TV campaign ad
under fire
Paid for by a Virginia group,
By Pete Pichaske
it attacked Abercrombie and escaped
spending scrutiny
Star-BulletinWASHINGTON -- At the center of the bruising national debate over campaign spending abuses is a little-known Virginia organization whose work is familiar to almost everyone in Hawaii who watches television. Citizens for Reform spent $53,500 in Hawaii last year on a television ad attacking Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Honolulu, and lauding his Republican opponent, Orson Swindle.
The 30-second spot, broadcast 142 times on KHON, KITV and KGMB in the five days before the election, was part of a $2 million campaign by Citizens for Reform that is under growing scrutiny from critics of campaign spending practices.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which is leading the probe into campaign spending abuses, recently subpoenaed Citizens for Reform and a handful of similar organizations.
Government watchdog groups are condemning the organizations' practices as underhanded and unfair.
"It's the latest loophole in the election laws, allowing unlimited, unreported spending from sources unregulated by spending laws," said Bob Schiff, an attorney for Congress Watch, lobbying arm of Ralph Nader's consumer group Public Citizen.
"It makes a mockery of efforts to close down the influence of special interests and gives an unfair advantage to candidates they support," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity.
Critics like Schiff and Lewis agree that the use of "issue ads" by tax-exempt groups like Citizens for Reform to promote candidates is one of the most troublesome campaign tactics -- and one of the fastest growing.
Citizens for Reform's Hawaii ad was hard to miss.
It began with idyllic shots of Hawaii, then segued into a series of complimentary words and pictures of Swindle. The Republican candidate was described as having a "proud military record," and serving "above and beyond the call of duty."
As the bright music suddenly became more ominous, a scowling Abercrombie appeared on screen. The narrator quoted a description of the congressman as an unrepentant liberal who supported a "massive welfare state" and favored "dismantling the military."
"Call them both," the narrator concluded, as the two candidates' telephone numbers appeared on screen. "Let them know how you feel."
The ad, identified as being paid for by Citizens for Reform, is similar to ads and mass mailings used by Citizens for Reform in 15 congressional districts.
The ads attacked a candidate but were careful not to endorse anyone.
They were thus considered "issue ads" and not subject to the usual limits and disclosures that govern campaign contributions.
"They're like electronic voter guides," said Peter Flaherty, who founded Citizens for Reform in May 1996 and serves as its president. "We don't use advocacy words, so we don't cross the line. ... We're talking about speech that needs protection -- political speech."
Flaherty, who also heads the Conservative Campaign Fund political action committee and is a former chairman of the Citizens for Reagan lobby, said his organization supports political reform -- specifically, changes like term limits, which restrict the power of "professional politicians" and reduce the size and scope of government.
He said Citizens for Reform is sponsoring ads in 10 states targeting the issue of partial-birth abortions, which the group opposes.
Flaherty said he has met Swindle but did not contact him about the Hawaii ads. He said his group was drawn to the Hawaii race by the contrast between Swindle and Abercrombie. He denied that the ads were purely pro-Swindle.
"That's in the eye of the beholder," he said. People who agree with Abercrombie's liberal views, said Flaherty, could have been persuaded by the ads to vote for him.
Swindle, asked about the ads this week, said he only vaguely remembered them. He said he had nothing to do with their production and had never heard of Citizens for Reform.
If you limit such ads, Swindle said, "you are in effect advocating the abolition of people's right to convey their opinion ... I don't think the founding fathers meant for people to spend tens of thousands of dollars on campaigns, but I don't think they wanted to limit people's ability to express opinions either."
Abercrombie had a different view.
"These are secret groups that are undermining democracy," he said.
"These people came into Hawaii, you don't know who they are, and they engage in character assassination on me ... and then steal off into the night.
"These ads are obviously for Orson Swindle. Why can't they say it? Why shouldn't they, like everybody else, have full disclosure?"
To other critics, the most troubling aspects of such ads are the mystery surrounding their funding and the opportunity they offer for wealthy individuals or corporations to spend huge amounts of money on a candidate without revealing it.
