The Virginian-Pilot
©
Few letters make my right pinky twitch more than "ICYMI," an Internet acronym for "in case you missed it," often employed by political operatives hoping to take a bite out of an opponent by forwarding a news story/blog item/photo/video/tweet/Facebook post/graffito/cave painting.
Even in an election year, most of those emails can safely be trashed without opening. Despite advancing technology, real dirt still arrives mostly by phone and mostly because calls leave no trail.
But we're not in an election year. We're in the summer 15 months before the next federal Election Day, and the laziest habits of the political class are on full display. It's all ICYMI all the time.
Much of the ICYMI mail in Virginia's 2nd Congressional District - predictably - centers around Paul Hirschbiel, the financier who recently announced that he would run as a Democrat against incumbent Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican.
I wouldn't know Hirschbiel if I stole his bar stool. We know some of the same people, and I've met his wife, but that's the extent of our acquaintance.
So I can't be sure, but I'm inclined to think it's not entirely correct when the National Republican Congressional Committee says that Hirschbiel is unqualified to be an actual human being.
"Paul Hirschbiel may be making his first bid for office, but he already has a long record as a flip-flopping career politician who routinely puts principle aside to do what's best for himself," fulminated Tory Mazzola, the NRCC's spokesman.
I mean, my goodness, who would vote for a politician so unprincipled? Lest you think Mazzola was simply making unsupported accusations, he backs up his charges with facts.
The problem with "the Real Hirschbiel" is... that... "[i]n 1999 he donated $1,000 to George W. Bush. In 2007, he donated $1,000 to Mitt Romney. In total, Hirschbiel has given $33,250 to the GOP."
The monster.
Aside from the simple absurdity of the GOP attacking a Democrat because he also supported Republicans and is therefore insufficiently Democratic, the NRCC's attack is blunted by this fact: Rigell has contributed to Democrats himself, including President Barack Obama.
(Note to the NRCC: When you send out an ICYMI, you don't do your credibility any favors when you edit out the bit about your own guy's contributions.)
Rigell has explained his check-writing as part of some ineffective political mischief, and Hirschbiel's inelegant explanation centered on securing political access.
Doesn't really matter. What matters is the presumption, employed by Rigell's opponents in 2008 and by folks fighting on his behalf now, that candidates must adhere to a certain partisan purity or disqualify themselves from politics.
Such arguments, of course, are logically silly. They depend on the rest of us adapting our morality to people and situations rather than the other way around. They depend on our believing that politics is a crusade in which compromise is the same thing as apostasy.
I don't give money to political candidates because my professional ethics forbid it. But if I did, I'd give money to people I believe in. And I can tell you right now that those folks come in all kinds of flavors: Republican, Democratic and many whose political affiliation I don't know.
More importantly, though, is that I give my vote to the men and women who have earned it, either by having better ideas, or having more potential. My vote has never been predicated on a candidate's contributions, or purity measured on some interest group's infinitely flexible ruler.
I can think of few things more destructive to national unity than elevating partisan unity above it. But, in case you missed it, that's precisely what political parties do.
Donald Luzzatto is The Pilot's editorial page editor. Email: donald.luzzatto@pilotonline.com.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
"who routinely puts principle aside to do what's best for himsel
"who routinely puts principle aside to do what's best for himself"
Tony probably forgot to mention Scott Rigell taking stimulus money while railing against it.
Hypocrisy?
Yet another argument cut and pasted directly from the DNC talking points.
Any candidate who was against the Stimulus(1,2, and possibly 3?)should not have taken any of the money for his or her constituents?
Ridiculous. The taxpayers Rigell represent(and their children, and their children's children) will be forced to pay for this governmental largesse. Not getting back a share of the monies voted out of their pockets would add to the crime. Pres. Obama's own economists have put the price tag at $278,000 per job saved or created. If this was a business, the Board of Directors(the voters) would have fired the CEO and the CFO long ago.
Well said
Well said Don; it is regretful that a citizen needs to affirm that his vote will be based on the rational evaluation of issues instead of on blind allegiance to ones party affiliation. Since both candidates in this race have contributed to candidates outside their party, that is refreshing in and of itself. However, in today's hyper partisan environment, it is increasingly rare. I think Hirschbiel has the intelligence, the knowledge of issues, the community connections, the business acumen, and the communication skills to take on an incumbent, always a tough challenge, and beat him handily. One reason for that is that Rigell is certainly at the far right of the political spectrum, and frankly, many business oriented republicans, now called RINOs, who may have voted for Mark Warner, feel that the Party has left them on the sidelines, to be replaced by hard right, ideological, angry and frustrated, super partisans. Hirschbiel will appeal to the independents and centrists in the middle of the political spectrum, and as a pragmatice businessman who has worked hard on community initiatives, he is a candidate to be reckoned with.
It isn't so much to whom he contributed
rather it is why (by his own admission) he contributed to both parties. Everyone complains bitterly about the influence of corporations and the wealthy on the political process. Here we have a person who admits to buying access to politicians that is running for office. Does anyone think he won't be selling access to himself if he gets elected?
In this day and age..
$33,000 cumulatively does'nt buy that much influence, much less $1,000. Although, it just might pick up a lunch tab.
So you are saying he plays
the game badly? It wasn't the amount, or the party, that I had issue with, it was his purpose for donating. By his own admission he was not donating money to these people because he believed in their message, or thought they would make good representatives. He donated to them to gain access to them.
My pet peeve is campaign money
He admits buying access.
Why does anyone donate large sums to candidates or incumbents if not to get, or certainly expect, favorable legislation or access?
That is why I think only those who can actually cast a ballot for the candidate should be able to donate to his campaign. After all, why should my representative be beholden to foreign companies, out of state organizations, a union local in Nevada, or some mogul in Hollywood.
And there should be a reasonable cap, perhaps %1500/per campaign.
And these donations are limited to a few weeks or months just before an election. This keeps the legislative year free from annoying 'bribes' and endless fundraisers.
The candidate will have to convince his actual constituency about his qualifications rather than Koch, Soros or Exxon-Mobil.
Of course, for this to ever happen would require Congress to pass a law that removes easy money insuring employment.
This probably is detached from reality.
The basic gordian knot
One thing I think you underestimate is the Congress' willingness to pass a law to reform campaign finance. It really isn't the money which interests them. I believe it is the fact that, today, the money is the key to getting elected (or re-elected), which drives them. As long as they all have to play by the same rules I don't think they really care what the rules are on campaign finance. It is the people on the outside, who see the campaign donation as access to the politician, who would be more upset. They are the ones who would have to be fought for reform. After all, it is their access which you would threaten.
I like the idea about limiting the time frame. Although I think the limitation needs to be on the candidate not on the people.