Manion campaign posts film
Bucks County Courier Times
In late 2006, Travis Manion returned home to Doylestown Township from his first tour of Iraq and became deeply offended by a display at the Bucks County Democratic Committee’s Doylestown headquarters.
At that time the county’s Democrats were working hard to get Patrick Murphy elected to Congress as an Iraq war veteran eager to end the war. Outside its Doylestown headquarters, the party began posting on a display under a banner to “honor our fallen” the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq.
“Travis took exception to that,” said his father, Tom Manion, in a movie, “Letters from Travis” which was unveiled on the Internet last week. “He said, “Dad, you know that’s really bothering me because they’re not really honoring our guys and none of our guys that have given their life over there would think they were honoring them by notching their number up there. They’re doing that as a political statement and, you know, I really got a problem with it. I want to do something about it.’ Of course, when Travis was killed, they notched his number on the window and it’s still up there today.”
In April 2007, Marine 1st Lt. Travis Manion was killed by sniper fire during his second tour in Iraq and this year his father, a retired Marine and pharmaceutical executive, decided to run for Congress against Murphy, D-8.
DEMOCRATS FIRE BACK
While Manion accuses the Democrats of exploiting the war, the Republican’s campaign faces some criticism from Democrats for exploiting his son’s death in the film, “Letters from Travis.” The first part of the four-part film was unveiled last week on Manion’s campaign Web site. It can be seen at www.lettersfromtravis.com.
“I think trading on the death of that fine young man for political gain is repulsive,” Mardi Harrison, a Democrat from Doylestown Township, wrote in an online chat room for Bucks Democrats.
Bill Perry, a Democrat from Middletown and executive director of Delaware Valley Veterans for America, said the campaign film was “a real disgrace” to the soldiers who have died in the war in Iraq. Perry, a frequent war protester, said the film made it look like Manion was politicizing his son’s death.
The film, produced by BrabenderCox, a Republican consulting firm, features pictures of Travis and Tom Manion, clips of American soldiers in Iraq, a heart-rending musical score and solemn narration.
The intent of the movie is to show voters why Manion decided to run for Congress this year, according to Jerry Morgan, Manion’s campaign manager. Morgan denied claims that Manion was exploiting the death of his son.
“If you know anything about Tom Manion, you know that the one thing he would never do is exploit the death of a soldier, particularly his own son,” Morgan said.
In a phone interview, Harrison disagreed with the Manion film because it did little to inform voters about his political platform.
“I’d rather hear about his platform and where he stands on the issues,” Harrison said.
Tom Lingenfelter, an independent candidate running for Congress, said the film said little about Manion’s qualifications to run for Congress.
“We all have personal tragedies that motivate us. However, our motivation in this congressional campaign must be to address the problems of war and peace, economic security, health care, the environment, illegal immigration, judicial and elections reform, foreign policy, the rule of law, etc.,” Lingenfelter said.
Murphy’s campaign declined comment.
Morgan said Manion’s political platform would be addressed in subsequent installments of the film.
“Stay tuned,” Morgan said.
According to Steve Merino, a partner and creative director with Seventy7 Advertising, a Philadelphia firm, it’s unclear if the film will convince anyone to vote for him.
“In a strange way it’s almost as if he’s selling his son’s commitment as opposed to his own candidacy,” Merino said. “I don’t know if that’s going to resonate with voters.”
GETTING THE WORD OUT
The story in “Letters from Travis,” the death of a son that inspired a father’s foray into politics, is one Manion needs to keep repeating, according to Terry Madonna, director of Franklin and Marshall’s Center for Politics and Public Affairs.
“There are a lot of people who run for a lot of different reasons and a lot of reasons a lot less valid than [the death of a son],” Madonna said. “Manion has as good a reason as anyone to run for Congress, and it’s better than most. He needs to let people know about that.”
Manion might not find out how effective the film will be until Election Day, but if criticism reaches a fever pitch online, it could hurt the campaign, according to Michael Maynard, chairman of Temple University’s advertising department.
“You’re playing with fire,” Maynard said. “If it hits, it could be a marvelous, wonderful thing, but if it misses it could be a disaster.”
Still, the online film gives Manion’s campaign a chance to reach voters without having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on 30-second television ads, according to Merino.
“I think it’s a cost-effective way to reach voters,” Merino said.
According to a report released this month from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 35 percent of Americans claimed they recently watched a political video online, almost three times the number who watched political videos during the last presidential election four years ago. The study also found that 17 percent of adult Americans went online daily for political news, a more than twofold increase from four years.
However, the online movie likely will have much less impact than a 30-second TV ad, according to Maynard.
While voters have little choice over whether to watch a political ad on television, said Maynard, to watch Manion’s online movie they actually have to seek it out online. Also, the length of the movie (part one is more than six minutes long) could be “too much for people to take,” Maynard said.
“You wonder if the regular person is going to sit through this ad and watch the whole thing,” Maynard said.
Merino said the story Manion was trying to tell might be one that’s too complex for a quick ad.
“The Internet is the perfect vehicle for what appears to be an emotional and lengthy message put together by the Manion campaign,” Merino said. “You can’t convey all of the background, history and emotion of Travis’ death and Tom’s foray into politics into one 30-second TV commercial. In essence, that video is online because it has to be, because there’s no other alternative forum for it.”
Letters From Travis : Four Part Series
Part 1
Click small square on right side of play bar above to view video in full-screen mode.
Earmarks: Watchdogs skeptical
The Intelligencer
EDO Corporation develops technology that lets military fighter pilots spend less time flying over war zones and more time safely on the ground.
Systems manufactured at the company’s Warminster plant give planes the ability to fire different weapons, or drop different bombs, at different times, instead of firing everything all at once.
In war time, the so-called “smart racks” are in high demand.
But the company didn’t receive its $1.6 million government contract through a competitive bidding process.
It won a congressional earmark, courtesy of Congressman Patrick Murphy.
Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, defines earmarks as “government funds that are allocated by a legislator for a particular pet project, often without proper review.”
Since there is no structured review process, earmark-seeking companies and groups have found other ways to gain attention: Cash. Companies back home, such as EDO, commonly donate to lawmakers, who in turn request funding for their projects in Washington.
Members of Congress deny there is any link between earmarks and donations.
“There’s no connection,” said Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, who represents much of Montgomery County. “There’s a complete firewall between what my congressional staff knows about the campaign finance team and what the campaign finance team knows about congressional staff.”
But government watchdogs say the evidence speaks for itself.
“It’s almost impossible in these cases to prove a quid pro quo,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the independent watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense. “There’s a troubling fact pattern that is emerging more and more and feeds the whole pay-to-play atmosphere that surrounds earmarks.”
Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the research group Center for Responsive Politics agreed.
“It’s a pattern you commonly see, but only the contributor and the lawmaker who got the earmark can fully connect the dots, which is what makes it so frustrating,” he said.
Once a lawmaker submits his or her earmark requests, appropriations committee chairs somehow decide which ones make it into the bills. It’s unclear how the requests are vetted.
Ellis, whose organization runs the earmark-tracking Web site taxpayer.net, said earmarks that end up in the bills have little to do with the strength of the projects and everything to do with politics.
Projects most likely to be funded are requested by powerful members of the House, such as those on the Appropriations Committee. Next on the list are vulnerable members who won in swing districts, he said.
Murphy, Warminster firm linked
Murphy is the Bucks County Democrat who took the 8th District away from the GOP in a closely watched 2006 race. He will face a challenge from Republican Tom Manion in November. Manion is a businessman and a retired Marine. Murphy is the only Iraq war veteran in Congress.
Last year, House leadership approved $30 million worth of earmarks requested by Murphy. Only three of Pennsylvania’s 19 congressmen got more, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Schwartz, a two-term Democrat, was rewarded with about $16 million in projects.
This year, Schwartz has requested about $100 million in earmarks alone or with other lawmakers. (Murphy’s office said he will not release information on his requests until it’s clear which ones will be funded.)
If approved, about a quarter of Schwartz’s funds would go to private companies, although it’s unlikely committee chairs will insert all of her requests into the appropriation bills.
The no-bid contracts will go to companies, colleges and universities, police departments, municipalities and community programs of the lawmakers’ choosing. But private companies will cash in as well.
About half of Schwartz and Murphy’s bounty last year went to defense contractors.
The money has not been specifically requested by the Pentagon. Rather, lawmakers consider themselves a voice for companies in their districts who could fulfill a military need.
EDO Corporation was one of the recipients — and a Murphy benefactor.
The former Warminster company once known as M-Tech merged with defense giant ITT Corporation late last year.
EDO’s political action committee gave Murphy $10,000 in the current election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and campaign contributions at opensecrets.org.
EDO also hired a powerful lobbying firm, The PMA Group.
Lobbying disclosure reports show the firm contacted members of the House to discuss various pieces of legislation, including the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
PMA lobbyists and their spouses have given generously to Murphy since he took office. In fact, contributions associated with the firm made it Murphy’s second-highest donor in the current election cycle. Total donations totaled 18,000, according to Center and Federal Election Commission data.
(While corporations are prohibited from making direct contributions to candidates in federal elections, there are many alternate channels by which money can be given to candidates.)
In response to questions about the contributions and the earmark, ITT released the following statement:
“ITT Corporation is proud to be a provider of critical technology and hardware to support our armed forces. The funds appropriated in the FY08 defense bill will enhance the Air National Guard’s ability to carry out its mission and support jobs in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. ITT appreciates Congressman Murphy for his steadfast support of our troops and his tireless efforts to promote economic growth in Bucks County.”
Schwartz links to defense contractors
PMA has also been an important donor for Congresswoman Schwartz.
The firm has been among her top five contributors during her two terms in office, with donations totaling $27,500.
In at least two cases, she requested earmarks for another PMA client, a company called L-3 Communications Corporation.
L-3 spends millions on its own lobbying expenses each year and this year alone paid PMA $480,000 for its services.
First, Schwartz and two other lawmakers secured an $800,000 earmark for a division of L-3 called Titan, based in Horsham.
The company makes a high-tech glove equipped with sensors that gather information about a patient’s vital signs almost instantly upon touch, according to Schwartz’s office. The equipment, which the company describes as a Mobile Integrated Diagnostic and Data Analysis System, can be used to assess soldiers’ conditions in the field.
Next, Schwartz and Murphy, along with Philadelphia Congressman Bob Brady and U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, won a $1.6 million contract for another L-3 subsidiary, the Northeast Philadelphia-based SPD Electrical Systems.
The company, which employs 200, makes technology that allows ships to quickly shift electrical power to different parts of the craft, according to Murphy’s office. For example, in case of an attack, power could be cut from lights and routed to the engines for a rapid escape.
L-3 gave Murphy $13,000, making it his fifth-highest donor in the current election cycle, the center’s data show. The company’s PAC gave him $10,000 and employees pitched in individual donations as well.
In addition to PMA, L-3 hired another firm, Brown & Co. to push SPD products.
Of the millions the company spends every year on lobbying efforts, it paid Brown & Co. $240,000 for work on behalf of SPD in 2006 and 2007. Brown & Co.’s PAC in turn has given Murphy and Schwartz $2,000 combined. L-3’s PAC also gave Schwartz $1,000.
Schwartz has submitted a 2009 request for L-3 subsidiary SPD to get another $4 million in federal money to continue working on its Node Switching and Control Center. It’s still unclear if it will be funded, to what extent it will be funded and who is sponsoring the request with her.
An L-3 spokeswoman referred questions about the donations and funding to Murphy and Schwartz’s office and released the following statement:
“As responsible citizens, L-3 supports individuals and offices that benefit our communities, our businesses and our industry. We are proud of the support we provide our military and government customers and remain committed to assisting their efforts in securing the safety of citizens worldwide.”
In April, Schwartz went beyond the disclosure required by earmark reforms and released a list of 44 projects she wants funded in the 2009 budget. Only about 110 lawmakers have taken such steps, or request no earmarks at all, the Taxpayers watchdog reports.
The connections don’t stop with EDO and L-3.
Bringing home the bacon
A $5.6 million earmark for Rohm & Haas was sponsored by 10 House and Senate members, including Murphy and Schwartz. The contract was for skin decontamination resin that protects soldiers from exposure to chemical warfare in the field, her office said.
Rohm & Hass, with facilities in Bristol, Bridesburg and Spring House, is the only American company that makes the product, Schwartz’s office reported, adding that the Defense Department was originally going to work with a Canadian company that produces the resin.
Company employees gave Schwartz $2,000 in the past two election cycles. Rohm & Haas’ PAC gave Murphy and Schwartz a combined $10,000, with the bulk of that — $7,000 — going to Schwartz over the same time period.
Rohm & Haas also retains lobbyists Holland & Knight, whose PAC gave Schwartz another $1,000 in the current election cycle.
Rohm & Haas spokeswoman Christine Miller said the company has “long-standing relationships” and “ongoing dialogue” with lawmakers in communities where the company has a presence.
“For Rohm and Haas Company,” she said, “the contributions we made to elected officials in communities where we have facilities have absolutely nothing to do with any earmark or specific request.”
Other companies stand to benefit next year:
Schwartz along with Sens. Casey and Specter, secured $1 million for Maxpower Inc. of Harleysville last year. The company makes batteries that are lighter and 10 times more powerful than the alternative, according to her office. The difference in weight can add up for soldiers carrying heavy gear, Schwartz’s office said.
She is asking for an additional $3 million for the company to continue its work in 2009.
The company’s president has donated $2,300 to Schwartz, according to data from the Center.
She requested a $2.5 million earmark for Chi Systems of Fort Washington. The company developed HapMed Combat Medic Trainer, which teaches a trainee how to apply a tourniquet using an interactive mannequin.
“Not only could she help a local company and make sure soldiers get the training they need, but it also ties into her interest in health care,” said Schwartz spokeswoman Rachel Magnuson.
The company’s employees gave her $750.
Schwartz requested $5 million in funding for Mikros Systems of Fort Washington for a renewable energy project.
Employees gave her $3,000. Mikros hired Strategic Marketing Innovations, whose lobbyists gave her $2,500.
For-profit companies aren’t the only ones with connections to powerful lobbyists.
Blank Rome is the top contributor to both Murphy and Schwartz in the current election cycle, data show. The firm represents SEPTA, which received $2.45 million in earmarks requested jointly by Murphy and other lawmakers this year. Individual Blank Rome attorneys have given him $21,950, according to the Center.
For next year, Schwartz requested $27.5 million for SEPTA, including $15 million for 100 hybrid buses and $10 million to modernize fare collection. Blank Rome attorneys and associates have given Schwartz $56,450 dating back to the late 90s.
Policing the process
Since there is no across-the-board method for vetting projects, congressional Murphy and Schwartz have developed their own process. Each has detailed applications they ask potential earmark recipients to fill out.
In the case of Defense Department contracts, the offices call the proper military branch to find out if the technology is in demand and whether the product could benefit soldiers on the ground.
Once a project is requested, Murphy spokesman Adam Abrams said, the congressman lobbies lawmakers. (Abrams said Murphy was not available to comment for this story.)
“If federals dollars are going to be allocated,” Abrams said, “we’d rather they be spent in the 8th District rather than California or Alaska and that’s why he’s an advocate for these companies.”
Murphy’s status as a veteran who sits on the Armed Services committee explains some of the support, he said.
“Our office tries not to focus on the political landscape and tries to focus on local companies,” Abrams said.
Still, there have been significant reforms.
Both lawmakers voted for changes that forced members of Congress to attach their names to their earmark requests and put in writing that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the projects.
“There’s been a real effort on behalf of the Democratic Congress, an effort I support, to make sure there is absolute transparency about appropriations and bundling of appropriation requests,” Schwartz said. “Have there been inappropriate activities by members of congress? Absolutely. And they are in jail. And they should be.”
She and Murphy also support proposed reforms that would make earmarks available in a searchable online database at least 48 hours before consideration.
Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said more changes are needed, but the best way to make the process transparent is simply to have fewer earmarks.
“It’s like drinking out of a fire hose,” he said, citing his group’s database work. “The shear volume makes it opaque.”
Ritsch, of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the process casts an unfortunate shadow on admirable projects.
“Even for the most legitimate earmark request, the request still has to be made,” he said. “There still has to be contact with the member of Congress. And to have access to the lawmaker you need to pony up the money.”
Now it’s Murphy facing challenge
The U.S. House freshman, an Iraq vet, is a GOP target. Opponent Tom Manion lost a son in the war last year.
In 2006, Patrick Murphy was the wet-eared political greenhorn running earnestly for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
While many respected the young lawyer’s military service in Iraq, few thought Murphy could oust a well-known freshman Republican whose party long had dominated Pennsylvania’s Eighth Congressional District.
Two years after Murphy’s paper-thin upset of Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, the tables have turned.
Murphy, 34, now finds himself the favored freshman incumbent under attack by a political novice also linked, indelibly, to the Iraq war.
Tom Manion, 54, a Marine-turned-pharmaceutical-executive, was sadly dragged into the limelight last year when his son, Marine First Lt. Travis Manion, was killed in action in Iraq. Announcing his candidacy in January, Manion said his son had “given me a wake-up call that my service to this country is not over.”
His challenge to Murphy has the makings of a fascinating race in Bucks County, a district that could be a bellwether for moderate swing districts around the country.
“I think it’s going to be a tough election,” Murphy said in a telephone interview, acknowledging that Republican strategists had targeted his seat. “But I will not be outworked, [and] I have a record that I am very proud of.”
Manion already has raised eyebrows with his fund-raising prowess, raking in more than $400,000 in the first quarter of 2008. He also has assembled a team of political operatives who have handled pivotal races elsewhere.
“I have an old saying that money talks, and early money shouts,” said Charlie Gerow, a Republican strategist in Harrisburg. The GOP’s hopes of a Manion win “are one reason you’re seeing the A-team involved with him.”
Still, Manion - a Johnson & Johnson executive who recently retired as a Marine Reserve colonel - casts himself as an outsider fed up with what he sees as partisan gridlock in Washington.
“People really feel that Washington is broken,” he said in an interview at his Doylestown home. “People see that I’m not a politician, [but] if we want to make a difference we have to step out and be a part of it.”
Both candidates say the economy is apt to be in the forefront of voters’ minds, yet no issue divides them more starkly than Iraq.
Murphy’s 2003 tour in Baghdad left him disillusioned and angry with the Bush administration’s tactics there. He has emerged as a prominent congressional advocate for a scheduled withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and a renewed focus on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda.
“Al-Qaeda has been able to reconstitute themselves so that they’re just as strong today as they were on 9/11,” Murphy said, “because we’re still bogged down refereeing a civil war in Iraq at a cost of $3 trillion to the American taxpayer.”
Manion’s son had supported the troop surge when a sniper killed him near Fallujah in April 2007. Manion has acknowledged that mistakes have been made in conducting the war, but he opposes withdrawing before Iraq is stable enough to be self-governed. He said military leaders should be trusted to determine the timing and level of troop withdrawals.
“You can’t let your enemy know what your plan is,” he said. “There are enormous consequences if we leave without stabilizing the area.”
The troop surge is accomplishing that, Manion said. “Now we need to push on the diplomatic front to make sure the Iraqi government pulls it together and begins to govern themselves. We need to work with them and make sure they start covering some of the costs of what is happening over there.”
In interviews, Manion makes little mention of President Bush, but says he looks forward to running with John McCain “because he is a big supporter of the surge.”
Manion’s political quest is considered an uphill march on several counts.
Foremost is Murphy’s incumbency. The name recognition, financial clout, and other political resources of office-holders have made Capitol Hill one of America’s most stable workplaces. More than 90 percent of incumbent candidates are reelected.
Despite Manion’s fund-raising, for instance, Murphy’s campaign had about four times as much money on hand.
Voter registration in the Eighth District continues to shift toward Democrats. This spring, the number of registered Democrats surpassed registered Republicans in Bucks County for the first time in 30 years.
The district also includes Democrat-dominated slivers of Northeast Philadelphia and the Montgomery County townships of Abington, Upper Dublin and Upper Moreland.
There are about 8,000 more Democrats than Republicans among the district’s nearly 462,000 voters. About 14 percent of the voters are registered with neither party.
By comparison, Republicans held a 28,000-voter advantage in Bucks County in 2006.
Republicans already have encountered rough sledding this year in some traditional strongholds. Three House special elections in Illinois, Mississippi and Louisiana went to Democrats - all in districts that Bush carried in 2004 by double-digit margins.
“If you want to unseat an incumbent congressman, even a freshman, you’ve got to have a couple of things happen,” said G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College. “You have to have a set of issues that work, or you need something really unsavory about your opponent. I don’t see either here.”
When Franklin and Marshall polled voters before the 2006 election, those in Southeastern Pennsylvania were more strongly against the war than those in other areas of the state, Madonna said.
“Fitzpatrick would still be in his seat if it weren’t for the war,” Madonna said. “But I think it’s more about the economy now, and that helps Democrats more than Republicans.”
Manion’s supporters note that even in a horrible political year - and with Gov. Rendell at the top of the 2006 ballot - Murphy won by only 1,518 votes, fewer than 1 percent.
And in a county where Sen. Barack Obama - with Murphy his most prominent surrogate - lost miserably to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential primary, the GOP hopes to make a play for independents and blue-collar Democrats.
“The Democrats in Bucks County are not Obama Democrats. They’re Clinton-Casey-Rendell Democrats,” Gerow said.
Manion’s story will resonate with these voters, Gerow said. “He has a good business background. He understands the economy and what needs to be done to get it moving again. He’s a nontraditional candidate, and that is a plus.”
Democratic political consultant Larry Ceisler agreed that McCain could do well in Bucks County, boosting Manion’s prospects. “But I’d still rather say I’m with the party that supported Obama than to say I’m with the party of George Bush.”
Whether Murphy hangs on or history repeats with a Manion upset, the campaign won’t be tame.
Said Ken Spain, a national Republican spokesman: “It’s a sleeper race that could really catch fire at the end.”
PACking it on
The Intelligencer
Even the best relationships sometimes falter over money. And so Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy, an early and enthusiastic supporter of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, isn’t expressing much support or enthusiasm for Obama’s fundraising guidelines.
The Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee doesn’t accept donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Out of respect, perhaps, the Democratic National Committee adopted the fundraising ban as its own just a day after Obama emerged as the party’s almost certain standard-bearer.
It’s a good policy that could restore confidence in elected officials’ role as representatives of the people and not the special interests who feed their bloated campaign funds. Of course, our elected representatives have to adopt the policy if perceptions and reality are to change.
Murphy, for one, isn’t going along with the program.
Since 2005, Murphy has raked in more than $1.2 million in PAC money and doesn’t intend to stop now. The contributions came from PACs representing major corporations, including AT&T, Toll Brothers, Pfizer, Comcast, Boeing and labor groups.
If those or any other contributions affected Murphy’s votes, we’re not aware of it. We certainly hope the congressman voted in the best interests of the nation and his constituents, and we have no reason to believe otherwise.
Still, it would look better if Murphy followed Obama’s lead. If so, he wouldn’t be the first Bucks County congressman to spurn PAC money.
Former Congressman James Greenwood refused to accept PAC money, placing him in a very small but honorable club on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, neither Greenwood’s successor, former Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, nor Murphy joined that club.
We know it’s incredibly expensive to run for Congress, whether as a challenger or an incumbent. Still, candidates who refuse to accept special-interest money stand to gain stature even if their campaign treasuries shrink. What’s more, we all stand to benefit if candidates have less money to buy attack ads that, in addition to distorting and damaging an opponent’s record, damage the electoral process as well. We urge the congressman to reconsider.
Chickie and Pete’s Fundraiser
Date: June 27
Time: 6pm to 9pm
Place: Chickie and Pete’s - 11000 Roosevelt Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19116
Details: Minimum 50 dollar donation at door, Bar specials
For more info: call 215-348-9080
Tom Manion Happy Hour Fundraiser
Date: June 26
Time: 6pm to 8pm
Place: Jose Pistola’s | 263 south 15th St. | Philadelphia PA 19102
Details: 30 dollars at door–bar specials
RSVP: krista.foy@manionforcongress.com
Murphy says he’ll accept PAC money
The Intelligencer
Congressman Patrick Murphy has never banned campaign cash from certain lobbyists or political action committees from his campaign coffers.
According to campaign finance reports, Murphy’s campaign has taken more than $1.2 million from political action committees since 2005.
But after Barack Obama laid down some new ground rules on campaign fundraising Thursday, a major source of Murphy’s campaign cash might soon be considered taboo.
On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee adopted a new policy to bar donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees from its own fundraising to comply with Obama’s own campaign finance rules. The move does not prohibit Democrats like Murphy, who represents Bucks County and small parts of Montgomery County and Philadelphia, from accepting lobbyist or PAC money.
Still, Murphy may now face a tough decision to continue to take money from PACs, according to Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.
When the top of the ticket and the national party say they’re not taking PAC money, there’s got to be pressure for all the other candidates to fall in line,” he said.
Murphy’s campaign has no plans to ban campaign funds from PACs or certain lobbyists, according to Adam Abrams, a Murphy spokesman.
Abrams, who pointed out that the “vast majority” of Murphy’s campaign contributions come from individuals, said not taking money from PACs or lobbyists would limit the congressman’s ability to respond to attacks from outside interest groups.
During his first run for Congress, Murphy raked in nearly $477,000 from PACs, amounting to roughly 20 percent of the more than $2.4 million he raised for his 2006 congressional campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the first 15 months of his re-election campaign, Murphy has raised more than $726,000 from political action committees, which is about 33 percent of the $2.2 million he’s raised during the ongoing election cycle, according to figures from the nonpartisan group. The money includes contributions from PACs representing major corporations including AT&T, Toll Brothers, Pfizer, Comcast and Boeing, labor groups such as boilermakers, firefighters and longshoremen and lawmakers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
During his race against Murphy, then-Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican, raised nearly $1.5 million from political action committees, about 49 percent of the more than $3 million he raised for his unsuccessful re-election bid.
So far, Tom Manion, Murphy’s Republican opponent in November’s congressional race, has raised nearly $67,000 from PACs, about 16 percent of the more than $422,500 he’s raised, according to the latest campaign finance figures.
Mike Walsh, a spokesman for Manion’s campaign, declined to comment for this story Thursday.
Ritsch said Obama’s rules against lobbyists and PACs are particularly shrewd since PAC contributions usually add up to only 1 percent of presidential campaign contributions. PACs made up about 10 percent, or $31 million, of the DNC’s fundraising in the 2004 election and, so far during this election cycle, PACs account for less than 3 percent, or $2.1 million, of the DNC’s total fundraising, Ritsch said.
However, congressional candidates rely much more heavily on money from PACs, he said. It’s not unusual for PACs to make up half of an incumbent candidate’s campaign coffers.
“For incumbent members of Congress PAC money is often essential to raise the amount of money needed to hold onto their seats,” he said.
Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for government watchdog group Common Cause, said she was unsure if Democratic congressional candidates like Murphy would face any backlash if they continued to accept PAC money.
“We have the leader of the Democratic Party setting the bar at a very high level in terms of campaign finance reform,” Boyle said. “Certainly, we hope that other Democrats will follow suit.”
Recent Visitor Comments