McConnell: My Troops for an Mp3 Player!

Submitted by Katie Schlieper on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 9:36am.

Sen. Mitch McConnell backed a company that wanted $8.3 million to send mp3 players to Afghan tribesmen, while the lobbyist for the company helped line up $120,000 in campaign contributions for McConnell from his clients. Then McConnell voted -- twice -- against giving our troops abroad better body armor. We think it's time to tell this incredible story, and hold McConnell accountable, so we're rolling out a new ad today in Kentucky to do just that.

Here's more background: Hunter Bates is McConnell's former chief of staff who left to become a lobbyist. He represented an outfit in Kentucky that wanted a contract to send Chinese-made, iPod-like players to tribesmen in Afghanistan, supposedly to promote democracy (aid workers in Afghanistan have questioned whether the project was worth it). McConnell made sure Bates' clients got $8.3 million to do it. And Bates' clients filled McConnell's campaign coffers.

McConnell, an ardent opponent of public financing of elections, has shown time and again his willingness to side with his big money donors over the needs of his constituents and this is a pretty outrageous example of those misplaced priorities.

Of course, McConnell has already fired back against the ad, claiming that $8.3 million in poorly functioning mp3 players for Afghanis, and a vote against protecting our troops is "a lesson in how government ought to work." More like a lesson in how campaign fundraising works.

We're airing this ad during the season opener for the National Football League, as well as the University of Louisville football game. Hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians will tune in. But we want to extend our advertising through next week to follow the release of President George Bush's and General David Petraeus' Iraq report so if you can, please consider a donation to help us keep the ad running.

Katie Schlieper's blog | email this page | printer friendly version | 999 reads

6 comments

. . . . .

This ad is off target

The ad weakens the campaign for publicly financed elections. It is obviously partisan and is an example of EXACTLY what we condemn, on principle: buying air time for negative attack ads! PFCs is not a partisan issue. In any case, the issues you tried to use as fulcrums, for triangulation (information devices, and the body armor issue) are offensive to experts in those two domains. You're outside your depth and you took the opposite position to experts working to inform educate and communicate in the third world with information devices, such as Negroponte.

Submitted by Todd Boyle (not verified) on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 12:15pm.

Claim that AD is off target

Wrong!
Clearly you are not looking at this ad
subjectively. You are looking at this
ad as a smear campaign. Try looking at this ad again, thinking how low some people have to go, in order to get enough money to run their reelection campaign just to keep that power.

This AD clearly shows a great need for public campaign financing and while it is being set up, include sharp teeth in this, that everyone, regardless of their wealth, must participate in this manner of obtaining all of their campaign money for all federal elective positions and no other money will be acceptable from anyone! Otherwise a person with the wealth of someone like Mr. Bill Gates could practically buy the presidency. Witness the recent event
of the Mayor of NYC, Mr. Bloomberg, a
multi billionaire thinking of running
for President, but changed his mind. Imagine such a person with fewer scruples, but same amount of money and
willing to spend almost all of those multibillions for that office!

Then if someone did something like that ad shows being done, nail that person because it would not be needed
for reelection, it would be for themself.

Submitted by Frank A Clean Elections Friend (not verified) on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 8:18pm.

The Ad has the wrong Focus

I'm not sure I understand your post. I would argue that the ad does not represent Clean Elections so much as it bashes another candidate. Clean Elections asks for our money to run the ad, but I don't see how it gets across the clean elections message. I really doubt that many people will go to the website (listed for three seconds at the end of the add) which is the ONLY reference to clean elections in the entire ad!

Why don't we spend the money sending informational packets to registered voters? Most of my friends have never even heard of clean elections, but when I explain it they think its a great idea.

"Protesting is good, having an alternative is better" -Jim Wallis

Submitted by Steve (not verified) on Fri, 09/07/2007 - 12:53pm.

Ad and Clean Elections

Thank you all for posting your comments here -- it is great to see debate on this issue. Public Campaign Action Fund, in addition to advocating for Clean Elections has as a part of its mission the goal to raise awareness about ties between special interest money and legislators and the unfavorable policy atmosphere that results. Many of our ad campaigns have this focus. We have found it's an important component in defining the problem which Clean Elections addresses and brings lots of new people to the work. The majority of our work, and the work of our sister org Public Campaign is spreading the word about Clean Elections which, as you rightly pointed out, many voters think is a great idea once they've heard about it. So, we do both!

Submitted by Katie Schlieper on Fri, 09/07/2007 - 2:25pm.

Campaign Finance Reform or Candidate Bashing?

I fail to see how this ad promotes the adoption of clean elections. In all honesty it looks like a smear ad invented by Mr. McConnel's opponents. I have a hard time believing that this furthers the clean election cause.

Also, the Afghani tribesmen were portrayed as automatic rifle toting terrorists, which I find down right insulting.

Overall, I'm not impressed with the advertisement and I don't see how it furthers Clean Elections. I don't know why we're being asked to pay for it.

Submitted by Steve (not verified) on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 11:11am.

Mitch McConnel

Sunlight is the best antiseptic -in politics as in Nature. Let the sunshine in!

http://www.youtube.com/gyrfalconeye

Submitted by Clean Elections Friend (not verified) on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 10:28am.