Reporter and political analyst Dan Balz writes that the GOP has plenty to think about as it faces the outcome of Tuesday’s elections.
At a time when the party’s image has sunk to record lows nationally, the results of the gubernatorial elections will reverberate far beyond the borders of Virginia and New Jersey. Off-year elections are hardly foolproof in predicting the future, but as GOP leaders digest what happened Tuesday, the lessons they take away from the races after their autumn of discontent will shape the coming rounds. ...WaPo
Chris Christie is now a 2016 front-runner in a party that has been ripped apart by its right wing. Christie, a “moderate” who is said to be a political and administrative bully, continues his governorship in what is usually a blue state.
The question is whether Christie’s leadership from the White House would be accepted by the deep reds who are attempting to take over the party.
His victory in a solidly blue state will be touted as a model for a party that needs to expand its coalition in national campaigns. But will the formula Christie employed in New Jersey work in Republican primaries and caucuses or in a national election for president? …WaPo
Virginia is on track to becoming a blue — maybe a bluish purple — state with the election of McAuliffe. Still, his tea party opponent didn’t lose much more than a bare 1%.
Whatever else, Balz writes, “The outcomes set up a battle for power between competing wings of the Republican Party.”
This competition is less about ideology or policy — there is no disunity, for example, when it comes to the party’s dislike of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act — than about purity vs. pragmatism, tactics and strategy. Or, as Christie has put it, it is about winning an argument vs. winning elections. …WaPo
Not that much has changed. Christie’s win rescues more pragmatic Republicans from their defensive crouch while “Cuccinilli’s narrow loss will not necessarily change the underlying shape of the party or the attitudes of many grass-roots conservatives about the need to oppose Obama and the Democrats at every turn.”
___
NPR has begun a series of investigative reports into dubious sources of election money — particularly the growth of “social welfare” groups backing rightwing candidates and issues. The use of 501(c)(4) IRS tax exemptions to influence elections is under scrutiny.
One pioneer in this activity is the Wellspring Committee, founded in 2008. Based in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, it has raised $24 million, and distributed nearly $16.9 million to other social welfare groups. Using tax records, the NPR-CRP investigation identified three of its donors – other social welfare groups – and found they accounted for just over $251,000, or one percent of Wellspring’s revenues.
Wellspring’s president is Ann Corkery, an active figure within the social conservative movement. Over the years, she has been involved with the National Organization for Marriage, Catholic League and other groups working on social issues.
Wellspring, however, says it focuses on economic matters. It told the IRS in its application for tax-exempt status that it would “assist other like-minded organizations in promoting free market policies and principles.” It also would help other organizations “in developing messaging strategies,” apparently drawing on Corkery’s experience as a lawyer specializing in reputation campaigns. …NPR
The campaign to buy elections for rightwing candidates is widespread. It’s local as well as national.
NPR and the Center for Responsive Politics investigated the world of these secretive social welfare groups, using tax records to track money not otherwise reported and found that millions of dollars is traded between groups. CRP data show that their federal political spending between the 2004 and 2012 election cycles. It’s an abrupt swing in campaign financing.
We also found that significant sums of money are moved around within networks of social welfare groups, as some organizations finance others. Overall, transfers among the groups have exceeded $386 million since 2008.
Conservative groups are better financed and more numerous than liberal groups — at least so far. For example, CRP data show that in the 2012 presidential, Senate and House campaigns, conservative groups constitute five of the six 501(c)(4)s that spent more than $10 million in explicitly political advertising. …NPR