Foster goes on the offensive
BY DAVE PARRO
Update (2/8): MajorityAP.com has posted a follow-up story on the possible violation of House ethics rules discussed below. Tom Bowen, Foster's campaign manager, says the Democratic candidate was a campaign volunteer for Rep. Patrick Murphy in late 2006. After Murphy took office, Foster was an unpaid scientific advisor in early 2007. Bowen said he doesn't think that's a House ethics violation.
Update (2/11): MajorityAP.com has posted another follow-up story in response to Murphy's explanation of Foster's role on his staff. Murphy says Foster was exempt from House ethics rules because his role did not "supplant the normal and regular duties of paid employees" as a scientific advisor. The rules, however, still seem to require a "clearly defined program" for the volunteer that has an educational benefit.
In response to a story posted on the Majority Accountability Project's Web site Thursday, congressional candidate Bill Foster issued a press release predicting 30 days of mud-slinging leading up to the March 8 special election.
But instead of simply defending himself against the accusation raised by the pro-Republican MajorityAP, which wasn't really necessary because it wasn't all that damning, Foster's campaign went on and on slinging mud at Jim Oberweis' spokesman and conservative groups.
So much for staying above the fray.
Foster's defense against the charge that he wasn't on the congressional staff of Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., -- an accusation that probably would have gone unnoticed if he hadn't drawn attention to it himself -- amounts to one line:
Foster did, in fact, campaign for Murphy and was an unpaid staffer after Murphy's election.
He spills a lot of ink, however, on Oberweis campaign manager Bill Pascoe, saying the "New Jersey political strategist ... has a long history of dirty politics." He goes on to say that "Pascoe's credibility is also debatable, and his strong-arm tactics turn off voters and media members alike."
He opens the press release with this statement:
The next 30 days will bring not just snow to the 14th District, but a lot of mud as well. This morning's opening salvo from an outside group was just the beginning of the nasty politics that are guaranteed to come before the March 8 special election.
Fosters campaign seems to be taking the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach to this campaign. It has worked well for Oberweis, who beat state Sen. Chris Lauzen by 15 points in the GOP primary, so maybe he knows what's coming and wanted to send a message that he can play dirty, too.
Any hope of a clean campaign just went out the window.
UPDATE (4:45 p.m.): Mike Brady, president and managing editor at MajorityAP.com, just called to point out that House ethics rules forbid volunteers from working on congressional staffs unless it has educational value to the individual employed. As he pointed out in a follow-up e-mail, "Even if (Foster) were a fellow or a 52 year-old intern, it would have to have 'educational value,' per House rules. As I noted, I doubt the ethics committee would deem planning a future run for Congress an 'educational value.' His defense now raises questions over whether Murphy violated ethics rules by allowing him to volunteer in the office."
Interesting. Again, why did Foster even call attention to this? Follow this link to find the House ethics rules on staff rights and duties.
Here's the text that applies:
VOLUNTEERS, INTERNS, FELLOWS, AND DETAILEES ... In Advisory Opinion No. 6, interpreting the unofficial office account prohibition, the House Select Committee on Ethics, 95th Congress, concluded that in addition to money, Rule 45 prohibits the private, in-kind contribution of goods or services for official purposes. ...The Select Committee did, however, recognize several exceptions ...
... Intern, fellowship, or similar educational programs that are primarily of educational benefit to the individual, as opposed to primarily benefiting the Member or office, and which do not give undue advantage to special interest groups.
Here's a good summary.
Brady also says MajorityAP has no association with Oberweis, Pascoe, the NRCC, or any other party candidate or committee. The Web site claims to be independent but is geared toward keeping the House majority accountable, aka, the Democrats.
He also wanted to point out that the flier was not doctored, as Foster claims; the Web site just highlighted the relevant portion. See the flier here and here.
Comments
Dave, your off-handed explaination regarding the nature of majorityap.com, at the end of your blog entry, does very little to clarify for the readers the partisan nature of the group. Allowing them to beg off their right-wing pursuits only serves to further muddle this situation for those trying to track this story.
I would rather let the House of Representatives deal with Rep. Murphy. They have an Ethics Committee that can investigate this matter. It's really up to them to decide if a rule has been violated, not Mr. Brady.
Majority AP is a right-wing attack outfit that makes a living off beating up PA Democrats. That doesn't make them wrong, but that information is relevant to context of the revelation and it should have been a key part of your analysis.
Posted by: Plainfieldrob | February 8, 2008 10:44 AM
I'm always amused when a Democrat defender attacks the accuser rather than discuss the facts. The facts don't appear to be in dispute and while I agree that it's not up to Mr. Brady to determine whether House ethics rules have been violated, I would point out that it's not up to Mr. Foster's campaign manager, either.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:49 PM
I don't think I was attacking. Rather, I was offering Dave constructive criticism regarding how he failed to highlight the partisan nature of majorityap.com until the very end of his entry. In my view, the right-wing slant of this orgnaization is relevant to the story regadless of the merit of the charges. Fully revealing this sort of information in a timely manner (not at the end, and with more than a nod/wink) gives respect to the reader who can then draw an educated conclusion.
It sounds like we are all happy to let the Ethics Committee to deal with this issue raised by Mr. Brady.
Posted by: Plainfieldrob | February 8, 2008 01:49 PM
RESPONSE FROM DAVE PARRO:
Rob,
I thought my statement in the second paragraph of my original post that MajorityAP.com is "pro-Republican" was sufficient. I agree that the partisan affilation is relevant. My comment at the end was added because Brady disagreed with my assessment, and I wanted to be fair in offering him a chance to respond.
Posted by: Dave Parro | February 8, 2008 01:59 PM
Dave, thanks for responding.
I now see your ealier reference. I think you got my point, and I clearly see you were upfront with your description.
I have no problem with you guys labeling sites liberal or conservative or whatever. It just adds depth to the story.
Posted by: Plainfieldrob | February 8, 2008 02:27 PM
This is a joke; but it sums up politics so well.
THIS IS A NONPARTISAN JOKE THAT CAN BE ENJOYED BY BOTH PARTIES! NOT ONLY THAT, it is POLITICALLY CORRECT!!
While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck
and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a
problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not
sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the man.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you
spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose
where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rule s."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down,
down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle
of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing infront of
it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, Shake his
hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while
getting Rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and
champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has agood time
dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time
that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises..
The elevat or goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is
waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving
from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a
good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter
returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your
eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would Never have
said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I
think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land
covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in
black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't
understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and
there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank
champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of
garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today
you voted."
Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2008 09:53 AM