Politico: Dems soliciting ads from lobbyists for its “official” convention magazine, corporate donations as well

posted at 1:16 pm on May 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama insists that corporations and lobbyists will have nothing to do with funding the Democratic National Convention, a requirement that has put convention organizers into an $20-million hole.  They recently tried to get unions to fill the gap, but apparently didn’t get much response from their sales pitch.  On Thursday, the co-chair of the convention told Politico that he’s certain the unions will write the big check … eventually:

“My belief is they will support us,” Rogers told POLITICO on Thursday. “I think the issue is not whether. I think the question is how much. And I hope that they step up and give us the same level of support which they did in the Denver convention.”

Democrats are about $20 million short of their $36.6 million fundraising goal for the convention in large part because of labor groups sitting on the sidelines, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. Unions gave about $8 million to support the 2008 DNC, but they’ve largely balked over Charlotte because North Carolina is a right-to-work state.

But Rogers, the CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy, said labor groups would be hurting themselves if they remained on the sidelines.

“For them to take a powder on the convention because it’s a right-to-work state is kind of sending a message that we’re really not interested in the unionization of people in right-to-work states,” he said. “And if that’s a signal they’d want to send, I don’t think that’s in their best interest because more and more states are moving to be right-to-work states.”

Actually, what it says is that unions don’t want to drop millions of dollars supporting cities and states with right-to-work laws.  If unions want to try organizing in Charlotte, they can do that directly and not put money into the hands of non-union shops.  That’s only one of the curious points of the DNC’s decision to stage the convention in North Carolina, a move that’s starting to look like a huge mistake, especially after over 20% of North Carolina Democrats refused to vote for Obama in the primary despite having no opponent in the race.  Almost 200,000 specifically chose “no preference” over Obama.

Rogers might still believe that unions will contribute, but he also apparently has a back-up plan.  Politico reports this morning that the publisher of the “official” convention magazine has hit up the American League of Lobbyists to buy some advertising, despite the supposed ban on their participation in the event:

 A publisher promoting an “official” national convention magazine for Democratic National Committee, which rejects political contributions from registered lobbyists, has asked theAmerican League of Lobbyists in an email and phone call to purchase an advertisement in its national convention magazine, the League confirms to PI. The ad ( http://bit.ly/K2r8Tk) for the “2012 Democratic National Convention Official Magazine,” being produced by the Connecticut-based H.O. Zimman Inc. publishing house, would cost between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on size. …

A representative from H.O. Zimman could not be reached for comment Friday. But in an email (http://bit.ly/K7cf6s) this week to the league, a company representative writes that the league “may be interested in visibility to this powerful audience … the publication will have very limited advertising.”

So far, the response to this sales pitch more or less matches the response from the unions … pound sand.  Howard Marlowe tells Politico that the league doesn’t have the money for that kind of advertising, but if it did, he’d buy one that tells Obama to “stop bashing lobbyists.”  Or at the very least, stop bashing lobbyists while issuing a snowstorm of waivers to hire them and finding backdoor ways to beg for money from them.

Meanwhile, the pledge against corporate money looks expired as well:

Democrats have trumpeted their ban on corporate donations to their national convention this summer, saying that it shows they are free from the influence of special interests.

But through a special fund, convention planners are accepting millions of dollars in corporate contributions to help pay for many of the activities outside the convention hall—as well as some expenses directly related to the event. Donors include Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp.and Duke Energy Corp., all significant employers in Charlotte, N.C., where the convention will be held in early September.

The fund, called New American City Inc., plans to raise more than $10 million to cover convention expenses, including salaries for convention workers, promotional materials and overhead. Costs also include entertainment for delegates and others, such as a welcoming party for the media that will feature celebrity performers and as many as 10,000 guests.

The new “evolution” from the DNC is that none of this money will go toward the formal nominating process, which consists of spending an hour or so polling the state delegations, or for Obama’s speech at, er, Bank of America Stadium on the last day of the convention.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Didn’t take you that long to inject the man’s race into this didn’t it? And you wonder why blacks will never accept you tea billies hate the man simply because he’s a black man occupying the “people’s” house.

HotAirLib on May 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.

Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2