Gingrich Tests the Waters

At The Los Angeles Times, Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger write:

Gingrich's announcement capped several days of confusing and contradictory leaks about his plans. Despite the name of his website, he stopped short of formally opening a federal exploratory committee because of the complications involved in unwinding his business interests, according to aides.

It's not clear exactly what this new phase entails. His bare-bones website -- which features a large photo of him and his wife, Callista, superimposed over an image of people enthusiastically waving American flags -- is soliciting donations and contact information for supporters. The money is being raised in accordance with federal election rules, which would apply if he formally got in the race.

"We'll be back," Gingrich told reporters. "I think you will have more than enough to write about in the near future."

Lawrence Noble, former counsel to the Federal Election Commission, said that the former speaker "appears to be using a provision in the FEC rules that allows someone to collect funds to decide if they want to become a candidate without registering with the FEC." The provision is not used often because there are restrictions on use of these "testing the-waters" accounts: They cannot grow too large; they cannot be used for advertising or other candidate activities, and if the tester becomes a candidate, all disclosure and record-keeping records apply from the very beginning of the effort.

More detail from FEC:

Before deciding to campaign for federal office, an individual may first want to “test the waters”—that is, explore the feasibility of becoming a candidate. For example, the individual may want to travel around the country to determine if there is sufficient support for his or her candidacy. An individual who merely conducts selected testing the waters activities does not have to register or report as a candidate even if the individual raises or spends more than $5,000 on those activities (the dollar threshold that would normally trigger candidate registration). Nevertheless, the individual must comply with the contribution limits and prohibitions. 100.72(a) and 100.131(a); see also Advisory Opinion (AO) 1985-40.

An individual is no longer testing the waters when s/he:

• Makes or authorizes statements referring to him/herself as a candidate;
• Uses general public political advertising to publicize his/her intention to campaign;
• Raises more money than what is reasonably needed to test the waters, or amasses funds to be used after the candidacy is established;
• Conducts activities over a protracted period of time or shortly before the election; or
• Takes action to qualify for the ballot.

Once an individual is no longer testing the waters, funds that were raised or spent to test the waters apply to the $5,000 threshold for qualifying as a candidate. 100.72(a) and 100.131(a). Once that threshold is exceeded, the individual must register with the FEC, and begin to file reports including in the first report all activity that occurred prior to reaching the $5,000 threshold, including any testing the waters activities. To obtain a list of 2012 presidential candidates, visit the 2012 Presidential Statements of Candidacy page.

Labor Vulnerability

The Center for Responsive Politics notes that conservative groups eclipsed organized labor in 2010 fundraising (though the report does not account for labor's extensive GOTV operations).

During 2009 and 2010, labor unions reported spending a combined $46.7 million on messaging designed to aide their preferred federal political candidates, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Those candidates were overwhelmingly Democrats. This figure represents 16 percent of all such spending by non-party committees -- the lowest amount in years, according to the Center's research.

By contrast, the four biggest-spending conservative groups together accounted for about $1 of every $3 spent on these types of political advertisements.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Action Network, American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies reported spending a combined $97.6 million during the 2010 election cycle.

Although the president is siding with government workers over Governor Walker, Reid Wilson notes at National Journal that his relationship with labor is far from perfect.

Obama refused to make contributions to local labor organizations and other political outfits in places like South Carolina and Philadelphia, payments tolerated for years by Democratic campaigns but often derided as walking-around money. And, later in the campaign, Obama’s team utilized labor unions to a far lesser extent than previous Democratic nominees.

“Most of the union world was not with them in the primary. Those that were with them came on after Edwards started to fail. It wasn’t an immediate marriage,” said a veteran Democratic consultant close to Obama’s campaign.

“Labor was never a very appreciated entity in the Obama organizing experience. They kind of dealt with them as dinosaurs and has-beens.”

Other Democrats, who asked not to be named in order to offer their frank assessments of the labor movement, said unions have tried to keep up with changing technology, but their political tactics remain a relic.

Whether it’s adopting Obama’s organizing tactics or embracing social media, labor has fallen behind. Conversely, the business community, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and outside groups like American Crossroads, has been much more proactive in reaching out to voters.

Labor’s declining importance to the Democratic Party mirrors the changing face of the party. As Democrats rely more on a diverse and booming coalition of minorities, white voters, particularly men, are increasingly voting Republican. That, former SEIU head Andy Stern said, is a warning sign for Democrats.

“The only white men who have been voting Democratic are white union members. You’d think that would be a compelling case for Democrats, for self-preservation, to create more union members. That argument has failed miserably,” he said. “I think we have a political equation that works that has not translated to a change of behavior.”

Gingrich and Santorum Off Fox

Fox News reports:

Fox News contributors Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been put on leave from the cable news channel for 60 days, effective Wednesday, as the two contemplate whether they will run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

On May 1, contracts with Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, will be terminated unless they announce that they are not running for president.

The arrangement to suspend the contracts had been contemplated all along as the two have long been considered presidential possibilities. Gingrich has been a contributor since 1999 while Santorum joined the channel in 2007.

Gingrich sources announced earlier this week that he was close to making an announcement about his future in the coming weeks. He will be in Iowa next week and in Georgia on Thursday, but spokesman Rick Tyler said he will not announce plans to form an exploratory committee while in Georgia.

According to reports Santorum has traveled more than two dozen times to key primary states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina and has hired top political operatives in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fox News host Mike Huckabee and contributor Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, were not included in Wednesday's suspension list.

American Crossroads: 2012 Fundraising Goal

Brody Mullins writes at The Wall Street Journal:

Two conservative groups founded last year with the help of Republicans Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie have set a goal of raising $120 million in the effort to defeat President Barack Obama, win a GOP majority in the Senate and protect the party's grip on the House in the 2012 election.

That effort comes as Democratic groups are promising to raise tens of millions of dollars for their own independent advertising effort to help Mr. Obama win a second term. The arms race could result in a record level of spending on the 2012 campaign.

If the conservative groups meet the target disclosed to The Wall Street Journal, they would establish their organizations—American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS—as possibly the largest force in the 2012 campaign, aside from the presidential candidates themselves and the political parties.

...

Major labor unions have pledged a combined $30 million this year to oppose efforts by some Republican governors to eliminate collective bargaining across the country. That leaves unions with less money for the 2012 election.

"Every dollar [Republicans] force unions to spend protecting collective bargaining is a dollar that can't be spent on politics, representing workers or organizing new workers," said Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic political strategist for labor unions.

Leaders of the two Crossroads groups say they will focus on television advertising and other election activities, which could complement the Republican National Committee's focus on rallying Republican voters and funding state parties.

Campaign-finance rules give groups such as Crossroads an advantage over the RNC. Because political parties can't raise more than $30,000 from an individual, they must spend millions of dollars to raise money from thousands of donors.

Outside groups face no such caps, so they can raise larger amounts from fewer individuals, incurring smaller fund-raising expenses in the process. American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS disclosed in an annual report sent to donors this week that they spent 96% of the money raised on campaigns.

The RNC spent about 70% of its money for the 2010 campaign on fund raising and other overhead expenses.

Newt

ABC's Jonathan Karl reports that Newt Gingrich is about to run for president and that he has some challenges.

He's also been married three times and acknowledged problems in his personal life, a subject he was forced to address at a recent appearance at the University of Pennsylvania and one that is likely to come up again. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future ... that's a debate I'll be happy to have."

At the Washington Post, Gingrich asks no forgiveness for the 1995-96 government shutdown:

While the shutdown produced some short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. The discipline imposed by this budget - overall spending grew at an average of 2.9 percent a year while I was speaker of the House, the slowest rate in decades - allowed us to reach a balanced-budget deal in 1997.

At Politico, Andy Barr and Zachary Abrahamson write that Newt Gingrich has relied on a small number of wealthy donors, which he could not do in a presidential campaign.

It’s true that just by looking at the baseline fundraising numbers, the $14.5 million Gingrich’s America Solutions raised in 2010 swamps the competition. But when comparing American Solutions to any of the PACs run by the likes of Mitt Romney or Haley Barbour, it’s clear that Gingrich’s isn’t a hibernating presidential campaign, but is part of a sprawling enterprise that insiders call "Newt, Inc."

That organization includes a federal PAC and tax-exempt 527 (both named “American Solutions”) as well as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, “Renewing American Leadership” – whose donors are not disclosed. Gingrich also runs several niche consulting businesses as well as an online conservative magazine for conservative Hispanics.

...

And unlike the fundraising operations of other candidates in waiting, who use their cash to keep an operation intact, Gingrich isn’t spreading the wealth among a group of top-notch consultants ready to spring into action.

Almost every dollar raised by American Solutions is spent on "administrative" costs. Among the vendors is the Gingrich Group, a consulting firm run by Newt himself.

Another Gingrich consultancy, the Center for Health Transformation, reportedly charges several health care and pharmaceutical companies more than $100,000 a year in consulting fees.

Gingrich spent a huge percentage of American Solutions’ cash on plush travel, spending more than $2 million in just the last year on private planes and chauffeur services. That’s been Gingrich’s method of operation with American Solutions for years. In 2009 alone, Gingrich spent $585,000 on chartered flights.

Sean J. Miller reports at The Hill:

Newt Gingrich’s simultaneous courtship of the base of the Republican Party and Latino voters could pose major problems for his likely bid for the White House.

Gingrich, who is soon expected to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, frequently stresses the need for the GOP to reach out to Latinos. According to the 2010 census, Latinos are now the fastest-growing and largest minority group in the country.

Putting that call into practice, the former House Speaker has set up a bilingual news and opinion website directed at Latinos and has staked out a nuanced position on immigration reform that some critics have labeled amnesty.

At the same time, Gingrich has tried to woo conservative activists, coming out against the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site in lower Manhattan and calling for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency. 



The problem, according to some observers, is that Gingrich’s stance on immigration doesn’t lend itself to an easy explanation for a conservative talk-radio audience

Karl Rove and American Crossroads

Joe Hagan writes in New York Magazine:

In November 2008, Rove published a column in Newsweek, “A Way Out of the Wilderness.” Rove now points to that column as the genesis for American Crossroads. “What is it that Democrats have that we don’t have?” Rove says he asked himself.

What Democrats had was a massive money machine of well-organized ­political-action committees that had ground McCain to dust with TV ads and get-out-the-vote drives. For Rove, McCain’s hand-­wringing over the influence of corporate money was all well and good, but money was the game, period. Rove has often been cast as the reincarnation of President William McKinley’s political adviser, Mark Hanna, who famously said there are only two things important in politics: money and “I can’t remember what the second one is.”

Under Michael Steele, RNC was failing in this respect, and thus created an opening.

In truth, Rove didn’t have to work very hard. The prospect of Obama’s cap-and-trade policy was giving major heartburn to energy companies. “It’s like your doctor says you’ve got cancer and he pulls out a road map to recovery,” says Jim Francis, a close associate of billionaire oil magnate Trevor Rees-Jones, who gave $2 million to American Crossroads. “People were anxious to be supportive. And praying that it would work.”

The article adds a little detail to an earlier post about the Weaver Terrace Group:

Last spring, Rove was ready to don the crown. He gathered the old tribes together and effectively anointed himself their leader, holding a breakfast at his house in D.C. with eighteen leaders of rival pacs, including former Nixon and Bush 41 confidant and GOP fund-raiser Fred Malek, of American Action Network, and Mary Cheney, Dick’s daughter, representing the Partnership for America’s Future. The anxious group was packed into Rove’s cramped living room, his two massive, ceiling-high shelves of history books looming over them. Rove, the man who had won big elections for them before and promised to win more again, let his star power do the work.

“They went so they could tell their friends that they went to Karl Rove’s house,” says Steven Law. “That’s why I went.”

Rove proposed they coordinate their strategies. American Crossroads would clearly have been first among equals; by default, Rove would be the figurehead, the credibility, the brand. Afterward, they would even give the meeting a self-­consciously historic name, ready-made for the second volume of Rove’s memoirs: the Weaver Terrace Group, after Karl Rove’s street address.

As an earlier post noted, Rove did not like Harry Reid. But other things were at work in Nevada.

Rove knew he had to inoculate himself against tea-party insurrectionists if he was to keep his footing in the party. So his first, and defining, strategy idea for American Crossroads was to support a tea-party candidate in a marquee race: Sharron Angle, she of the “Second Amendment remedies,” against Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.

The investment was a classic Rovean gambit, a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose wager that put his new organization in the center of the action and on the right side, whichever side triumphed. If Angle won, American Crossroads had a huge Democratic pelt on the wall. If she lost, as she would, Rove’s skepticism of the tea party’s fringier elements would be proved correct. The bet was hedged. Rove, a realist prospecting for winners, his eyes fixed firmly on 2012, knew the deep-red base couldn’t win independents in a national race. As a former White House official who worked closely with Rove says, “Karl Rove is not a conservative. Karl Rove is a man who wins elections.”

The Web of Numbers

At Forbes, Joel Kotkin considers 2010 census numbers:

Despite all the media focus on an imagined “back to the city” movement, Americans continue to disperse to “opportunity regions” and toward the suburbs. As a result, expect generally conservative-leaning suburbs and exurbs to gain more power after reapportionment and core city influence to decline further.

Yet the Census numbers also have some unsettling aspects for Republicans. The increasing minority population even in heartland states such as Indiana, not to mention Texas, could undermine GOP gains, particularly if the party listens to its strong nativist wing. Diversification in the suburbs could ultimately turn some of these areas to the center or even left.

The new American generation arising in the census will be increasingly diverse. A growing portion will consist of the children of immigrants, and they will be predominately English-speaking. This suggests a more active and engaged minority population, perhaps susceptible to a pro-growth GOP message and the economy of “opportunity regions” but likely hostile to overtly anti-immigrants posturing.