Incidentally, Hoffmann has no aversion to being called partisan. "Are we partisan? Absolutely, we are partisan," he says. "This man [Kerry] is not qualified or fit to be the commander of the United States." But, he added, SBVT, has "absolutely no connection with the Republican party, the Democratic party or any other party, for that matter."
"These smears against John Kerry are as unbelievable as the authors themselves," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "John O'Neill never even met John Kerry in Vietnam, and his co-author Jerome Corsi has made offensive anti-Catholic, anti-religious slurs. It's telling that the campaign against John Kerry has stooped to using these uncredible individuals to shop around these sleazy smears."
Corsi has publicly acknowledged making the statements attributed to him by Media Matters and has apologized, saying they were made in jest and not meant to offend anyone.
And in my interview with him, O'Neill acknowledged that only one of the SBVT members actually served in Kerry's boat. But he said that misses the point -- the other former crewmen worked in close proximity to Kerry and have eyewitness accounts that contradict the senator's version of events. While he said he respected the opinions of those like McCain who have criticized the group for distorting Kerry's record, he said SBVT's members have a duty and have earned the right to speak out "against a man who came back home and falsely accused us of being war criminals and lied about his own record."
Campaign Finance Reform Fight Continues
Three non-partisan campaign finance watchdog groups have filed a complaint against SBVT, saying it is skirting the new federal campaign finance law that prohibits groups seeking to influence federal elections from accepting unlimited soft money. Instead, those groups should take only hard money, just as the political parties do.
For those who will argue that this is just a bunch of liberals trying to stop the word about Kerry from getting out, these same watchdog groups previously filed complaints against left-leaning groups, using the argument that they were violating federal law on Kerry's behalf. The Washington Post and other major media outlets covered those complaints and the issue of liberal efforts to skirt the law quite comprehensively earlier this year.
"In this particular case, you have a group that was formed for the sole purpose of influencing the presidential election," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, one of the groups that have filed FEC complaints against both SBVT and liberal groups. "We have one of the members of the group admitting that that is its goal. In our view this is an open and shut case of a group whose purpose is to influence a federal election."
So why does this make a difference? If these watchdog groups are correct in their interpretation of the law, it would limit the ability of people like Perry on the right and Soros on the left from using their vast financial resources to influence what voters do in November.
Just today, the Media Fund, a group founded by former Clinton White House adviser Harold Ickes and funded largely by millions of dollars from Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis, announced to reporters in a conference call a new television ad running in Ohio slamming Bush for his handling of the economy.
"You can't give companies tax breaks to take American jobs away," Edward Lucas, of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, says in the new ad.
However much Kerry supporters may gripe about SBVT, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity -- which has filed its own complaints against SBVT -- has found that almost 95 percent of contributions to 527 groups this year have gone to Democratic-leaning organizations. Democrats can complain about SBVT, but it may be a can of worms they opened themselves with their aggressive efforts to navigate around the spirit of the very campaign finance law they championed.
The FEC has indicated it might take up the 527 issue this month. But even if it bars groups on both sides from spending unlimited, unregulated cash on clear efforts to influence the election, it'll probably be too late. A small handful of rich people will again have already spent tens of millions of dollars to make their point.
