in a stolen Mazda sedan, were gunned down by an off-duty Border Patrolman who lived nearby, heard the shooting, grabbed his rifle, and ran to the scene. Northern Police Commander Yaakov Borovsky said the terrorists deliberately targeted the party branch. Eyewitnesses said there was another terrorist, but extensive police searches did not uncover a third assailant. The attack in the town of 17,000 began around 3:20 pm. The terrorists were seen driving the wrong way up Yehoshua Avitan street once or twice before stopping in front of the Likud party branch headquarters, a large, 2 story stone building. Eyal Asulin, who lives on the street, and watched the entire incident from his front porch, said the terrorists drove down the street twice and then parked near the party branch headquarters. He said one of the terrorists got out of the car near the Likud building, while his associate drove a little further down the street and parked. When the terrorists arrived, there was the usual election day crowd outside the headquarters, several dozen people people waiting to vote and arguing over who to vote for, and hangers-on looking for excitement in the usually sleepy town. Many were inside the building. "I was standing near the door to the building," said Arik Ashur, a Likud activist. "We heard the first shot, and I saw an armed men with an automatic rifle shooting toward the building. He ran and then I saw 2 people, on the ground, hit. He had shot them in their backs. I jumped over the fence and hit the ground. One of the terrorists went into the building, and started shooting." Yohai Shimshon, who was inside, said the security guard at the entrance fired into the air and then struggled with the terrorist until he (the guard) was shot. According to the police, the terrorist threw some kind of grenade or explosive device as well as other grenades that did not explode and that were subsequently collected by police sappers. Meanwhile, the second terrorist got out of the car he had parked and began shooting people outside the building. According to some eyewitnesses, he hid behind some parked cars. Many of the neighborhood residents heard the shooting. One was Eran David, a Border Patrol trooper, who was on vacation at home. He was sitting with a neighbor drinking tea in the yard when he heard the shooting. He went upstairs to his parents' home, took his personal gun and ran down to the Likud headquarters. "I saw a terrorist standing and shooting. I got closer to him and shot a couple of shots at his head. He fell. I didn't know there was a second terrorist. But after he fired, I turned to face him, got closer and took him out too." Borovsky said later that the first terrorist, who shot indiscriminately, was pushed out of the party headquarters by the people inside and was killed by David. Other armed soldiers and civilians who arrived on the scene also shot at the terrorist, but according to the police, it was the Border Patrolman's shots that killed both terrorists. Large numbers of police arrived on the scene, as did Magen David Adom ambulances. But there were delays evacuating the wounded, since the police feared there might be a third terrorist on the scene. They threw tear gas into the building, believing the third man may have made it inside, but nobody came out, and then they scoured the neighborhood, yielding no sign of a third man. Borovsky said he was certain the terrorists deliberately targeted the Likud party headquarters, since there was no sign to the building and "there were other places where they could have found crowds in the town." About an hour after the attack, several dozen youths from Beit She'an began gathering, chanting "death to Arabs" and "burn the bodies." Riot control police dispersed the crowd and police asked town leaders to allow the police to do their work without obstruction.	Ministry acts to stop terror funds' flow via local banks   11.29.02   Amos Harel Ha`aretz The Justice Ministry, with the help of defense officials, is preparing an amendment to anti-money laundering laws to close loopholes that let millions of dollars flow to Palestinian terror groups through Israeli banks. Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit yesterday approved the language of the amendment after consultations with officials of the Counter- terror Council and the Shin Bet. The final draft was sent to various ministries so the inter-ministerial committee on legislation could quickly approve it and send it to the Knesset for approval. More than a year ago, shortly after 9.11.01, Pres. GWBush issued a presidential order freezing accounts in American banks where there was any suspicion that funds from the account were getting to terrorist organizations, incl Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and Palestinian groups like Hamas & Islamic Jihad. Following an American approach on the matter, Israeli govt decided on legislation that would adopt the American terror list and the steps the U.S. took would be matched by Israel. But defense establishment sources say that in effect, Israel did very little. "The Israeli handling of the matter is simply scandalous," said one source. "We complain about the entire world but when even the Europeans have approved freezes on Jihad & Hamas military funding, we haven't done anything." According to the source, "Israeli law does not enable wide-scale confiscation of funds. Non profit organizations that seemingly operate on behalf of Palestinian widows & orphans actually pass millions of dollars to terror through Israeli banks." The new legislation would rename the law to the law against money laundering & funding terror and in addition to money laundering, would target transfers. ¹ Recommendations on ending sex trade not enough, police & justice officials assert   11.26.02   Baruch Kra Ha`aretz Senior officials in police & Justice Ministry say that a new report on ways to deal with the illicit trade in women for the sex industry, delivered to Atty General Elyakim Rubinstein Sunday, does not provide solutions to the most difficult aspects of enforcement of the laws against the sex-slave trade. The report recommends coordination with the countries of origin of the women to enable their return to those countries in safety, with options for rehabilitation. The report calls for increased enforcement, both by the police and other agencies, incl anti-money laundering authorities & income tax authorities. It says the borders with Egypt should be better supervised, since it is along this border that the women are smuggled into the country. The report also recommends public relations campaigns in both Israel & countries of origin, establishment of an umbrella organization to coordinate all the efFts against the trade and new laws that would enable the police to close buildings that serve as brothels. Other recommendations incl new legislation that would enable prosecution of Israelis who commit sex-related crimes overseas, and expropriation of properties used by sex traders. Some of the recommendations have already been made by other groups. These include establishing shelters for victims of the sex trade, opening hot lines for victims, providing guidance and help to the victims, and financing legal aid for them. But the report does not include recommendations concerning some of the most difficult problems, incl many plea bargains the state uses to convict traders, say sources in the police & the ministry. The sources note that judges rarely deliver maximum sentences against convicted sex traders, 16 years in jail. According to one Justice Ministry source, the lengthiest sentence handed down against a convicted sex trader has been 4.5 years and most sentences are no longer than 18 months. The police have yet to reach the uppermost echelons of the sex trade industry. Most of the indictments have been served against low-level pimps, who could have been prosecuted under the laws against promoting prostitution. Rape of toddlers shown on porn site 11.29.02   Baruch Kra Ha`aretz Child pornography distributed over the Internet, allegedly by 4 Israelis arrested for this crime on Monday, incl films of 3 yr old children being raped, according to the police. The police added that one of the 4 suspects, Yoav Biran, 25, of Jerusalem, is suspected of performing indecent acts on children himself in order to make the videos that he then sold over the Internet. Biran is also under investigation for drug dealing. According to police, the suspects, first ever to be arrested for "online pedophilia" in Israel, earned hefty profits by posting pedophile footage they either purchased or made themselves in an Internet archive that required users to pay to have access. All 4 suspects will be brought for a remand hearing today. In addition to Biran, they include Itai Snapir, 25, of Tel Aviv and Rafael Kaplanovksy, 23, of Jerusalem. A gag order has been imposed on the fourth man's name. IDF has tape of UNRWA man's last moments 11.29.02   AP UN worker Iain Hook, killed in the Jenin refugee camp during an Israeli-Palestinian clash, phoned an IDF army officer minutes before his death and said Palestinians were breaking into the UN compound, according to a tape released by the Israel Defense Forces yesterday. Hook, British senior manager for UNRWA, was killed by IDF gunfire on Friday. IDF admitted the shooting was a mistake, but said soldiers returning fire coming from the UN compound targeted Hook, mistakenly believing the cellphone he was holding was a weapon. Palestinians deny they fired at the Israeli soldiers from the camp. UN officials also deny the charge. But in a voice mail received by Cpt. Peter Lerner, the IDF's liaison with intl groups, a person identifying himself as Iain said Palestinian youths "have knocked a hole in the wall … I'm trying to keep them out." Lerner would not say why it took the military 5 days to produce the tape. "This does not prove we are innocent," Lerner admitted, but said it lent credence to the Israeli claim that Palestinian gunmen had entered the compound. The term the caller used to describe the youth was shabab, an Arabic term for youth that often refers to armed gangs. Lerner's voice mail service automatically dated the call at 12:53 P.M. on Friday, less than an hour before Hook was shot & killed. The caller said, "Hi Peter, it's Iain here. I'm just making a progress report, really. We're pinned down in the compound. The shabab have knocked a hole in the wall, which I'm not happy about at all. I'm trying to keep them out and I will just keep my people pinned down in the corner until I hear from you. OK? Over." IDF strives to avoid harming civilians in Nablus   11.29.02   Amos Harel Ha'aretz Nablus   Each time LtCol. Shmuel's jeep crossed the road yesterday in central Nablus, it was pelted by rocks. Occasionally a Molotov cocktail was thrown in that landed close to the vehicle used by the commander of the Paratrooper Brigade patrol unit. Throngs of furious Palestinian teenagers & children joined the attack on Shmuel's, and other jeeps. These images, along with burning tires on the fringe of Nablus' open market area, recalled the days of the first intifada. But, in the final analysis, the Palestinian attacks against the specially Ftified jeeps appeared somewhat pathetic. The jeeps' mirrors were shattered some time ago; but apart from these cracks, the Israel Defense Forces soldiers felt rather well protected. No soldier was willing to take the trouble to try to disperse the crowds; the soldiers understood that such stone-throwing groups often try to lure them toward armed gunmen. 2 weeks into the IDF's operation in Nablus, the city is supposed to be under a tight curfew. The curfew, however, exists mostly in radio reports. The IDF has reduced its troops in downtown Nablus; forces which try to track down terror suspects & explosives laboratories have little manpower & time to worry about enforcing the curfew. Yesterday, hundreds of Nablus residents mingled in the city's central areas, casbah market stalls opened for business and dozens of cars & taxi cabs rolled around the streets. City business was being conducted when the army jeeps rumbled near the market area. It was then that groups of young people scrambled to "improve their positions" to hurl rocks at the army vehicles. Older residents placidly watched the youths prepare for the stand-off. In effect, two very different urban processes unfolded in parallel, with only a narrow street separating them. On one side there was the noisy open market. On the other, there was a violent skirmish. Palestinian car owners paid the price for the ongoing scuffling between Israel's army & the stone throwers. Some of the stones hit Palestinian cars, breaking their windshields & windows. When the IDF started its operation in Nablus, officers noted that its success would be measured partly by its ability to avert causing harm to civilians. A previous IDF operation carried out by the Golani Brigade in Jenin was, by this criterion, a clear-cut success. During 17 days of IDF activity in Jenin, just one Palestinian was killed, a top terror suspect, Iyad Swalha. Nablus, however, is a completely different story. Virtually from the operation's first hours, paratroopers have faced stormy, violent demonstrations involving hundreds of young people. Often, these demonstrations are a springboard to gunfire incidents. Two Palestinian teenagers were killed by IDF fire during such skirmishes, and two days ago a boy (either 8 or 11 years old - there are two different versions of his age) was also killed in Nablus. For the first time in the West Bank, Nablus has displayed a phenomenon which had been seen only at Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Children are not content to stop at stone throwing; they also use Molotov cocktails, makeshift hand grenades and even small bombs. Children even climb atop IDF Ftified vehicles and vandalize equipt which they carry, such as stretchers. These forays are filmed by tv cameras. In a talk last week with IDF Central Commander Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinski, Lt. Col. Shmuel said his soldiers have the authority to "take down" (hit with gunfire) Molotov cocktail throwers. Asked why he doesn't do so, if this is the case, Shmuel replied, "Because I don't want to kill 8 year olds." Paratroopers, in fact, refrain from opening fire against young Palestinians. In fact, the IDF has invested extensive efFt, thought and monitoring into avoiding lethal gunfire skirmishes provoked by young Palestinian rock throwers. That said, the IDF does need to reevaluate some of its rules of engagement. For instance, procedures governing gunfire responses to Molotov cocktail throwers who are surrounded by groups of children need to be reconsidered. Difficulties faced by IDF soldiers are illustrated by an incident which transpired Tuesday night. A group of paratroopers went to arrest a terror suspect in a Nablus houses. As they approached the building, they heard a metal noise, that they believed it was a cocked rifle. Then three figures were seen escaping from the house. Complying with IDF procedures for stopping terrorists, the soldiers fired warning shots into the air. The 3 continued to flee. Another IDF group noticed that one of the 3 was carrying either a firearm or a club. The soldiers fired some more shots. One of the 3 Palestinians was killed; another was detained, the third continued to flee. It turned out that none of the 3 were connected to the terror suspects. The sticks were used to beat pots & pans for Ramadan prayers (the scuffling of the pots was apparently the cause of the suspicious, rifle- cocking noise). Hence, lack of knowledge about local custom & observances caused an unnecessary death. This incident & others, reinforces the need to reinstitute the old rules of engagement guiding principle: Soldiers should open fire only when they face mortal threats. Arabs urged to vote in Knesset elections 11.29.02   Jala Bana Ha'aretz The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee yesterday called upon Arab citizens to participate in the Knesset elections Jan. 28. A statement distributed to the media, Knesset parties & local municipalities, and signed by the committee's chair Shawqi Khatib, said: "The Arab public in Israel bears a large national responsibility to take part in the elections in order to prevent the formation of an extreme right-wing govt, one of occupation & oppression." The statement calls upon all Arab parties & factions to fully cooperate in order to prevent, "the squandering of the Arab vote, while shielding democratic foundations." The Committee's statement comes in response to a campaign by the Sons of the Village movement for an Arab boycott of "the false Israeli democratic game." The statement also reflects concerns about indifference among the Arab public and its growing sense of frustration with local Arab leadership and lack of faith in Zionist parties. "The elections are being held under difficult circumstances, under the shadow of the hostility toward our people in the occupied territories and the increasing incidents of racism & hostility towards the Arab public in Israel." Terror leaders killed in missile attack 11.29.02   Amos Harel Ha'aretz Israel assassinated 2 senior wanted gunmen from the Jenin refugee camp close to midnight last night. The two were Fatah armed wing Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades commander Ala Al-Sabag, and his Hamas counterpart, Immad Nasharti, who commands the Izza-din al-Kassam militants in the camp. According to Palestinian sources, around 11 pm, an Israeli helicopter fired an anti-tank missile at a house in the camp. The two, whom Israel has long sought, were hit. They did not report any other casualties. Earlier, the sources said, Israeli tanks & half-tracks had entered Jenin. Military sources said no helicopters had fired into the camp. Therefore it is possible the attack was carried out by ground forces or that the 2 were killed while preparing a bomb. Israel has not carried out pinpointed assassinations of wanted men in recent weeks. The fact that the two leaders from different militant organizations met was not seen as a surprise; in various parts of the territories, particularly Jenin, there has been growing cooperation between militants from the different organizations in an attempt to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel.
Officials: U.S. to delay Mideast plan until after Israeli election   12.18.02   CNN ¹ Jerusalem   Bush administration is expected to delay its Mideast peace plan or "road map" announcement until after next month's general elections in Israel, officials told CNN. The Mideast quartet, U.S., Russia, EU and UN, is meeting Friday in Washington, where U.S. expected to present what it calls a road map for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Bush administration officials and Arab & quartet diplomats confirmed the delay. Israel urged U.S. to postpone publication of the road map until after the elections. In report about the postponement, Israel Radio said President Bush will tell the other quartet members that the road map release is being delayed because after the elections a new Israeli govt will be formed that can react to the plan and differences of opinion between the U.S. & EU. Israel Radio 12.18.02 quoted U.S. officials as saying differences between U.S. & EU on the peace plan incl the following:   scope of quartet's authority in West Bank & Gaza to supervise implementation of the peace plan on the ground.   EU immediate demand for Israel to end construction of new Jewish settlements. The U.S., while maintaining settlements are an obstacle to peace, has largely backed Israel's opposition to any new settlement freeze as Palestinian terror attacks continue.   EU demand to restrict Israel's targeted hits of Palestinian militants. The Bush administration backs Israel's policy. Quartet talks in Washington are follow-up to meeting the group held last month in Jordan. That discussion took place after Asst Sec.State Wm Burns' visit to Mideast in Oct. 2002. At that time, Burns presented Israelis, Palestinians and key Arab allies with Bush administration's outline for a provisional Palestinian state by the end of 2003 and a final status agreement by the end of 2005. The proposal drew mixed reviews. Both the Israelis & Palestinians said the ideas incl positive elements, but they criticized other aspects. Since then, U.S. State Dept has been fine-tuning the road map based on feedback from the parties. Candidates differ on strategy Israel's general elections are set for 1.28.03. Israeli PM & Likud party leader Ariel Sharon and Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna will face each other for prime minister. Mitzna has promised to restart talks immediately with the Palestinians. If there is no progress in those talks after one year, Mitzna said he would enforce security borders in the West Bank. He said no Jewish settlement would remain on the eastern side of those borders. Mitzna has said he would order a total Israeli evacuation from Gaza without delay. Sharon takes a hard line on relations with the Palestinians, arguing that substantive negotiations are dependent on the Palestinian Authority reining in armed groups. He rejects Palestinian Authority President Arafat as a negotiating partner and strongly backs the existing govt-sanctioned Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. Most Israeli political pundits heavily favor Sharon to form the next govt. Polls show his Likud party is expected to be victorious in the election. Sharon's 20-month national unity coalition fell apart Oct. 2002 when the Labor Party, the faction with the largest number of seats in the Knesset, pulled out. The issue that precipitated the collapse was a dispute over funding in the 2003 budget for Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Dark clouds over Israel election ¹ 1.21.03   Jerrold Kessel CNN … The trouble with Israel's election system, according to experts, is that it's simply too perfect for the voters. Virtually every vote under the proportional representation system actually does count. But it's often unworkable because so many different parties are elected. Cobbling together a coalition can become a nightmare. Centrist Shinui party head Tomi Lapid, showing surprising strength in the polls, vows not to sit in govt with the other ultra-religious king-making party Shas. Shas rabbis loathe the anti-religious Shinui and vow not to sit with Lapid, though both would prefer Sharon to continue as prime minister. Sharon vows to form a broad unity govt. But Labor leader Amram Mitzna vows that under no conditions will he lead his left-center party back into a govt under Sharon. Many secular Israelis say they want a centrist coalition without the religious parties. But that seems politically unworkable. Ilan Ramon   2.1.03   bio CNN dob 6.20.54 Tel Aviv Israel   Married, 4 children. 1974   Grad. Israel Air Force Flight School fighter pilot 1987   Bachelor's electronics & computer eng. Univ. of Tel Aviv 1980   became one of first Israeli pilots training to fly F-16s 1994   Promoted colonel. 1994-98 head of operational requirement for weapon development & acquisition. 2003   NASA payload specialist	Amram Mitzna bio Israeli Labor prime minister candidate per Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Joined Israel Defense Forces 1963 Wounded in both 1967 & 1973 wars 2 medals of distinguished service Overall W.Bank commander 1986-90 during first intifada Appt IDF Planning Div. head 1990 retired from IDF at rank of major general, 1993 Elected mayor of Haifa, Israel, 1993 Elected Labor Party chair Nov. 2002 Born 1945, Kibbutz Dovrat, Israel Married, 3 children B.A. geography, Master's political science, Haifa Univ. Grad pgm in public administration, Harvard Univ. Boston Likud leaders plead for more support 1.26.03   CNN Jerusalem   Officials from Israeli PM Sharon's Likud party, certain they will win in Tuesday's election but afraid they won't win convincingly enough, pleaded with voters Sunday to abandon right-wing parties and return to them. "We need to have a strong Likud so there won't be elections again in a year & a half," Israeli Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a Likud rally. Key Sharon ally Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert said, "We're under pressure because we haven't reached the point where we can form a stable govt yet." He told Jerusalem Post, "The number of mandates the polls currently predict would still make it difficult for the govt to function effectively. We haven't reached the stage where we can build a Likud-led govt that can last." The polls currently show Likud can expect to win between 33 & 35 seats in the 120-member Knesset, Israel's parliament. Olmert said Likud needs to win at least 37 seats to build a coalition that will last the full 4 year term. Sharon has made security the key issue in the campaign, leaving no doubt he believes the survival of Israel is at stake. He has said there would be no negotiations with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and no talks until Palestinian violence against Israelis stops. Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna has taken a distinctly different tact, arguing that negotiations with the Palestinians should resume immediately, and if the negotiations fail, Israel should move to separate itself from the Palestinians. Barring a last-minute miracle, Labor is expected to win about 17 seats in the Knesset, down from 25 seats in the current parliament. Under Israeli parliamentary election system, the party that wins the most seats is asked to form a govt. To govern, Sharon & Likud would have to put together a coalition of parties comprising a minimum of 61 seats. Sharon has said he wants a national unity govt that would include Labor, allowing him to cooperate with the U.S. on a road map proposed by U.S. President GWBush calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. Mitzna has said Labor would never join a national unity govt led by Sharon, despite the fact that polls show a commanding majority of Israelis want such a govt. Political analysts say if Mitzna & his Labor party lose badly, he would be under great pressure to join a unity govt or quit so another Labor leader can join. A third factor will be the role of the secular Shinui or Change Party, which has been surging in the polls, is expected to win as many as 16 seats in the Knesset. Shinui leader Tommy Lapid has expressed views similar to Sharon's on dealing with the Palestinians, incl not negotiating with Arafat. He said, however, his party would not join a coalition that included the ultra-orthodox parties. In the past, Sharon has relied on the religious parties for support, but last Oct., when the last govt fell apart, he could not reach an agreement with them.
Israeli astronaut has prayer cup 1.19.03   AP Cape Canaveral   First Israeli in space Ilan Ramon said Saturday he was too busy with science experiments aboard shuttle Columbia to observe the Jewish Sabbath. "I didn't even have the chance to think about Sabbath," Ramon said in a TV interview. Ramon noted that he is secular and did not get any special permission to work on the Sabbath. He spent Friday evening & Saturday conducting research just like his 6 American crewmates; the shuttle is loaded with more than 80 experiments. "The only thing I did have is a kiddush cup, but I even missed that for Friday. I hope I'll do it next Friday," he said, holding up the small silver prayer cup and letting it go. It floated, upright, alongside him.   [ mocking Yahweh in view of the entire world ] NASA prohibition against alcohol in space prevented Ramon from taking wine with him for the Friday evening celebration of the Sabbath. Ramon, Holocaust survivor's son, said before the shuttle flight that Sabbath, for him in space, would fall on Houston time. The issue arose among some rabbis, given that the sun rises and sets every 90 minutes for astronauts circling Earth. Because NASA's astronaut HQ & Mission Control are in Houston, Ramon said he would follow Central Standard Time aboard Columbia. Ramon said he also has been too busy since Thursday's launch to think about the historical significance of his flight. The 48-year-old astronaut, a colonel in Israel's air force and former fighter pilot, said he was well aware of all the security surrounding his launch. He called the protection, unprecedented for a NASA space shot, "unbelievable & helpful. I didn't have any doubt that everything would go pretty good and so it did," Earlier in the day, Ramon & crewmates aimed a pair of Israeli cameras at the Mediterranean & Atlantic in search of airborne plumes of dust that might affect weather. The $2 million experiment is sponsored by the Israel Space Agency & Tel Aviv University. Researchers want to better understand how dust affects climate and are using the 16-day mission to gather evidence. The dust can be far-flung, with plumes originating in the Sahara Desert sometimes drifting across the Atlantic all the way to Florida. On Saturday, thick cloud cover obscured the views, but the cameras still provided remarkable details of the clouds that scientists said warrant further study. As the cameras scanned the Mediterranean, researchers stationed in Greece took simultaneous dust measurements from an airplane for comparison. It was so cloudy over Israel that Ramon could not see much of his homeland 180 miles below. Still, he said, "it's a great start and it's an opening for great science from our nation and hopefully for our neighbors in the MidEast." Sharon calls shuttle crew 1.21.03   AP Cape Canaveral   Space shuttle Columbia's U.S.-Israeli crew got a congratulatory phone call Tuesday from Israeli PM Sharon, … for astronaut Ilan Ramon, first Israeli in space with Columbia's launch last week. Almost the entire conversation was in Hebrew. Ramon held up a small torah scroll given to him by a Tel Aviv University professor who survived a Nazi concentration camp. … Sharon told the Americans aboard Columbia that they would find themselves among friends when visiting Israel. … A dearth of dust storms, meanwhile, had the astronauts aiming their cameras instead at plumes of pollution & thunderstorms for an Israeli atmospheric study. The thunderstorms already have produced electrifying results. A pair of cameras aboard Columbia have captured video images of an "elf", luminous red, bagel-shaped electrical phenomenon that occurs above a thunderstorm in less than a millisecond, said Open University of Israel atmospheric scientist Yoav Yair in Tel Aviv. These are the first scientific images of an elf ever recorded from space, and they were captured by chance, Yair said Monday. Astronaut David Brown, who is working the graveyard shift on Columbia's round-the-clock science mission, aimed the Israeli cameras Sunday at an area right above a South Pacific thunderstorm without realizing he was photographing something special, Yair said. It was not until the images were transmitted to Yair & other scientists back on Earth that they realized what they had. "It's causing really great excitement," Yair said from NASA's payload control center in Greenbelt MD "Bingo, we nailed one almost in the first data take. It was amazing." Images of other electrical phenomena in the atmosphere were beamed down by the astronauts Monday. Now all the scientists need are some dust storms. As it turns out, January is one of the worst times to study dust storms over the Mediterranean, prime area of interest for the researchers, who want to monitor desert dust migrating through the atmosphere. Columbia's 16-day mission had a variety of launch dates over the past 2 years, but kept getting delayed, primarily because of shuttle problems. Because of the lack of dust storms, Tel Aviv University scientists have focused on plumes of pollution coming out of Europe. Their goal is the same: to see how the particles affect cloud formation and, consequently, climate. It got a little warm in Columbia's orbiting laboratory Monday night, after a breakdown of both of its cooling & dehumidifying systems. A leak of condensate water flooded and shut down the first system, then a current spike took out the second. Mission Control came up with a plan to direct cool air from the shuttle crew cabin back into the lab that was anchored in the payload bay. A variety of repairs, meanwhile, are being considered by flight controllers. Shuttle images delight Israeli scientists 1.31.03   AP Cape Canaveral   Israeli atmospheric scientists are delighted with the images of dust & smoke that were captured by space shuttle Columbia's astronauts as their mission neared an end. The images gathered by Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, and his crewmates should help researchers better understand climate changes, one of the goals of Columbia's 16-day science mission. There was a scarcity of dust storms during the flight, scientists acknowledged Thursday. But Ramon managed to get images of a storm over his homeland earlier this week, only time in the past 2 weeks that a significant amount of dust was present in the atmosphere over the Mediterranean. "We just lucked out," said Tel Aviv Univ. atmospheric physicist overseeing the experiment. A plane that took off from Crete made simultaneous observations. January is a particularly poor time for dust storms, but that's where Columbia's flight ended up after the repeated delays. The Mediterranean is the scientists' primary area of interest, but they also have gathered images of a small dust plume over the Atlantic off the African coast. The goal of the $2 million experiment is to provide a better understanding of how migrating dust plumes affect climate. Columbia's astronauts also aimed the on-board Israeli cameras at smoke rising into clouds above the Brazilian rain forest earlier this week. The images, showing the smoke breaking up the cloud cover, can help provide better models for climate, Joseph said. …	Israel's first astronaut brings torah 1.22.03   AP Cape Canaveral FL   A Holocaust survivor who sent a tiny Torah scroll into space with Israel's first astronaut says the flight has allowed him to fulfill a promise he made 59 years ago. Astronaut Ilan Ramon held up the Torah, first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, aboard space shuttle Columbia during a tv conference Tuesday with Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon. Watching with emotion from a NASA control center in Greenbelt, MD, was the Torah's owner Joachim Joseph, 71-year-old atmospheric physicist at Tel Aviv University who is overseeing an Israeli experiment aboard the shuttle.The scientist received the Torah from a rabbi while both were imprisoned at a Nazi concentration camp in Germany in 1944. Joseph had just turned 13, and the rabbi secretly arranged a 4 a.m. bar mitzvah ceremony in the prisoners' barracks. "After the ceremony, he said, 'You take this, this scroll that you just read from, because I will not leave here alive. But you must promise me that if you get out, you'll tell the story,"' Joseph recalled. The rabbi was killed 2 months later.   [ The predominant cause of death in the camps was typhus spread by lice, abetted by malnutrition. ] Joseph was freed from the Bergen-Belsen camp in a prisoner exchange in 1945, one month before it was liberated by the Americans & British. Ramon, whose mother & grandmother survived Auschwitz, visited the scientist's home 2 years ago and saw the Torah. "He was deeply affected. He almost cried," Joseph said. The astronaut asked if he could take the Torah with him into space. "This represents more than anything the ability of the Jewish people to survive despite everything from horrible periods, black days, to reach periods of hope & belief in the future," Ramon told Sharon & other Israeli govt officials in Jerusalem. Joseph said: "I feel now that I finally was able to fulfill my promise to Rabbi Dasberg 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago, and then on a grand scale, and I'm very grateful to Ilan for making it possible." [ martyed hero of Osirak ] Israel anxious after Shuttle tragedy 2.1.03   AP Jerusalem   Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, gave his compatriots something to cheer about when he blasted off last month on the space shuttle Columbia. The evident tragedy just minutes before landing Saturday brought back a familiar sense of dread. The Israeli media carried live broadcasts of the liftoff from Cape Canaveral and the story was on the front-page of every newspaper. "It's a distraction from the feeling that this country is in really bad shape, the feeling of desperation, of helplessness, confusion, anger and fear," Israeli author Tom Segev said last month. Some of the enthusiasm likely comes from the fact that Ramon is one of the country's top air force pilots, considered among the nation's military and professional elite. There's even a popular new television drama about the air force called "Wings." Israel's Channel Two … was broadcasting the planned landing when the Columbia lost communication with ground controllers Saturday. Ramon's father was at the Channel Two studios in Jerusalem at the time, but the station said he would not be available for comment. The space shuttle apparently disintegrated in flames over Texas minutes before it was to land in Florida. Ramon's wife, Rona, and their 4 small children, who have been living in Texas for the past several years as Ramon prepared for the flight, were at Cape Canaveral for the landing. NASA took the astronauts' families to a secluded place. "As a matter of course, the consulate here has been in contact with the family." Dana Kursch, of the Israeli consulate in Houston, told Israel Radio. Ramon is an air force colonel and the son of a Holocaust survivor. His air force career included bombing an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. Ramon has logged thousands of hours of flight time and was part of the first Israeli squad to pilot American-made F-16 fighter jets in 1980. He fought in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and in the 1982 war in Lebanon. Ramon was one of the fighter pilots who destroyed an unfinished nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, a sr Israeli govt official said last month, speaking on condition of anonymity. The attack, in which 8 F-16 warplanes obliterated the French-built Osirak reactor near Baghdad, was a milestone for Israeli aviation because the planes flew over enemy Arab territory for hours without detection. The pilots flew in a tight formation to send off a radar signal resembling that of a large commercial airliner. Ramon began preparing in 1997 to join a space shuttle crew as a payload specialist. He spent much of Columbia's 16-day flight aiming cameras in an Israel Space Agency study of how desert dust and other contaminants in Earth's atmosphere affect rainfall & temperature. Ramon … carried a small pencil drawing titled "Moon Landscape" by Peter Ginz, a 14-year-old Jewish boy killed at Auschwitz. He also packed a credit-card sized microfiche of the Bible given him by Israeli President Moshe Katsav and some mezuzas, small cases that are hung on door frames of Jewish homes and contain inscriptions from the Bible. Ramon's 79-year-old father gave him family photos to take into space and a brother had a letter stowed away in the shuttle for Ramon to read in orbit.   [ Ramon professed to be secular. The scorn of heaven for his impiety appears evident. ] Israel mourns space shuttle disaster 2.1.03   AP Jerusalem   Israel's first astronaut, … son of a Holocaust survivor. His military career included fighting in 2 wars and bombing an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. But those missions were carried out anonymously. He became a national hero overnight as newspapers featured him on the front page. Israel tv stations carried live broadcasts of 1.16.03 Cape Canaveral FL liftoff. Ramon's 79-year-old father, Eliezer Wolferman, was being interviewed live in Jerusalem on Channel Two shortly before the scheduled landing."I last spoke to (Ramon) via a video conference when I was still in Houston," the smiling, silver-haired Wolferman said. "It was very emotional. Our family saw him, and the children asked their dad to do somersaults in the air." Wolferman went on to say, "We write via e-mail." At that moment, the interviewer cut him off as the station broke away to its correspondent in Florida, who explained that the ground controllers had lost contact with the shuttle. When the broadcast returned to the Jerusalem studio, Wolferman had left. A couple of hours later, he spoke again to the media. "I think of everything from the day he was born until now," he said. "I have no son, it is very sad and I don't know what else to say." … Ramon was selected in 1997 to be a payload specialist. He spent much of Columbia's 16-day flight aiming cameras in an Israel Space Agency study of how desert dust & other contaminants in Earth's atmosphere affect rainfall and temperature. For a few days, Ramon's journey with 6 American crewmates diverted attention from the grinding conflict with the Palestinians, which has reached 28 months of nonstop fighting. Ramon was not particularly religious, but chose to eat kosher food in orbit. "I'm secular in my background, but I'm going to respect all kinds of Jews all over the world," Ramon said before his flight. "For Israel & the Jewish community, it's a very symbolic event."

President GWBush called Sharon and said it was a "tragic day for the astronauts' families and a tragic day for science." Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat & the Palestinian Authority also offered "condolences to the 6 American families and to the Israeli family who lost their loved ones," said Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat. …

Sharon slams loan scandal report 1.9.03   CNN Jerusalem   Israeli PM Sharon Wednesday slammed reports of a loan scandal involving his 2 sons as "a despicable political plot, which I will disprove with documents & facts. Whoever spread this plot has only one single goal, to bring about the downfall of the prime minister." Sharon made his remarks while visiting a West Bank separation fence. Hours later, a poll released by the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz showed slipping support for Sharon's Likud party. Sharon asked Israeli Atty General Elyakim Rubinstein to launch an investigation on Tuesday after Israeli newspapers reported that prosecutors were seeking information from the South African Justice Ministry on an alleged $1.5 million loan made to Sharon's sons, Omri & Gilad. The 2 sons allegedly used the money as collateral to take out another loan that was used to repay money that was given to their father as a campaign contribution. Israeli law bans political funding from abroad. The prosecutors' request to the South African Justice Ministry hinted that Sharon's 2 sons may have misled Israel's comptroller, who had ordered Sharon to repay the illegal campaign contribution. The money was paid to Sharon during his 1999 Likud party leadership campaign against chief rival Benjamin Netanyahu. The state comptroller ruled that Sharon broke no law, but he ordered Sharon to return the money. The South African businessman who loaned Sharon's sons the money, Cyril Kern, told reporters he is a longtime friend of Sharon's. He called allegations of financial impropriety "character assassination" & "misinformation." Rubinstein told Israel Radio that he would not be able to complete his investigation before Israeli voters go to the polls 1.28.03 Sharon's principal opponent, Labor party leader Amram Mitzna, has called on Sharon to present his own account of the events or resign. "If Sharon decides to keep quiet he will lose his legitimacy and be unworthy of leading Israel in its hour of crisis," Mitzna said. Sharon's Likud party has been rocked already by a separate vote-buying scandal. While polls continue to show Sharon is the most popular politician in Israel and will likely continue as prime minister, his party's share of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is in question. A new Ha'aretz poll gave the Likud party just 27 seats in the new Knesset. Party leaders said last month they expected to win 41 seats; previous polls had shown the party was more likely to win 30 to 35. The Wednesday night poll showed the Labor Party gaining two more seats, putting it at 24, and gave the next two largest parties, Shinui and Shas, 17 and 13 seats respectively. The poll was conducted Tuesday night, the same day Ha'aretz ran the story about the loan scandal. Omri Sharon has been his father's go-between in the past with the Palestinian leadership. He is expected to win a seat in the Knesset on the Likud ticket. Sharon's other son, Gilad, is a farmer and has not been actively involved in politics. Plug pulled on Sharon TV address 1.10.03   CNN Jerusalem   A televised news conference called by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to refute corruption allegations was pulled off the air on Thursday. The Israeli Central Elections Committee ordered all media to stop the broadcast for breaking election laws when Sharon began attacking the Labor party opposition. "I came here this evening to respond to despicable slander against me, and against the Likud party with only one purpose, to bring down the govt," said Sharon. Two of Sharon's sons are accused of involvement in a loan scandal and members of the Likud party he leads are accused of buying votes. The former general launched into an attack on Labor and its leader, Amram Mitzna. But the head of the Israeli Central Elections Committee Judge Michael Cheshin ordered all Israeli media to halt the broadcast, saying Sharon's attacks on the Labor Party & Mitzna amounted to campaigning, which under election rules is restricted to party political broadcasts whose duration is closely monitored. … Israeli law limits the amount of TV each party can have for campaigning. Labor officials said they were considering asking the Central Elections Commission to cut back the time Sharon & Likud party would be allowed to have between now & election day. According to Knesset spokesman Giora Pordes, a live broadcast by an Israeli prime minister had never before been ordered off the air. … Israeli law prohibits the use of foreign money to fund Israeli political campaigns. The letter requesting information also hinted that Sharon's sons may have misled Israel's comptroller in explaining how their father was going to pay back the $1.5 million in illegal contributions. … Kern, 72, said he is a British citizen who lives & works in South Africa and was in the army with Sharon in 1948. He said Sharon is his son's godfather. He said the loan was for Sharon's farm and that it had been repaid. … Sharon has asked Israeli Atty General Elyakim Rubinstein to launch an investigation. However, Rubinstein said he would not be able to complete his investigation before Israeli voters go to the polls. The loan scandal follows Sharon's firing of his deputy infrastructure minister after she refused to answer police questions about a vote-buying scandal. Likud party selects its parliamentary candidates through a vote of almost 3,000 members of its Central Committee. Police are looking into allegations that a number of Likud candidates paid for posh hotel rooms and even made cash payments to committee members in order to win spots on the Likud candidate list. In Israel, each party chooses a slate of candidates. Seats in parliament are handed out on a proportional basis after the votes are cast, starting at the top of each party's candidate list and moving down until all the allotted seats are filled. The higher a candidate is on a party's list, the better the chance of being seated in the Knesset.

Prosecutor suspended for Sharon loan leak Labor leader Mitzna rejects calls he step aside 1.22.03   CNN Jerusalem   Israel's atty general Wednesday suspended a Tel Aviv prosecutor for leaking information about the investigation of a loan made to the family of Israeli PM Sharon. Atty General Elyakim Rubinstein said Liora Glatt-Berkovich, prosecutor in the Tel Aviv's prosecutor's office, leaked details of the Sharon investigation to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Israeli prosecutors have asked the South African Justice Ministry for help in determining how a $1.5 million loan was made to Sharon's sons, Omri & Gilad, who allegedly used the money to obtain a second loan to repay illegal campaign contributions. It is illegal in Israel for candidates to accept loans or campaign contributions from abroad. Prosecutors also want to know if Sharon's sons misled the state comptroller in explaining how their father would pay back the contributions. Rubinstein said Glatt-Berkovich had leaked the information on "ideological grounds." Sharon has denied any wrongdoing and said the leak was intended to "bring down the prime minister." The loan scandal and a Likud party vote-buying scandal have hurt Sharon and the party with Israeli voters. Mitzna & Labor, however, still have not been able to gain traction for their campaign with just 6 days left until Israelis vote. The vote-buying scandal involved allegations that Sharon's deputy infrastructure minister, Naomi Blumenthal, won a prominent slot on the Likud's Knesset candidate list by paying for rooms at a posh Tel Aviv area hotel in exchange for votes by central committee members. When Blumenthal refused to answer questions from police, Sharon fired her in late December 2002. Sharon has emphasized security in his campaign. He has said he would accept, with reservations, a road map crafted by U.S. President GWBush for creation of a Palestinian state. Sharon won over Israeli voters in the last election by promising to be tough on the Palestinians. Since then, Israel has been locked in 2 years of the Al Aqsa Intifada with no end in sight to the violence & suicide bombings. Sharon has said he would not negotiate with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and would not restart talks until the violence ends. Meanwhile, key figures in the Labor Party rallied around their leader, Amram Mitzna, after a poll showed that Labor would do better in next Tuesday's elections if Mitzna stepped aside in favor of former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. After the newspaper Ma'ariv published a poll Sunday suggesting Labor would do better with Peres at the top of the ticket, several candidates pushed for Mitzna to step aside, but he refused. "I came here to win, and I will stay on as chairman. Whoever doesn't want to help should step aside and not be a disturbance," he said. Former Cabinet member Ephraim Sneh backed Mitzna. "It's undemocratic, it's unfair, and it's unwise. This talk is unnecessary, and it is harmful," he said. Mitzna, in an efFt to draw a distinct difference between him & Sharon, has said he would restart negotiations immediately, and he has vowed Labor will never join another unity govt headed by Sharon. Former Labor leader Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who Mitzna defeated in the Labor Party primary, has expressed reservations over Mitzna's vow not to join a unity govt. Ben-Eliezer, defense minister in Sharon's last govt, said Mitzna's campaign should target Israel's economy and its social ills, which he has said Sharon has failed to address. Sharon has said he favors forming another national unity govt and has dismissed Mitzna's claims that Labor will not join as "not serious." Israel's vote is Tuesday. The leader of the party winning the most seats in the 120-member Knesset will be asked to form a new govt. If the latest round of polls is correct, Sharon and Likud will win the most seats, but not enough to rule without coalition partners. Sharon speech blackout fans election turmoil 1.10.03   Kelly Wallace CNN Jerusalem   … When Sharon begin criticizing the Labor Party & its leader Amram Mitzna, the election panel's chairman, Michael Cheshin, ordered Israeli television networks to pull the plug. Cheshin said Sharon was violating an Israeli law banning "election propaganda" in the month leading up to the election. … Both Labor & Likud parties cried foul, and the Central Elections Committee called a meeting Saturday night to discuss Cheshin's decision. Likud officials said Sharon was prevented from defending himself against the charges of scandal. Labor leaders asked the election panel to fine Sharon and the Likud party for violating the broadcast laws. Most of the attention focused on the interruption of Sharon rather than his defense against the scandal charges. "Shut Up Live" screamed a headline in Yediot Ahronoth, Israel's largest newspaper. Sharon said he had done nothing wrong and blamed Labor & Mitzna. "I never imagined that the behavior of the Labor Party would be so irresponsible," he said. "They tried to turn all of us into the Mafia, into organized crime, all for the sake of politics." He then accused Mitzna of shady dealings with contractors and looking the other way at improprieties in the Labor Party. Sharon continued with the news conference after Cheshin ordered him off the air. He admitted he did not know where his sons, Omri & Gilad, got the $1.5 million loan. Cyril Kern, British citizen who lives & works in South Africa, said he made the loan for Sharon's farm and said that it had been repaid. The money was used as collateral to pay back questionable contributions which were given to Sharon during his 1999 campaign for Likud leadership against his rival Benjamin Netanyahu, who now holds the post of foreign minister. The state comptroller ruled then that Sharon broke no law, but ordered Sharon to return the money. … The letter requesting information also hinted that Sharon's sons may have misled Israel's comptroller in explaining how their father was going to pay back the $1.5 million in allegedly illegal contributions. …

Sharon's son gets jail time in Israel funds scandal 2.14.06   Reuters An Israeli court sentenced PM Sharon's son to 9 months in prison on Tuesday after he pleaded guilty to illicitly funding his father's 1999 campaign to head the right-wing Likud Party. But Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court delayed the start of Omri Sharon's jail term for 6 months, saying it was taking into account the condition of his father, who has been comatose since a stroke 1.4.06. Omri Sharon had entered a plea bargain in the hope of reducing his sentence, as the counts against him, perjury, fraud and breach of trust, carry a maximum penalty of 7 years in jail. But his lawyer said he would appeal against Tuesday's ruling. The prime minister denied wrongdoing in the funding case, and Israel's attorney-general last year dropped a related probe against him, citing lack of evidence.

Israeli AG drops Sharon bribery charges 6.15.04   Dan Williams & Nidal al-Mughrabi Reuters Jerusalem   Israel's attorney-general dropped a bribery case against PM Sharon on Tuesday in what could be a potent boost for his historic plan to withdraw settlers from occupied Gaza. The decision that there was insufficient evidence to indict the premier may help him overcome resistance in his right-wing camp to "disengagement" from conflict with Palestinians and forge a coalition with the left if needed to carry out his plan. Israel's chief prosecutor had recommended Sharon be put on trial. Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz told a televised news conference: "The evidence in this case does not bring us a reasonable chance of attaining a conviction, not even close." Mazuz informed Sharon of his ruling shortly beforehand and Channel 10 TV quoted Sharon as replying: "Thank you."

An indictment could have toppled the 76-year-old former general, nicknamed "The Bulldozer," who has known controversy throughout his career. It could also have sunk his Gaza plan. Sharon denied breaking any laws in the alleged payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to his son Gilad by a land developer in the late 1990s.
Prosecutors looked into whether Sharon, foreign minister at the time in the late 1990s, used his position to help the developer obtain approval for an Aegean island resort from Greek govt. The enterprise never got off the ground.Mazuz's decision removed uncertainty clouding Sharon's political future, although it may not be the final word.

Leftist opposition politicians vowed to challenge the ruling in petitions to the High Court. Sharon could also face charges in 2 other corruption probes in which he denies misconduct. He pushed his plan for dismantling all 21 settlements in Gaza and 4 of 120 in the West Bank by late 2005 through his cabinet by a 14-7 vote on June 6, but at the cost of his coalition's stability. Right-wing defections erased Sharon's parliamentary majority and the settlers vow to resist removal with the support of patrons in Sharon's divided Likud party and nationalist allies.
They aim to thwart Sharon's expected attempt this summer to regain his governing majority with the opposition center-left Labor party on board. Labor favors "disengagement" but ruled out coalition talks pending Mazuz's ruling on Sharon. But some in Labor oppose any alliance because Sharon's plan excludes any significant withdrawal from the West Bank.

Sharon wants to consolidate Israel's hold on parts of the West Bank where more than 230,000 settlers live. Palestinians welcome "disengagement" but fear its West Bank element will deprive them of land they want for a viable state. Security sources said on Tuesday Israel was considering moving Gaza settlers to an expanded West Bank settlement bloc despite possible objections from Washington whose "road map" peace plan calls for a freeze on settlement-building. The daily Maariv said Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz ordered plans drafted for hundreds of new homes at Gush Etzion, 20 km (12 miles) south of Jerusalem, for transferred Gaza settlers.
Mofaz's office said he had visited Gush Etzion for discussions on Monday but declined further comment. A sr Israeli security source confirmed the Gush Etzion idea was "being studied" but had not yet received approval. The "road map" plan, stymied by persistent violence on both sides, prescribes a hold on settlement construction in keeping with its vision of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

But that provision has been called into question by President Bush's unprecedented assurance to Sharon in April that Israel could keep some West Bank land where some major settlement blocs lie. Palestinian officials bemoaned the gist of the report. "The whole idea was to turn a Gaza withdrawal into an opportunity (for peace)," Palestinian Negotiations minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters. "If Mr Mofaz takes settlers from Gaza to the West Bank, that would kill the idea."

Soviet   re WTO entry contra SDI oil & energy Baltic PSSA polar strategy Afghanistan Balochistan Iraq sanctions jamming Saladin sales Kazakhstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan re WTO espionage cartel proposal K159 Marc Rich Don't back Georgian rebels, U.S. tells Russia 12.2.03   Arshad Mohammed Reuters Maastricht, Netherlands   U.S. issued a thinly-veiled warning to Russia on Tuesday not to back Georgia's breakaway regions amid instability in the former Soviet republic after last month's bloodless revolution. Georgia, troubled by 3 restive regions, plans to hold presidential elections 1.4.03 to replace Eduard Shevardnadze, who was toppled by mass protests last month after allegations of vote-rigging in parliamentary polls. "The international community should do everything possible to support Georgia's territorial integrity throughout and beyond the election process," Sec.State Powell told the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). "No support should be given to breakaway elements seeking to weaken Georgia's territorial integrity," he told OSCE members from Europe, Central Asia and North America gathered for the meeting in the Dutch city of Maastricht. Georgia's stability is monitored by both the West, because of a $2.5 billion oil pipeline due to take Caspian oil to the Mediterranean, and neighbor Russia, which fears instability could aid Chechen separatists holed up in Georgian mountains. Interim President Nino Burdzhanadze, opposition leader appointed after Shevardnadze quit, accused Russia on Monday of interfering in Georgia's domestic politics and urged Moscow to move away from its Soviet-era "Big Brother" meddling. Tbilisi was angered last week when Russian officials met leaders from South Ossetia & Abkhazia, which broke free of Georgian control more than a decade ago and want to join Russia, and from Adzhara, which does not want secession but is hostile to the new Georgian rulers. Dutch Foreign Minister & OSCE chair Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told the meeting that all 55 members of the democracy body except Russia had agreed to a statement supporting "the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia." De Hoop Scheffer & Powell both regretted Russia would not adhere to a deal struck with the OSCE to scale back its forces in Georgia, where it has 2 bases. Def.Sec. Rumsfeld, who met his Russian counterpart in Brussels on Tuesday, said he had stressed the importance of respecting Georgia's territorial integrity, but did not say if he had received any assurances on the matter. Regional leaders accuse Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian opposition leader on track to win the January election, of contemplating using force to restore control over territories lost to Tbilisi for a decade or more. The Kremlin, which played a central role in negotiations leading to Shevardnadze's resignation, has vowed not to interfere in Georgia's internal politics. But after Russia met regional Georgian leaders last week, the respected Moscow daily Izvestia said the Kremlin might try to engineer a formal break between Tbilisi and the 2 regions most hostile to Georgian rule. After meeting Burdzhanadze on the sidelines of the OSCE summit, Powell said he had offered Georgia both technical & financial help for the upcoming elections. De Hoop Scheffer said the OSCE had raised more than 7 million euros for Georgia. Powell's visit to Maastricht is on the first day of a 3 day trip that will also take him to Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria before ending on Thursday in Brussels, where he will attend a NATO foreign ministers meeting.

Putin praises democratic victory 12.8.03   Reuters Moscow   Russian President Vladimir Putin Monday hailed an election that stacked parliament with his allies as a step forward for democracy but Western observers criticized the poll as "overwhelmingly distorted." The fourth such election since the Soviet Union's collapse crushed Putin's Communist and liberal opponents, prompting warnings of a return to authoritarian rule, and effectively guaranteed him a second term in next spring's presidential poll. It could also give him enough votes in the State Duma lower house to change the constitution so he can run for a third term. Putin's supporters say the pro-Kremlin majority gives the ex-KGB spy more powers to push economic reform and fight corruption. Critics fear the death of democracy after a strong nationalist showing all but wiped out liberal parties. "The election is another step in strengthening democracy in the Russian Federation," Putin told senior officials. But the leader of the Communist Party, facing a second death after its rebirth in the chaos of the 1990s, called the election a farce and accused the Kremlin of rigging the vote. "You are all participants in a revolting spectacle which for some reason is called an election," Gennady Zyuganov said. OSCE said the vote was skewed by use of state resources to promote United Russia. "In this election, enormous advantage of incumbency and access to state equipt, resources and buildings led to the election result being overwhelmingly distorted," said OSCE's parliamentary assembly president Bruce George. The OSCE had praised Russia's last parliamentary election in 1999 as a step forward for democracy. In final preliminary results, United Russia won 37.1% of Sunday's vote. Created by the Kremlin for the 1999 election to help Putin's rise to power, its main slogan was "Together with the President." Communists, Putin's primary opposition, had only 12.7%, well down from the 24% they won in 1999. Ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky's party, which backs the Kremlin on key issues, won 11.6% and Motherland, seen by many as a Kremlin creation to draw off votes from the communists, had 9.1%. That means the pro-Kremlin bloc could get the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution to allow Putin a third 4 year term, although he ruled that out in June. Voter turnout was 56%, down from 62% in 1999, Interfax news agency quoted election officials as saying. The vote reflected widespread support for Putin's efFts to restore central control since succeeding Boris Yeltsin in 2000 and ending the chaos of the early reform years. "Yesterday's election shows what the Russian people actually think: they are stridently nationalist, want wealth redistributed and have little interest in liberal or democratic values," Aton brokerage said in a research note. Russian stocks opened down on concerns about liberal parties' poor showing, which could push key reformists off powerful parliament committees, but recovered later in the day. Markets are still jittery after the October arrest of Russia's richest man, former YUKOS chief Mikhail Khodorkovsky, on charges of tax evasion & fraud. Many analysts say the case was orchestrated by Kremlin hard-liners aiming to bring the economy under more state control, and even to review the results of 1990s privatisations. "We will return wealth to the people," Dmitry Rogozin, co-leader of Motherland, told Ekho Moskvy radio station. Putin party wins Russian poll despite Western doubts   12.8.03   Reuters Moscow   … OSCE said the fourth parliamentary election since the Soviet Union's collapse, which crushed Putin's Communist and liberal opponents, was a regression for Russian democracy. The United States said it shared the concern. … Putin's backers say the majority will hand him more powers to push economic reform and fight corruption. Critics [ White House spokesman Scott McClelland ] fear democracy is in danger after a new nationalist party surged into the lower house and two liberal parties were all but wiped out. Stung by the remarks, the Kremlin fought back. Interfax news agency quoted a Kremlin source as saying authorities "truly do not understand" the criticism. "The experience of the latest U.S. elections hardly gives the Americans the right to make such comments," the source said, referring to the lengthy disputes in Florida during the 2000 election in which GW Bush became U.S. president. A Kremlin statement said British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had congratulated Putin on the staging of the election. … Protests grow in Georgia; crisis deepens   Shevardnadze warns of threat of civil war. He hints that he may quit if opposition backs down 11.15.03   David Holley L.A. Times Moscow   Georgian President Eduard A. Shevardnadze, appearing shaken by mounting protests demanding his resignation, pleaded with his countrymen Friday not to risk civil war, and hinted that if the crisis eases, he might resign. His critics responded by holding the largest in a series of daily anti-Shevardnadze demonstrations. Mikheil Saakashvili, a key opposition leader, called for a civil disobedience campaign starting today aimed at paralyzing the govt. Accused by opposition leaders of rigging the results of Nov. 2 parliamentary elections, Shevardnadze declared in a nationally televised news conference Friday morning that whatever vote-counting irregularities had occurred could be corrected, but insisted that the new parliament should be allowed to open later this month. "Once the parliament begins to work and the legislative branch enters into force, then maybe I will be the first to sign an act of resignation of the president," Shevardnadze said. "But to resign now would be an irresponsible step on my part." Shevardnadze begged citizens not to join an afternoon protest in the capital, Tbilisi, warning that even if opposition leaders did not want violence, the situation risked escalation. "I will not allow a split in society followed by confrontation and a civil war," he said. "This is a real danger. I am not threatening anyone. I am simply telling you the truth. Before it is too late, we should come to our senses." Although the protest went ahead as planned, both demonstrators & police showed restraint. News agencies estimated the crowd, which gathered near parliament, at 15,000 to 20,000. Russian television showed helmeted riot police with shields, some wearing masks, watching over the demonstration. Protesters marched from parliament to the heavily guarded State Chancellery, which houses Shevardnadze's offices & residence. Saakashvili urged them to form a "human chain" in nearby streets to encircle the building, which they did, according to reports from Tbilisi. Then he made his announcement calling for a civil disobedience campaign and told the crowd that the rally would resume Monday. "We are declaring total civil disobedience to President Shevardnadze's regime," Saakashvili told the crowd in comments broadcast on Georgian television. "I want to call on police not to obey the unlawful orders of the regime," he said. "I want to call on the army not to act on the unlawful commander-in-chief's illegal orders. I want to call on the business representatives: 'Pay only those taxes that will go toward payment of salaries & pensions.' " Counting of ballots from 11.2.03 election continues but has slowed in recent days, with initial results annulled in some districts due to irregularities. Earlier this week, with more than 90% of the ballots counted, parties likely to support Shevardnadze in parliament had 41% support and opposition groups had 38%. The opposition contends that the president stole the election and may be able to control parliament as a result. Fears of violence built Friday afternoon after Irana Sarishvili, leader of a pro-Shevardnadze bloc For a New Georgia, told journalists that about 200 of the protesters were carrying weapons, and Interior Minister Koba Narchemashvili warned of "dire consequences" if armed opposition were to storm the presidential offices or residence. The current crisis in Georgia evokes sharp memories of the political turbulence and warfare that marred the early years of the country's independence. A civil war during the 1991-92 winter led to the ouster of Georgia's first democratically elected leader, Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Military leaders then invited Shevardnadze to assume power. Shevardnadze has been respected in the West for his role, as Soviet foreign minister, in helping to end the Cold War. But during Friday's rally, Saakashvili compared him to the late Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and ousted Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, analogies he has made before. "We are no worse than the Romanians & the Serbs, who overthrew their rulers," Saakashvili declared. Ceausescu was overthrown in 1989 and executed by firing squad. Milosevic was driven from office in 2000 after massive demonstrations protesting electoral fraud; he is on trial in The Hague for alleged war crimes. Shevardnadze ridiculed this kind of verbal attack. "I am not frightened," he declared. "I will not share the fate of either Ceausescu or Milosevic."

Georgia sets election; economic crisis looms 11.25.03   Reuters Tbilisi, Georgia   Georgia decided Tuesday to hold an election 1.4.04 to replace ousted president Eduard Shevardnadze as its interim leaders sought to make a fresh start and rescue the stricken economy. Deputies voted 155 to zero in favor of the poll date after turning out in force to answer an appeal by Mikhail Saakashvili, leader of the anti-Shevardnadze resistance, who said boycotting the session could destabilize the volatile Caucasus state. "The purpose is to overcome this difficult situation. Each of us carries a huge responsibility but I hope we will begin a new era of our country's development," Interim President Nino Burdzhanadze told the session before the vote was taken. Fixing a new date for a presidential election is a key step in ensuring stability after street protests in 3 tumultuous weeks culminated in the resignation of Shevardnadze Sunday. Earlier, Georgia's new leaders claimed a new scalp from among Shevardnadze's old allies, forcing the resignation of State Minister Avtandil Dzhorbenadze. His departure had been on the cards since Burdzhanadze had denounced him for Georgia's economic plight and for organizing the disputed 11.2.03 parliamentary election that triggered the street protests and finally brought Shevardnadze down. The session took place as one separatist leader said he planned to meet the heads of 2 other separatist territories in Moscow to form a tough common stance toward Tbilisi after the downfall of Shevardnadze. The gathering in the Russian capital of officials from Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Adzhara will come as a sharp reminder for the new Georgian leadership of the separatist passions pent up in the small country of 4.5 million people. Burdzhanadze earlier warned Georgia stood on the brink of "economic collapse" after the bloodless ouster of Shevardnadze and said drastic steps had to be taken to reverse the situation. She told top officials in a televised broadcast the legacy of economic decline left by his discredited administration was "even worse than we thought." "The situation is very difficult. Yesterday's data shows that we are facing economic collapse," she said, adding the situation called for radical measures. She gave no specific details beyond urging state enterprises to work at full capacity. But her warning clearly prefaced fresh appeals to the West to help her impoverished former Soviet country where the average monthly income is about $40. "We have to ask our foreign colleagues to help us in this situation," she said. The 11-year rule of Shevardnadze, a former Soviet minister who won plaudits in the West for helping end the Cold War, was marked by rising poverty, chronic corruption and separatist rebellions in the volatile Caucasus state of 4.5 million people. The Supreme Court formally meanwhile cleared the way for a separate new parliamentary election by quashing the results of most of the disputed November ballot. Georgia's new leaders, including Saakashvili, a U.S.-educated lawyer who led anti-Shevardnadze protests and is tipped as a possible future president, face an uphill battle to turn around the country's Ftunes. The West is carefully monitoring the situation because of plans to build an oil pipeline across Georgia from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean sea. Georgia has fallen out with IMF which refused to lend it money under a poverty reduction program until the Shevardnadze govt dealt with mass corruption & tax evasion. Sources close to the Paris Club of official creditors said Georgia would have to mend fences with the IMF before it has any chance of a debt relief deal with wealthy nations. It has $1.78 billion in foreign debt incl some $600 million to the Paris Club. Burdzhanadze secured some support from big northern neighbor Russia with promises that Moscow would maintain its vital supplies of electricity to Georgia, whose economic base is normally plagued by power outages. Lithuanian leader faces impeachment 12.2.03   Stefan Wagstyl FT Lithuanian parliament Tuesday approved a report that paves the way to the impeachment of President Rolandas Paksas over allegations he had links with Russian criminal gangs. A formal impeachment motion is likely to be put to parliament next week, in a bid to remove Paksas from office following weeks of political turmoil and public demonstrations. Lithuanian officials are concerned that the scandal is damaging the image of their country, which is due to enter the European Union & NATO next year. Paksas was due to meet US President GW Bush in Washington next week, but it was unclear on Tuesday night whether the visit would go ahead. Paksas, a former stunt pilot, won a surprise victory in the presidential elections with a brash campaign which generated much enthusiasm. But following damaging press stories about his alleged connections with criminals, parliament launched an investigation. The investigating committee on Monday reported that the 47-year-old president was responsible for leaks of sensitive information and had allowed Almax, a public relations co. suspected of links to Russian intelligence, to influence his decisions. The parliamentary committee also confirmed an earlier report by the Lithuanian secret services which found links between Paksas's office and alleged criminals. Paksas says he is innocent of any wrongdoing and has vowed to remain in office. But the pressure on him to resign is growing. MPs say that the impeachment process is almost certain to be approved as it requires only 36 votes in the 141-seat parliament to start proceedings.

Voting procedure Of the estimated 10 million Mexican citizens residing in U.S., as many as 4 million are believed by the Mexican Congress to be registered voters in their homeland. Only those who can show proof of registration will be eligible to vote by mail in next year's presidential election.  How Mexican immigrants will file their absentee ballots   Mexicans abroad will have to download a ballot request form from the Federal Electoral Institute's website, http://www.ife.org.mx , or obtain one at a Mexican consulate or embassy from Oct. 1 through Jan. 15, 2006. With their request, voters must include: • Photocopies of their voter registration cards, which are called electoral credentials. • A possible fee to be determined later. Some immigrant groups have been told it could be as much as $18 per voter to cover registration and certified mail costs. • Once the institute receives the request, it will send a ballot via certified mail with an addressed envelope and instructions on how to file the ballot. • Ballots must be sent by certified mail to the address on the envelope. • Dates for mailing the ballots have not yet been set. • Ballots will be counted on July 2, 2006, the day of the presidential election.

Hispanola

Mexico City   Mexico's Congress approved landmark legislation Tuesday giving citizens outside the country the right to vote by mail in presidential elections, a measure expected to have a significant effect on next year's contest. The overwhelming 455-6 vote to initiate balloting-by-mail capped a years-long internal debate. Skeptics fear that ballots sent through the mail might be stolen, manipulated or, given Mexico's unreliable mail service, never arrive. Some politicians worried that opposing parties would somehow benefit.
In the end, the Congress bowed to enormous grass-roots pressure, much of it from immigrant groups in the United States demanding the franchise. The bill now goes to President Vicente Fox, who is expected to sign it.
Salvador Garcia, president of the Council of Mexican Federations in Los Angeles, said having the vote would make immigrants "feel more a part of Mexico."

Although no one has exact figures, as many as 10 million Mexican citizens live in U.S. , about half of them believed to be legal immigrants, many of whom hold dual citizenship, and about half illegal immigrants. As many as 4 million of these immigrants, both legal and illegal, may be eligible to vote next year, according to estimates by the Mexican Senate.
"We've put so much work into this," said Garcia, who immigrated from Jalisco state in 1983 and now owns a demolition company in Norwalk. "There've been many late nights, many trips, many frustrations. All the politicians who came here made many promises and then would do nothing. Finally, someone took this seriously."
Diana Hull, president of Californians for Population Stabilization, expressed concern about the legislation.
"I think it's all part of erasing the borders in North America," said Hull, a proponent of stricter immigration laws. "I'm opposed to the intrusion of the Mexican govt into U.S. I don't want illegal immigrants here to have that vote. They shouldn't even be here."

The law's passage, which came during a special session of Congress, calls for the Federal Electoral Institute to mail ballots to all registered Mexican voters living abroad who request them through consular offices and over the Internet and to count the ones mailed back to Mexico. The balloting-by-mail is modeled after the U.S. absentee system. The decision marked a historic turning point for Mexican govt. For many years, government officials termed as traitors those Mexicans who left to work in U.S. But in the last decade, immigrants in the U.S. have sent back money to fund hundreds of public-works projects in their home villages. The donations have often been matched by Mexico's federal, state and local govts. Financial clout has brought a stronger political voice. That leverage is what brought about Tuesday's vote, said Efrain Jimenez, project director for the Federation of Zacatecan Clubs of Southern California, and a long-time immigrant activist. "If the Congress wouldn't have approved this, the immigrants would have made them pay a huge price," said Jimenez, who emigrated to U.S. from Zacatecas state in 1991. "It says that immigrants can change things if we come together." Also jubilant was Raul Ross Pineda, an immigrant and member of the Chicago-based Political Rights Commission for Mexicans Living Abroad. He came to Mexico to lobby the Congress for the bill's passage. "Now we are complete citizens," he said. "Before we seemed only half." In contrast, Barbara Coe, chairwoman of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, said she was opposed to the concept of dual citizenship. "You cannot have loyalty to 2 different countries," she said. In the unlikely event that all those eligible were to vote, they would increase by 11% 37.6 million ballots cast in Mexico's 2000 presidential election. In a statement from Belize where he is visiting, Fox said the law was a "historic deed" and that he has supported such legislation since he entered politics. Mexico's Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez said that the additional voters enfranchised by the new law, which he estimated at 3 million to 8 million, would "make the fundamental difference" in next year's election, a sentiment echoed by various political analysts. Some immigrant vote advocates had reservations. Eligibility for the absentee ballots is limited to Mexican citizens who have electoral credentials that have been issued by the Mexican election institute since 1992 as a requirement to vote in any federal contest. The credentials are part of a series of reforms that have transformed Mexico's federal electoral system into a worldwide model. Thus, many Mexicans who emigrated to the United States before the credentials came into use may not be eligible unless they return home to apply for them. That provision and the fact that immigrants will be unable to register from abroad disappointed some voter advocacy groups. "What the Mexican Congress did was send the wrong message to millions of Mexicans abroad by excluding at least 70% of them from the right to vote," said Al Rojas of Sacramento, a leader in the absentee vote movement. Rojas was born in U.S., but his parents emigrated from Michoacan state in 1933. Rojas would be eligible to vote because the first-born children of immigrants have a right to Mexican citizenship. Alberto Szekely, a public interest attorney in Mexico City and advocate for immigrant voting rights, said he was disappointed that the law went only "half way." He said Mexico should permit overseas voter registration as well as voting at consulates and embassies. "The requirement of the credential to get the absentee ballot will eliminate the possibility for millions of Mexicans to vote," Szekely said. Another source of worry among immigrant voting advocates is how the estimated $130-million cost of the ballot-by-mail process will be financed. The plan has not been completed and some fear that immigrants might have to shoulder some of the expense. Ruth Trinidad Hernandez Martinez, a National Action Party federal deputy from Tijuana, said the financing details still have to be ironed out. She said there is a possibility that Mexicans abroad might have to share some of the cost. "This vote is just the first step in a series of tasks in ensuring that all Mexicans have the right to approve their leaders, which is the most important aspect," Hernandez Martinez said. Leo Zuckermann, a political scientist at the Center for Economic Teaching and Research here, said he was afraid that the Mexican postal system, with a reputation for corruption and inefficiency, may not be up to the task of processing and safeguarding hundreds of thousands of ballots. "I hope to be proven wrong and that nothing happens," he said. The legislation allows for absentee balloting only in presidential elections, starting with next year's. The law passed just in time to make the voting legally and logistically feasible for the July 2006 contest. With time running out, the lower house of Mexico's Congress approved a Senate version that was passed earlier. The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, was said to be holding out for a system that would include voting booths in foreign countries, but agreed in committee Tuesday to support the Senate version. Uncertain is which candidate or party will be favored by expatriates. Likely candidates include Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Democratic Revolution Party who is mayor of Mexico City. Roberto Madrazo is the front-runner for the PRI nomination and Santiago Creel, who recently resigned as interior minister, is favored to win the nomination for Fox's National Action Party. Fox is thought to have done extremely well in garnering votes from immigrants who traveled back to Mexico, many of them in caravans, in July 2000 to cast ballots for the reformist candidate whose victory ended a seven-decade-long PRI grip on presidential power. The PRI was thought to oppose absentee balloting, fearing some sort of immigrant backlash against the party that ruled the country until Fox swept to power. But at this point expatriate voter preferences are a "complete unknown," said Pamela Starr, a political scientist and author in Washington who follows Mexican politics. "That's one of the reasons that parties have been hesitant to approve it because no one knows who will vote and therefore which party gains an advantage." re   TRIFE Mexico's Federal Electoral Tribunal, or TRIFE, was created in 1996 to rule on the validity of election results. The law set out clear provisions to protect the integrity of the judges, who are nominated by the Supreme Court and then approved by the Senate. They are the highest-paid public officials in Mexico and earn $415,000 a year, almost twice the salary of President Vicente Fox. During their tenure, they cannot accept any other income-earning jobs. After a judge's 10-year term ends, he or she is prohibited for two years from taking jobs with any administration that won a ruling from the TRIFE during the judge's tenure. Fox's National Action Party has won 177 appeals to the TRIFE; the former ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party has won 178; the leftist Democratic Revolution Party has won 204. TRIFE's rulings on electoral questions are final. Fox urges Mexico City to oust election protesters 8.3.06   Mark Stevenson AP Mexico City   President Vicente Fox urged Mexico City authorities yesterday to remove sprawling camps of leftist protesters who want a complete recount of last month's presidential election, saying they are choking off commerce and tourism in the capital. Fox, who previously stayed on the sidelines of the dispute over the left's allegations of vote fraud, said the tent cities that have occupied a 5 mile stretch of swank Avenida de la Reforma since Sunday are “putting jobs and economic activity at risk.” In a statement read by his spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, Fox urged the city govt to find a legal & peaceful way to end the protest, led by leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Aguilar stressed that the federal administration didn't have the authority to intervene. He put the responsibility on the city govt, which is allied with López Obrador. “The city of Mexico is for everyone,” Aguilar said. “Democracy should be defended by respecting it.” A congressional leadership committee approved a nonbinding resolution urging Mexico City Mayor Alejandro Encinas to reopen the city's streets “to ensure the right of freedom of movement for all citizens.” But Encinas, who succeeded López Obrador and is a member of the candidate's Democratic Revolution Party, argued that the protesters are breaking no laws. “I am supporting a cause and my own personal convictions,” he said. López Obrador asked his supporters Sunday to seize Mexico City's center as part of his battle to win a vote-by-vote recount of all 41 million-plus votes cast July 2. The official count, which has not been certified by Mexico's top electoral court, gave the candidate of Fox's pro-business National Action Party, Felipe Calderón, a lead of fewer than 240,000 votes, or less than 0.6 percent. López Obrador, who stepped down as Mexico City mayor a year ago to run for president, claims the election was marred by fraud and dirty campaign practices. The Federal Electoral Tribunal has until Sept. 6 to declare a president-elect or annul the election. People in Mexico City often grumble about the protest marches staged by various groups along Reforma from the capital's main plaza to the presidential residence, Los Piños. The avenue divides much of the city in half when it is closed down. But the marches, while frequent, usually take only a few hours. The tent cities have inconvenienced people for days. Losses for local hotels, restaurants and stores are adding up to about $23 million a day, according to the city's Commerce, Services and Tourism Chamber. Some businesses have threatened to stop paying taxes. With city police protecting the protesters, many people in this megalopolis of 20 million are getting angry. “There is less tourism, less work, and there are some places we can't even get to,” complained taxi driver Ramón Sandoval, who was waiting for a fare outside a hotel. Sandoval said his income had fallen by at least 60 percent since the blockades began snarling traffic throughout the city. “These people should find a way to protest without affecting the rights of others,” he said. Calderón, who considers a vote-by-vote recount both unnecessary and illegal, has accused his rival of having “kidnapped” the capital.

Mexican left's anger simmers after contested vote 7.3.06   Alistair Bell Reuters Mexico City   Mexico's left, still smarting from a 1988 presidential vote it says was stolen from it, simmered with anger on Monday as its dreams of power were frustrated by another contested election. Conservative candidate Felipe Calderon claimed victory in Sunday's hard-fought presidential election and official returns appeared to show anti-poverty campaigner Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador would be unable to catch him. Harvard-educated Calderon held a one-point lead over former Indian welfare officer Lopez Obrador on Monday with returns in from almost 98 percent of polling stations. A top electoral official said a recount this week was unlikely to change that. Leaders of the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD, were to meet Lopez Obrador to try to rescue his attempt to become president and join the ranks of leftist leaders in Latin America. A tiny group of defiant Lopez Obrador supporters gathered outside his campaign headquarters. Many said their candidate, the former mayor of Mexico City, had been cheated of victory by fraud. "He won more points that Calderon," said retired factory worker Arturo Jimenez, 74. "He lost, but unfairly. There was sleight of hand involved," said office cleaner Carmen Sanchez. No candidate has claimed to have evidence of vote-rigging in the election, which the Federal Electoral Institute said was too close to call yet. But the PRD may point to irregularities, like some polling stations that lacked ballot papers, in a bid to take the result to an electoral court. That could delay the naming of a winner for 2 months. No leftist party has ever won the presidency in Mexico. Left-wing candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas came very close in 1988, when results showed him ahead on election night. But the Institutional Revolutionary Party govt halted the vote count, claiming "the (computer) system went down." That explanation was believed by so few that it has become a common sarcastic phrase in Mexico for the lamest of excuses. When the govt announced the system was back again a few hours later, its candidate Carlos Salinas was winning. Fraud was widely suspected. "They robbed us in 1988. I don't want that again," said Sanchez. She said she felt "hurt and anger" when electoral authorities announced on Sunday night the race between Lopez Obrador and Calderon was too close to call, Lopez Obrador, 52, a frugal widower, has led in opinion polls for most of the last 3 years. He slipped briefly into second place in April and May when Calderon's team launched TV ads dubbing him a danger to Mexico and a populist like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He said on Monday he would accept defeat if there were no fraud but challenge the result if he suspected trickery. Foreign investors fear Lopez Obrador will launch street protests to try to push his election claim, triggering political gridlock and maybe even violence. Mexico City was quiet on Monday, except for a small student protest outside the electoral authority's office. Emilio Serrano, a PRD federal deputy, warned that things could still turn nasty depending on the vote recount. "The majority of poor and simple people who are sick of all this are capable of anything," he said, "including violence." Limited recount ordered in Mexico López Obrador calls for orderly protests 8.6.06   S. Lynne Walker SD UT Mexico's top electoral court yesterday unanimously rejected leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador's demand for a complete recount in last month's presidential election, setting the stage for a new wave of protests in the country's deepening electoral crisis. The seven-judge Federal Electoral Tribunal sharply rebuked López Obrador's claim that widespread human errors and some instances of fraud cost him the July 2 election. Instead, the court ordered a recount in 11,839 of the 130,000 polling places in a historic ruling that defended the integrity of the nation's electoral system. Chief Justice Leonel Castillo said Lópex Obrador had failed to provide enough evidence to justify recounting all 41 million ballots. He said fraud was nearly impossible because the 900,000 poll workers were chosen at random from voter registration lists. The recount is scheduled to begin Wednesday and is expected to be completed in 5 days. The decision enraged López Obrador's supporters and raised concerns that his movement could turn violent. Nearly 200 people gathered outside the tribunal hurled insults and demanded that the judges come out and face the crowd. One protester threw a rock at a car as it pulled away from the back entrance to the tribunal. Hours later, at a massive rally in Mexico City's historic downtown plaza, or Zocalo, López Obrador called on his supporters to hold a rally today in Mexico City's Zocalo. He vowed that his civil resistance will continue but insisted it will be “peaceful,” “orderly” and “respectful.” The tribunal's decision bolstered conservative Felipe Calderón's assertion that he won the election. The Federal Electoral Institute, or IFE, which conducted the election, said the first vote count showed Calderón of the National Action Party, or PAN, had won by a 243,000 votes. The tribunal has until Sept. 6 to declare a president. The court still has the option of annulling the election if the limited recount turns up a clear pattern of errors and fraud. However, legal experts said yesterday's ruling makes it increasingly unlikely that the court will overturn the election. “They're sending a message to López Obrador,” said John Ackerman, a professor at the Institute for Legal Research, part of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “This decision is clearly toward closure, not toward opening.” The recount will be conducted by the Federal Electoral Institute, or IFE, an internationally recognized body that López Obrador has accused of rigging the election to ensure Calderón's victory. Local judges will oversee the vote count. López Obrador has repeatedly said he will not accept the results of the election if the tribunal refused his demand for a full recount. But his Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, committed a strategical error when it failed to challenge the vote count in 70 electoral districts, political analysts said. Because those ballots were not contested, the tribunal said they cannot now be legally recounted. Most Mexicans reject López Obrador's claim that the election was rigged to favor Calderón, but the leftist's constant allegations may have cast enough doubt to undermine Calderón if he becomes president, political analysts said. The partial recount “is not going to calm the political situation. This fuels the fire,” Ackerman said. “It gives López Obrador the grounds to raise questions about the election.” With López Obrador waging a relentless campaign to win the presidency, Mexico City has been thrust into a chaotic mix of snarled traffic and sit-ins by recalcitrant protesters. Rallying to his call to action, López Obrador's supporters erected a 5 mile tent city July 30 on Mexico City's elegant Reforma boulevard. Their encampments on one the city's most important thoroughfares paralyzed traffic and has cost downtown businesses an estimated $23 million a day in losses. The rally López Obrador called for today is the fifth since the election. “We are going to continue with this peaceful civil resistance movement,” he told his supporters gathered in the Zocalo last night. “Do we go or do we stay?” López Obrador asked the crowd. “We stay!” they shouted. López Obrador did not outline a plan, although there were murmurs in the crowd of blocking highways and airport access. As the protests affect the lives of more and more Mexicans in the capital, many political analysts said López Obrador is losing support among voters and among members of his own party. “He's committing political suicide,” said George Grayson, a political scholar at the College of William & Mary. López Obrador asked newly elected PRD senators and congressional representatives not to take office, a request they rejected. “He's convinced that he won. He's convinced there was fraud. He's convinced that Calderón would be a president without moral authority,” Grayson said. “So if his street encampments don't work, he'll have to take other actions. But if he turns to other tactics, he will alienate some of the people who supported him. He's self-destructing.” What's Mexico hiding?   Federal Electoral Institute's refusal to allow access to ballots from the contested presidential election taints the country's march toward democracy. 9.22.06   prof. Irma Sandoval, Institute for Social Research; prof. John M. Ackerman, Institute for Legal Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico L.A. Times Mexico now has two presidents-elect. One officially recognized by the electoral authorities, Felipe Calderon, and the other proclaimed the "legitimate president" by millions of followers, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. There is one way to settle this crisis. As in the aftermath of Bush vs. Gore in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a group of Mexico's newspapers should be allowed to conduct their own canvass of the ballots. Unfortunately, the Federal Electoral Institute, which organizes the presidential elections, has announced that it will not open up the ballots to public scrutiny. The institute appears bent on repeating the govt's performance after the 1988 presidential election, in which the computers "malfunctioned." It is widely believed that massive fraud allowed Carlos Salinas de Gortari, the candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, to mysteriously overcome the early lead of the leftist candidate, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. To cover its tracks, the govt then quickly burned the evidence. Mexico's freedom of information act, enacted in 2002, is one of the best in the world. It gives full priority to transparency, stating that everything should be made public except when disclosure might harm economic stability or national security. But even this "reserved" information must be made available after 12 years have passed. Mexican law does keep confidential personal information, including names, photographs and sexual orientations of particular individuals. But, of course, secret ballots don't contain any of this material. Although the institute is required by law to destroy the ballots eventually, there is no need to do so immediately. And it would be illegal to carry it out prematurely for the purpose of avoiding the freedom-of-information requests. To his credit, Calderon has asked the institute to "preserve the ballots for as long as possible" in the interest of ensuring the "certainty" of the electoral results. This is a positive step, but it does not get to the heart of the issue. Preserving the ballots will do no good if no one is allowed to examine them. Even worse, Calderon's National Action Party voted Tuesday against forming a special congressional commission to keep watch over the ballots, placing doubt on PAN's commitment to transparency. Calderon and his party should explicitly state that the ballots should be opened to public scrutiny and take measures to ensure this takes place.

There is a larger issue. If the Federal Electoral Institute is permitted to hide and prematurely destroy the ballots, this would open the door to widespread flouting of the access-to-information law by other govt agencies. The institute has argued that the ballots are not "documents" but only the "material expression of electoral preferences" and therefore not subject to the information law.
Such ad hoc re-categorizations for the purpose of avoiding disclosure are punishable by law, and allowing it here would set a dangerous precedent in this fledgling democracy.

Mexico's Federal Institute of Access to Public Information, which has the mandate to promote compliance by all govt agencies to the access-to-information law, also has maintained a worrisome silence on this crucial issue. It is high time for a public pronouncement by its commissioners backing up the information law.
Such a statement also would help dispel concerns about the personal ties and any conflict of interest between the chief commissioner and Calderon.

In general, the electoral authorities have needlessly encouraged suspicions about Calderon's victory. The Federal Electoral Tribunal, which certifies the election results, announced that Calderon won. But it failed to disclose details of its partial recount, which showed widespread irregularities in the computation of the votes.
Even though it condemned illegal campaign advertisements and the intervention of President Vicente Fox, it failed to assess their overall impact. In an election decided by only 230,000 votes out of 41 million cast, even small discrepancies could have made a big difference.

The Florida ballots from the 2000 U.S. presidential elections were not destroyed. They are available for public viewing and research for generations to come. Recently, Ohio delayed the destruction of its presidential ballots from 2004 to allow further study of irregularities.
Mexicans deserve no less. They have a right to know what actually happened on election day. We are at a crucial moment in Mexico's transition to democracy. After 70 years of electoral fraud under the PRI, Fox's PAN government must ensure absolute integrity in the process through which he passes power to Calderon, his PAN successor. Burning the ballots would set back Mexican democracy 20 years. Full access to the ballots and then a full recount, if it's deemed warranted by reputable civil society organizations in the manner of Bush vs. Gore would restore credibility to Mexico's damaged electoral institutions.

§ite map courtesy of FreeFind

presented by §

OCIAL JUSTICE