Hypocrites for "Reform"

Bush's outside lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, resigned, after the Kerry campaign alleged violation of the election laws. The charge: the fact that Mr. Ginsberg also provided advice to the Swiftboat veterans group (a so-called "527"), making the Swifties "coordinated" with the campaign.

It's a bum rap. Ginsberg advised the Swifties--but his conduct was legal, moral, and epidemic among Democrats. (Full disclosure: I've worked with Ben Ginsberg on prior campaigns.)

As usual, big media's set the cover-up dial to "11." While detailing the Kerry campaign allegations, the NY Times conceded that Ginsberg was no different:

The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Mr. Ginsberg said his role was no different from Mr. Bauer's.

But consider this quote from the same story:

"It's another piece of evidence of the ties between the Bush campaign and this group," Chad Clanton, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said. Asked about his [i.e., the Kerry] campaign's use of shared lawyers, Mr. Clanton said, "If the Bush campaign truly disapproved of this smear, their top lawyer wouldn't be involved."

Read that again: the campaign is saying that when Democrats share lawyers, it's evidence of dirty tricks by Republicans!

Fortunately, there's alternatives to the "paper of record"--bloggers. In particular, blogger NZ Bear, who's coverage deserves a Pulitzer. Bear spots lawyers shared between the Democratic party and 527s:

Neil Reiff is listed as the contact person for MoveOn.org's 527 organization, as can be seen on the actual form submitted by MoveOn.org to the IRS here (PDF).

But Mr. Reiff seems to have another job. According to his firm's website, he's also the Deputy General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee.

But where's the press? They're dropping crumbs. Here an admission in AP:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

And today's NY Times follow-up only hints:

Republicans, in an e-mail message to reporters, listed several Democrats who they said showed connections between Democratic 527 groups, Mr. Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Among them were Zack Exley, the former organizing director for MoveOn.org's political action committee who now works for Mr. Kerry's campaign; Jim Jordan, the former campaign manager for Mr. Kerry who now works as a consultant for the liberal groups America Coming Together and the Media Fund; and Joe Sandler, who is a lawyer for both the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org.

Democrats said all of their activities were legal and that the groups are not leveling similarly personal and unsubstantiated charges against the president.

Is this English, asks Bear:

Gotta love that passive reporting! Heaven forbid that the Times might actually do some research and establish whether connections exist or not on their own. Nah, why bother --- there's a staff meeting in twenty minutes and this cruller is tay-stee.

Hello! It's over here. At least steal some solid information, for crissakes.

Newsmax fact-checked the Democrat party websites--and found plenty of "coordination" between Dems and anti-Bush 527 groups like MoveOn:

• The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups. . .



• DNC Chief Operating Officer Josh Wachs (left), Senator Leahy, and Zack Exley from MoveOn.org pose with the more than 310,000 signatures.

And Bear's chart compares the funds raised by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth with those of the three George Soros-affiliated 527s. The Kerry campaign is several times more dependent on mega-funded, supposedly independent groups than the Bush folks are. So where's the Dem's beef? Thay say that sharing outside counsel is coordination. But even the WaPo says that's wrong. And there's no evidence of any wrongdoing, as the NY Times concedes Bush denied working with the Swifties: "Scott Stanzel, a Bush spokesman, said, 'There has been no coordination at any time between Bush-Cheney '04 and any 527.'" Indeed, Bush condemned all 527 electioneering, including the Swiftboat ad.

Moreover, the cannons of ethics prohibit lawyers from sharing confidences between clients. Although any client may waive this privilege, there was no waiver here. And Ginsberg provided only narrow advice to the 527. For the most part, John O'Neill--a founder of the Swiftboat group--has been their attorney.

So Ben Ginsberg fell on his sword for the President. Why should anyone care? First because of the media bias--conduct common among Dems is a scandal for a Republican. Second, because the underlying culprit is campaign finance reform. Both candidates seek to stifle speech--Kerry campaign asked the Federal Election Commission to stop the anti-Kerry Swiftboat TV commercials, and publishers to halt sale of their book "Unfit for Command." Recently, the Bush campaign threatened to sue all 527s. How is that "reform?" According to Robert Samuelson in Wednesday's Washington Post:

There's an indestructible inconsistency between the language of the First Amendment and campaign finance laws. . . .The Supreme Court upholds the campaign finance laws simply by ignoring the First Amendment's language.

NRO's Jonah Goldberg agrees:

What is so thoroughly absurd and tragic is how we've come to accept as the "enlightened" position in America that political speech needs to be regulated as much as the instructions on prescription drugs.

The long-term fix is repealing the "reform" of campaign finance laws. Too bad that's too late for Ben Ginsberg.