Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post campaign finance reporter Matthew Mosk was online Friday, April 11 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Matthew Mosk: Good morning. Another busy day in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary. Bill Clinton is facing scrutiny for his recounting of that same vexing Bosnia trip. John McCain's campaign is knocking Barack Obama on the question of public financing for the general election. Folks on the Hill are digesting Iraq briefings, and everyone has an opinion on whether President Bush should go to China for the Olympics. Look forward to hearing what's on your minds.

_______________________

Chicago: Could you give us a snap shot of how the campaigning in Pennsylvania is going? Not what the candidates are doing, but the quantity and types of ads they have on TV and the radio and are sending through the mail? Is Obama still out spending Hillary four or five to one in paid media?

Matthew Mosk: This seems like a great place to start. As the Pennsylvania primary approaches we are seeing a ton of activity there, not just by the candidates, but also by independent groups. Barack Obama continues to outspend Hillary Clinton on television advertising there, though she is starting to close the gap. Obama went up on TV earlier, and has for awhile maintained about a four to one edge on network ads, and three to one on cable.

There is a ton of activity by labor unions. Last week Service Employees International Union put $700,000 into a door-to-door canvass and another $236,000 to pay for staff work in the state. They're backing Obama. The group EMILY's list, meanwhile, has reported yesterday spending another $50,000 on direct mail that supports Clinton.

And all these numbers should grow this week.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Eleven more days until April 22 ... can't get here fast enough, though I don't think any of the candidates have made a visit to my community here in the south hills. They may have confused Pittsburgh the city with the region -- especially some of the 'burbs here that don't necessarily swing for Hillary (more college-educated and tony) or for Barack (not interested in setting the world on fire).

Because I don't expect to see them marching into my town, perhaps they'll do a joint engagement. So my questions: Are there any real-time live television debates scheduled between the two Democrats between now and then? Any between these two scheduled between now and Denver? Thanks much.

Matthew Mosk: Live from the battlefield. Thanks for your question, Mt. Lebanon. In fact, you'll have the chance to see Clinton and Obama debate on Wednesday. I believe that one is on ABC.

_______________________

San Francisco: So how about Obama's "parallel public financing system"? How noble and principled of him to find a way around accepting public financing, as he promised back in November. But, seriously, he's joking about about this new system, right? A few days late for April Fools...?

washingtonpost.com: Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots (Post, April 11)

Matthew Mosk: There are a number of questions lined up about the story I wrote with colleague Alec MacGillis this morning about the other side of Barack Obama's fundraising operation -- the one that involves wealthy and influential "bundlers" who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from their co-workers and clients.

I start with this one because I think it's important to point out that the story does not intend to belittle the dramatic aspects of Obama's online fundraising this year. No question he has changed fundraising in significant ways. At the same time, it would be wrong for people to believe that the small donors are the only ones involved.

_______________________

Cedar Crest, N.M.: Good morning Matthew. Your article about Obama's fundraising seems to imply that his is beholden to the large donors who have contributed to his campaign. Wouldn't it have been fair to compare his fundraising to Hillary and McCain to put it into context? I think that you would agree that what Obama has done regarding raising money from small donors is unprecedented.

Matthew Mosk: Thanks for this question. Here's how we broke it down in the story: "The [Obama] campaign maintains that its fundraising success among average Americans has lessened its reliance on big donors. Donations of less than $200 account for nearly half of Obama's contributions, compared with a third of Clinton's and a quarter of Sen. John McCain's, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. More than 1 million people have given money to Obama's campaign."

_______________________

Henly, Texas: Matthew! You're just the guy I've been wanting to catch to ask this question: The Clinton campaign said it raised $20 million in March, but the actual report won't be released for a couple of weeks. I strongly suspect that a substantial portion of this take (if it actually is $20 million) may be in general election money. How much of the February take was general election money? How much of March's fundraising do you suspect is general-election-only? Does Clinton have to return general election funds to the donors should she not win the nomination? According to my math (and the stories of unpaid bills), her campaign must be running on fumes. Thanks!

Matthew Mosk: Henly! You're just the guy, er, town I wanted to hear from today!! So, here's the deal on this. For those who don't follow it closely, candidates are limited to raising $2,300 from any one donor for the primary, and then they can accept another $2,300 for the general. Campaigns could be lumping into their announced totals that general money, even though they cannot use it until after the August/Sept. conventions. At this stage of the game though, we've seen very little energy going into raising general money from Obama or Clinton. In fact, of the $34 million Clinton raised in February, $33 million was for the primary. I'd expect the same will be true for March, but we won't find out until reports come in on the 20th.

As for debt, Clinton did carry a fair bit of debt coming out of February (about $8.7 million) but they have argued that they are paying off those debts in the normal course of business.

_______________________

Anonymous: So Obama's average donation of $96 per donor includes these bundlers?

Matthew Mosk: Good question -- important distinction here is between donors and bundlers. No one person can give more than $2,300 during the primary. What the bundlers do is gather checks from lots and lots of people, either by hosting fundraisers or by calling up friends and coworkers (and sometimes employees) and asking them to give. The bundler then gets credit for the money they've raised. The top bundlers get a lot of special access in each of these campaigns, such as briefings from campaign strategists, meetings with the candidate, invitations to special events (members of Obama's national finance team got to attend his fundraiser at Oprah Winfrey's Santa Barbara mansion.)

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Great pieces in The Fix on the New Jersey Democratic primary between Rep. Andrews and Sen. Lautenberg. My take as a former New Jersey resident is that turnout in a nonpresidential primary is going to be very low. Andrews is going to need to secure a couple more county lines to become more viable. What do you think?

washingtonpost.com: The Fix: Andrews Unfazed by N.J. 'Power Structure' (washingtonpost.com, April 9)

Matthew Mosk: As a Fix fan and former New Jersey reporter, I can't help but post this item. Thanks Alexandria!

_______________________

Washington: Hi Mr. Mosk -- thanks for taking my question. John McCain opted into public financing for the primary, according to the Republican chairman of the FEC. He used the certification as basis for a loan and to qualify for the ballot on many states. Now that he has secured the nomination, he insists that he has opted out of public financing and the campaign finance limits that go along with a promise of federal funds.

The limit on primary spending is around $55 million. What is the current amount that McCain has spent? The last filing I saw was more than $59 million, which puts him over the limit. What are the penalties that might be assessed against the McCain campaign, and which staffers are at risk of either fines or jail time for willingly ignoring the campaign limits? Can McCain "straight talk" his way out of this issue? He is, after all, the McCain of McCain-Feingold, and campaign finance reform has been one of his "maverick" issues.

washingtonpost.com: Campaign Finance Reform Group Targets McCain (washingtonpost.com, April 9)

Matthew Mosk: This is a complicated issue, and you've done a good job of laying it out.

Unfortunately, it's even more complicated than this. You're right that the FEC chairman wrote a letter to McCain saying he should not assume he had withdrawn from the public financing system. Problem is, the chairman is only one of two FEC commissioners empaneled right now. The remaining four seats are vacant pending confirmation of four nominees that has languished in the U.S. Senate.

The real point the chairman was making was, until the FEC is convened, and can vote, it's very hard to know what McCain's status is.

McCain's campaign has said, essentially, they're moving on. They can't wait forever to find out if they are entitled to withdraw. The Democrats have challenged this, but guess who hears their challenge? The FEC.

_______________________

Washington: I don't get the point of the article on Obama's bundlers. We knew that -- and we know that a larger portion of his donors are new, and donate small amounts of money.

Matthew Mosk: I think this is a fair question -- but the truth is that, outside a small circle, not very much is known or discussed about the reach of Obama's major donor program. The point of this article was to make sure people knew about it. And if he reaches the White House, people will know who may be exerting influence on his administration.

_______________________

Newburyport, Mass.: Was Elton John paid for his performance at the Hillary raise-a-thon? If not, isn't it illegal for a foreign citizen to donate to a U.S. election? I understand he lives in Atlanta, but that doesn't automatically make him a national. If it did, he'd have to lose the Sir moniker. That's also against federal law. Can you clean this up a bit? Thanks.

Matthew Mosk: I had an editor ask me the same question when this concert was announced. What campaign lawyers say about this is that Elton John's concert is not an in-kind donation. He is, in essence, a volunteer -- he's volunteering his time to perform on Clinton's behalf. Anyone from anywhere can volunteer on a campaign. But... and there is a but... if anyone working on the concert is being paid -- lighting crews, sound guys, whatever -- the campaign has to cover those costs or their efforts would, indeed, be an in-kind contribution.

_______________________

Henly's second question: What happens to all that money raised for the general (post-convention) election campaign when a candidate who loses? Assuming Obama gets the nomination, does Clinton have to give her money back, or can she roll it over to her Senate campaign? If she were named vice president, would she be able to use it for the "Obama-Clinton" campaign? Thanks!

Matthew Mosk: This is the real nitty-gritty, Henly. If the candidate does not win the nomination, all the general money he or she has raised has to be returned to the donors. Period.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.:"The Democrats have challenged this, but guess who hears their challenge? The FEC." Well, but that's not as far as it goes -- this is just first step, as I understand it. If FEC can't rule, the Democrats can take it to court.

Matthew Mosk: We're bouncing between a few issues here, so stay with us...

Helena is right. The Democrats can take it to court. But it's not likely this will be resolved any time soon. The questions the Democratic National Committee has raised here are very interesting questions. The McCain's campaign has a very interesting position as well. If the DNC pushes the issue, a judge will have to sort it out.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Bill Clinton is now blaming the media for Hillary's Bosnia story. All I can think is he is trying to destroy her while appearing to support her. I mean, even if her explanation is true -- that lack of sleep made her imagine sniper fire that never happened -- how does that help her? Given all the 3 a.m. calls presidents get, I really don't want someone for whom sleep deprivation causes hallucinations of enemy fire to be in charge of the launch codes.

washingtonpost.com: Bill Clinton Retells Hillary's 1996 Bosnia Story (ABCNews.com, April 10)

Matthew Mosk: Bill Clinton's role in the campaign continues to be one of the most interesting stories of 2008. He is helping her in a myriad of ways -- for one, he's an extremely successful fundraiser and perhaps the best surrogate on the campaign trail any Democrat could hope for. On the other hand, episodes like this one, which seem to distract from his wife, and in this case puts a damaging story back into circulation. I can't wait to see how the biographers handle him when this is all over.

_______________________

Williamsburg, Va.: In the limited coverage of the release of the Clinton's taxes, I've seen next to nothing on the $15 million Bill got from Burkle. We know they're party buddies, but what did Bill do to deserve $15 million? That's almost a quarter of everything he earned! Burkle is a legendary scumbag -- why no media interest?

washingtonpost.com: Clintons Earned $109 Million in 8 Years (Post, April 5)

Matthew Mosk: Speaking of the former President, this is an interesting question about the couple's tax returns. I'll choose to ignore the last line. But I can address somewhat your question. Much has, in fact, been written about Bill Clinton's work for Yucaipa, which is the investment fund founded by longtime Clinton friend and patron, Ron Burkle. What we know is that he helped identify investment opportunities and helped recruit investors. Some of the investment was domestic, while other investments involved overseas ventures.

_______________________

Monroeville, Pa.: There are so few Democrats living in wealthy Mt. Lebanon that a liberal friend of mine there registered Republican just because whoever wins the Republican primaries for local seats generally wins the general election. So Mt. Lebanon is demographically untypical of the Pittsburgh area.

Matthew Mosk: I'm not sure about that, but I can tell you that there has been a surge in Democratic registrations in Pennsylvania. Some suburban Philadelphia counties that were majority-Republican have flipped. This is likely the biggest benefit for Democrats of seeing the party's primaries go on and on.

_______________________

McCain and the FEC: So if the Democrats take the issue to court and (years later) the judge decides that McCain did in fact violate the public financing requirements. Wouldn't that mean jail time for McCain? What if he were in the White House at the time?

Matthew Mosk: Fair question. Jail time is only an option if McCain knowingly violates the spending limits. In this case, as his lawyers have told me, they believe they have done everything necessary to withdraw from the campaign. The law is silent on this -- whether the FEC needs to vote, or whether he can withdraw by merely writing a letter and announcing he is out. So I imagine it would be very tough to argue that he knowingly violated the law.

_______________________

Detroit: Yesterday Bob Woodward spoke at Wayne State University in Detroit and said that the Bush administration has done nothing even close to the level of what the Nixon administration had done in terms of abuses of power and illegal activities. His remarks were recorded and are now a matter of public record, but the question I have -- and unfortunately was not asked of Woodward after he made this claim -- is whether, to the best of your knowledge, this view is shared widely throughout the mainstream media?

washingtonpost.com: Woodward tackles Iraq war at forum (Detroit News, April 11)

Matthew Mosk: This is an interesting question. I think the mistake here is to believe there is a consistently held view across the mainstream media.

_______________________

Bloomington, Ind: Good morning Matthew. Seems like it would be a good political point if both McCain and Obama/Clinton refused public financing. Then they could suggest that the combined saving of $300 million public money be used in some nonpartisan way to help ease the economic pain we're feeling now. Remember, campaign contributions are not tax deductible. The net effect would be that the public would net about $600 million to $700 million, and we could sure use it now.

Matthew Mosk: I have no idea if this idea is feasible or legal. ... I've just called the FEC to see what happens to the money set aside for public financing if the candidates opt out.

Matthew Mosk: FEC spokesman Bob Biersack tells me the money cannot be diverted to some other purpose if it's not used by the candidate. Instead, it gets saved in a separate account to be used for future elections.

_______________________

Matthew Mosk: I'm always surprised, but pleased, to see how much interest there is in the way our elections our financed. These were terrific questions. Thank you all for participating, and I look forward to meeting you all here again soon.

Have a great weekend.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.