And the receipts read…$9.11?
Has the depths of poor taste reached its limits? Did supporters from both sides of the aisle learn nothing from the MoveOn.org Ad a few weeks ago claiming “General Patraeus or General Betray Us?” Just when I gave credit to campaigns and supporters alike for learning a lesson that we saw play over and over again in the news and on our blogs including this one…the lesson was lost.
I believe that like the respect we need to show for out Military leaders regardless of their mission, which is handed down by their Commander in Chief we need also to always and in all places be respectful of the sad tragedy that rocked America on 9.11. That solemn day is already bantered about like a pawn in the terror tactic scare game and it does not need to be thrown around to fill the coffers benefiting the former New York Mayor himself, Rudy Giuliani or any other candidates for that matter.
Tonight, Wednesday the 26th, Rudy Giuliani is hosting a house party. No, it’s not exactly at his house, rather it’s homes across the country packed with friends and sometimes strangers to collect as much money on one night as possible. The House Party concept is a frequently used campaign tactic and a great way to reach out to supporters and future supporters with very little investment, a dial in line is about all you need to make this fundraising push work. At an appointed time in the evening, all the homes call into a conference line to listen to their candidate. It seems pretty straightforward and non-controversial. But as in all things political – there is always controversy and this week it’s one of Rudy Giuliani’s House Parties that has landed him in the middle of controversy – and not just any petty controversy one that involved the foundation of his campaign..the sacred day of 9.11.
One of Giuliani’s house parties will be hosted by Abraham Sofaer in Palo Alto, California. Sofaer was a State Department adviser under President Reagan and is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Although Sofaer is obviously book smart something tells me he lost some common sense along the way. You see, invitations went out for his party that ask for $9.11 each from guests, something many say exploits the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for political purposes. Senator Chris Dodd’s campaign condemned the invitation immediately and there was public outcry from both sides of the aisle of supporters.
But the Giuliani campaign itself has only said “These are two volunteers who acted independently of and without the knowledge of the campaign. Their decision to ask individuals for that amount was an unfortunate choice." Fine, but the Giuliani statement fell far short of saying that it will not accept this money raised on the back of 9.11. This comes after Rudy Giuliani was all over MoveOn.Org’s ad – condemning Hillary Clinton and talking about her money that she returned from Norman Hsu. Because of that many see this as a weak condemnation by the Giuliani campaign and they need to go farther by not accepting the sums of $9.11.
What do you think?
Does Rudy Giuliani's statement suffice?
Should Rudy Giuliani accept the $9.11 contributions?
Thank you in advance for being a part of this conversation. A conversation that doesn’t speak only to one side of the aisle but all sides and of the tragedy we were dealt to grow from on that sad day of 9.11.01.
Laura Schwartz
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Thanks
The outcry related to the Move-On ad is not relevant to the issue as it is solely the defamation of a great American soldier.
Accepting money from Norman Hsu, a fugitive felon, goes considerably deeper into the realm of moral no-nos and is also a far cry from the fund-raising missteps of both Edwards and Giuliani.
Thanks, still. I hadn't read much coverage of this, and was sketchy on the details.
It doesn't sound like Rudy was obtaining any money under false pretenses. Whether it was in good taste is another matter for each person to decide. He has no obligation to return the money. I notice that this matter has been used as a medium to slam Edwards and especially Hillary and that is too bad. These things happen and to slam anyone is like mortals abiding in vitreous edifices throwing stones!
Rudy's city was hit, hit hard. Why this may seen in bad taste to some people, it won't for others. If any has the right to use it, it's Rudy. This was not in same league of distastefulness as the MoveOn.org slander ad or Hsu and Hillary's campaign corruption.
But, I presume most of the folks that would find that offensive weren't going to vote for him anyways.
As with the moveon ad, we seem to be easily distracted by the mode of message and forget actual message.
Ain't gonna happen, huh?
However...ultimately I am in your corner on this. In the scheme of things - compared to greater "sins" of hypocrisies committed by politicians on every side – the fundraising scheme was just a tad in bad taste, but it does reveal the sad truth that 9/11, like all the other great tragedies in human history, will eventually become nothing more than a marketing slogan to sell everything from Campbell soup to GM trucks. I share your pain. The selling of 9/11 has begun. And many responses to your article reflect that truth.
The strategy works because of its simplicity and low overhead because when it comes to fundraising – you want to spend as little money as possible to do it!. Basically the campaign sends mass emails and initiates calls to supporters all around the country to ask folks to host their own house party, invite as many supporters and could be supporters as they can, ask for a donation and have donation materials available as well as a few bumper stickers and yard signs (courtesy of the campaign), supply some food and much drink and wait for the conference call to begin. On the conference call (listen-only) you are able to hear the candidate thank you for your party and support – the idea is to have either a loud phone with speaker or speakers you hook your phone into for all the folks in your house to get motivated and mobilized for the candidate. Then you hang up, collect the money and clean up your house after the last guest has left.
It's easy and it has a mass appeal in short time before a fundraising dealine…like there is this Sunday!
Timing is everything…
Thanks so much!
Yes, I did run an article recently about money in campaigns - but on the premise of whether or not we should we move to public financing of campaigns. A tough task but one that could take out the shady and special interest card that donors could and as we have seen in the past play in campaigns and elections…that's something that came out of the Norman Hsu (Hillary large money bundler/donor) history being revealed as a criminal – a wanted felon that eluded the California Police for over 15 years. This case of the $9.11 fundraiser not about criminality but rather about morality – is it moral for a fundraiser to fundraise (using the infamous date as the contribution amount) off of one of the worst and most tragic days in American history.
In other words are there any limits to morality in fundraising? And when there seems to be lack of judgment – who needs to take charge. In the case of Norman Hsu – when the warrant came to light Hillary's campaign returned the money and then some and reinvented their vetting system for "Bundlers" in their fundraising machine. The question here on morality – is: Did Rudy's statement go far enough or should he return the money on the basis that it was raised in vain?
Morals are just as much a part of politics as well – I guess you could say criminals…
Very well said.
Thank you
You bring up a solid discussion. There is a distance between fundraisers and candidates – sometimes it's to close and you get a feeling of "pay to play" and sometimes not close enough to see these things happening or coming down the pike as a campaign with a fundraising as well as a political strategy in mind. In the end – I believe the more vetting you can do on these donors the better – the more you know about the house parties that YOU are advocating in which the check are made out to YOU the better. You can get a hold of the situation – more control is always better control in a campaign. One slip up like not being told about this $9.11 fundraiser can cost you days of newscycles in which this is discussed rather than your policies to make the world a better place – this happens on both sides of the aisle but the responsibility ultimately comes down to the candidate to be the watchdog – and if they miss something on that watch – make it right as fast as possible to get it out of the media and get it off the table for those next to you to use against you….
Thanks so much for coming back and being a part of the conversation!
I wasn't "offended" by the MoveOn ad--its the truth and Petreaus is known to be an ambitious kiss*** per his superior officers! The ad was also a measure of free speech, but, again, people went crazy about that, but not about the RNC ad that compared Max Cleland to Bin Laden...the Swift boat liars...the ads that are on now that were bankrolled by Ari Fleischer--to make the Iraq occupation to look like a "good war"(like that isn't an oxymoron!).
If he isn't opposed to the premise behind the donations, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
What do you feel is the premise behind the donations? Perhaps I'm missing something here.
If he really believe it was such an unfortunate choice, he should return the donations.
Shun,
Has Rudy been preaching against receiving money because he was mayor during 911? If he has that might change my mind but I've not heard about it. While we're at it, just what are "sheenangians?" I would think that distancing himself would be a basic error in judgment.