Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
Vidkun Specter took time and money, and now some creditors are demanding it back:
Specter's switch to the Democratic Party is prompting his campaign donors large and small to demand their money back, including several Republican senators whose political action committees gave tens of thousands of dollars to the Pennsylvania lawmaker.
. . . .
While not legally bound to refund any legitimate campaign donation, Mr. Specter has pledged to honor requests for refunds - and the requests are pouring in.
. . . .
"[Donors] gave that money to elect a Republican. They did not give that money to strengthen [Democratic Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid's majority," NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said. "I expect a lot of people will be looking to have their money returned."
I agree with Bob Gleason, quoted in the story: Specter owes a refund to the people who gave him money for the last and forthcoming election unless they specifically decline it. (He "had raised nearly $1.3 million since January and has $6.7 million in the bank for the 2010 race." Those who were simply buying influence or genuinely donating to Specter rather than Specter qua the GOP candidate, can re-donate.) I'm not sure, by the by, that having opened the door voluntarily, Specter can now refuse other requests for refunds.
More than that, I dare suggest that he owes the people who volunteered time and effort to get him reelected fair compensation for their time; he owes the people who voted for him an apology; and he owes his constituents his resignation, as I noted yesterday. None of those things are likely, but readers hoping for some kind of karmic justice may like to know that there's good news. As the WaTi story mentioned, "Specter's party switch ... could impede future fundraising as Republican contributors turn away and [his] established stable of fundraisers could abandon the candidate," and RedState links to two reports that fill one with joy: Specter is likely to be challenged in the Dem primary, and even if he somehow prevails, the Senate Democratic Caucus is unlikely to allow him to retain his seniority.
Post facto:
Anyone can rat (11/2/09) (followed)
Our RSS feed
they call this
They call this high dudgeon, right? [Not the donors and volunteers. You. LOL]
Sure, Brian, because...
Because you said so, all those folks must have been supporting the person, regardless of his party. How dare they have the temerity to ask for the return of money solicited under false pretenses.
I'll note it again. A lot of people claim they want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but when push comes to shove, they find lots of excuses to blame other folks and to excuse their shameful decisions.
The refund requests are
The refund requests are legitimate to me. I have no problem at all with that. I think it is fair to say that a lot of the people who did work for him getting election or donated may have done so on the basis of him being a GOP candidate. That is the nature of campaign structure. My particular argument applies only to general election voting where the vast percentage of people involved are only involved on election day.
As a matter of fact, I think the Democratic party should help Specter pay these refunds. Unless, of course, they don't really want Specter either. ;)
not at all
Not at all. I agree that any individual GOP direct donor who donated to Specter's campaign primarily because he was a republican and irrespective of his positions deserves a refund.
To whatever extent the party and its members supported the guy financially while wishing for his demise and plotting to make it come about, I hope they also get what they deserve. :-)
As already made clear, the high dudgeon comment is directed at Simon, who IMO has gone over the top.
If you stab someone in the back and they switch alliances, you're reaping what was sown. Not that Specter qualifies as anything like an innocent. I don't like him. I think his moderation is mostly opportunism in camo.
I think Simon doth protest too much, even though I appreciate that his opinion is in fact principled and not opportunistic. Defections are a good way to make parties accountable for treating their most independent members like pariahs. Specter's first responsibility is always to his constituents, not his party. If any congressperson truly believes he or she can better serve his or her constituents better by switching parties, they should switch with a pretty clear conscience.
A large side order of red herring there, no?
And since there is no way Specter can tell the difference, he should return it all and let those who really did mean the money to go to him personally redonate as they see fit. It isn't just the individual donors who should get refunds: entities like NRSC without any doubt gave money to Specter because he was the GOP candidate, not because they liked him personally, and that money must be given back too.
I have no beef with your point that "[d]efections are a good way to make parties accountable for treating their most independent members like pariahs." Specter may rat and re-rat as he chooses. What he can't do is have his cake and eat it: he can't solicit money as a Republican then jump to a more comfy billet once the election is over. That lies somewhere between dishonorable and outright fraud; the same holds for Campbell and Jeffords, and would have for Lieberman if he'd ultimately jumped, and for Chafee had be been reelected and jumped, as I think he would have. If he wants to leave, fine, but he has to pay the piper.
Nor do I disagree that "[i]f any congressperson truly believes he or she can better serve his or her constituents [] by switching parties, they should switch with a pretty clear conscience." I think Phil Gramm's conscience is pretty clear, because he did it the right way. If Specter thinks he can better serve his constituents by switching parties, he should do just that, the same way Gramm did: resign and seek reelection as a Democrat.
This isn't about whether Specter can defect. It's about how an honorable person goes about doing so.
the missing two-way street
I'm a tit for tat kind of guy. That means you try nice and honorable once or twice with various individuals and entities. And if they go for sneaky and dishonorable and two-faced, I put my gloves somewhere they'll stay clean. I think Specter decided he was in a screw or get screwed situation, and chose accordingly.
I'll always suspicious of arguments about how the honorable thing to do is to take ill treatment with equanimity. If you REALLY want parties to be accountable for treating their most independent members like pariahs, then I think it makes sense for members to be able to defect in ways that punch them in the stomach. Seems to me the GOP was ready to take Specter on a snipe hunt, and he figured it out.
Politics, as the dear departed Tully loved to point out, aint beanbag.
Another well-made rejoinder
Another well-made rejoinder to a point I didn't make. ;)
you said it was about honor
You said it was about honor, yet apparently you seem to think it only ought to be expected of Specter.
Seems like the party's position on Specter was to support him until they could find a way to replace him with someone they liked better. That's to be construed as honorable in what sense, exactly? In return, the party got exactly the kind of loyalty that they paid for.
Pro-rated ?
I suppose he could offer a refund pro-rated, divisible by the number of days he stuck to his former party as those donating expected, vs his selfish, self serving defection, which as I noted, first clip I caught, him commenting "the republican party didn't want to support me next time".
I for one, recall when Bush did support him the prior round, and then he stabbed the republicans in the back. McCain did as well, and then somehow - I guess the media played it up so well for the republican that hates his own party and beats them to death on the news every day of the week (since that's how often he was invited to bash his own party) and the republican core keeps tabs on seniority and "whose in line next"... and wala...the big throbbing gourds of the "earned it !" bean counters calculated McShame was next in line in the pecking order, and that was all she wrote. What a shame it was.
After all the repubs lined up, they all claimed to be Reagan re-incarnated, and that was so PATHETIC I was cringing.
Somehow Palin got in there, and there was the outsider that seemed to be a person we could all trust for once. She creamed a bunch of criminals in Alaska was the forwrd word, almost all or all of them republicans, so you can imagine the liberal press found that very helpful and interesting.
Yep Palin, she actually everything the last 50 presidential candidates kept claiming to be, but she was the real deal, and eveyone knew it.
Of course the media and democrats went into panic mode and tried relentlessly to destroy her.
I'd still take her as a President in a split second. I'd thoroughly enjoy all the twittering glitterati having a fit some northnorthwest hickbilly with honest bones passed them by right to the top.
I sure hope for it.
Maybe that's all wrong and we need creepy, cringing, lying globulators all over DC, maybe we need the skum sucking liars at every turn.
I'd sure like to see that theory tested.