NRSC Attacks Laffey

Just to be clear, the NRSC, DSCC, NRCC and DCCC are and always have been, "incumbent retention" organizations. The technical composition of the "committees" are the respective congressmen and senators. They pay dues, they contribute donations, they elect the chairperson. The primary function of the committees is to get their members re-elected. Winning open & challenger races is the secondary concern.

So, it should be NO surprise--despite what the bloggers and pundits say--when the NRSC endorses Chafee. It has to, he's a member.

What is surprising, though, is that the NRSC has to spend money on an independent expenditure on his behalf (all money going to Chafee thus far has gone through coordinated channels). That shows just how dire a situation Chafee probably is in. Believe me, the political director at the NRSC cannot be happy about having to do this.

To summarize, the type of expenditure on behalf of Chafee in a primary is unconventional. But the actual tangible support is utterly normal.

 

He most certainly can. Since McCain-Feingold, independent expenditures [IEs] are exactly what they say they are--independent of the campaigns. There is a complete wall between the political operation within the NRSC and the IE department. The political operation coordinates with Chafee's campaign. The IE department can't and doesn't. They are literally housed in two separate buildings. The IE department of a party committee operates the same way Moveon.org, Club for Growth, League of Conservation Voters and the NRA does...they cannot coordinate their message with a particular campaign.

This is what I deal with everyday, Tom (being in opposition research, I'm in the only department that is legally allowed to deal with both campaigns and IEs). We absolutely, positively, cannot speak to our political operatives about our IE program. And we can't tell our IE program what our campaigns plan to do. If we slip up, people go to jail--simple as that. It's taken VERY seriously.

Just to illustrate this point, certain politicians (Shays in CT is a prime example) have implored their parties NOT to make IEs on their behalf in the past. Sometimes the party listens, sometimes it doesn't. But the point is the decisions are made 100% completely independent of the campaigns. Plenty of times moderate candidates say they don't want the party to help them and disavow the ads that are aired on their behalf. They even go to the chairmen and demand that it is stopped. They don't always get their way.

I'd focus on Vermont's House seat to really see the phenomenon this year. Rainville says she will not and does not want any negative campaigning in Vermont. I guarantee you she will keep her word. The party, however, will not.

 

I saw the ad, that's why I thought of her race right away.

I also should have said the party "might" not. It will do what it things it needs to do based on what internal polling shows at the time. If, late in the game, Welch's negatives aren't high enough for Rainville to win, then the party will go negative. Might that backfire? Sure--that's a risk that's always taken. But if the choices are: A) do nothing and have a guaranteed loss and B) go negative and give her a chance...I think we know which option is the "correct" one.

 

Just watched it again a few times so I know what I'm talking about (all these ads blend together at a certain point).

As one of my bosses says, "positive ads are worthless" when you're the challenger (which, even in this open seat, is what she ostensibly is). People say they hate negative campaigning. But history also shows that incumbents and the majority party coast to re-election. The only way to beat an incumbent is to make the voting populace disapprove of them and to THEN show that you can do better. Rainville clearly thinks she can buck that trend.

Vermont is a Democrat/liberal state. She has to give people a reason NOT to vote for Welch. If the ad is a setup for the rest of a well-run and well-organized campaign, then great for her. As it stands on its own, however, the ad is worthless.

My gut feeling is that Rainville is a winning candidate running a losing campaign. The irony might be that the NRCC wins the election for her with national party money and possibly negative ads, despite all that she says and stand for. Of course, since she came out yesterday saying she wouldn't necessarily vote Hastert for Speaker, all of this might be a moot point. I've got a strange feeling that--so long Rainville gets elected (a moderate to big "if")--she will be in the majority party. I wouldn't put it past her to switch parties and caucus with the DEMs if she wins and the GOP loses the House majority.

 

Sorry, but this is absolutely crazy. The NRSC would attack Chafee, under the guise of "help", in order to nominate a more conservative candidate that would be DOA in the general, thereby decreasing their majority automatically by one?! Huh?!?!

Look, the campaign committees have independent polling and they use those surveys to figure out which messages play best in which states/districts. I know this isn't a popular stance here, but, right now, immigration issues are polling off the chart. It's the one issue that is absolutely going in the GOP's favor this year. Pay careful attention to how many times Democrat candidates (and some moderate Republicans) go to great lengths and pains to stress that the McCain-Kennedy bill is "not amnesty." Amnesty is the buzzword on this issue and it's an absolute loser for the DEMs. For congressional races the GOP, through the national party, is seeking to frame this debate (and, yes, break COMPLETELY from the President on this).

That's what these ads are about. Race-baiting or not, they must test well in Rhode Island.

 

FYI, the NRSC just reported dropping $13k in direct mail against Laffey. Sierra Club is also playing (supporting Chafee) by spending (so far) $40k in direct mail.

And, coincidentally, the NRCC just reported using funds for tv ad production against Welch (basically, hiring a film crew to tape him so there's footage to use later this Fall).

 

The rules for independent expenditures are that the committees (or, organizations, such as MoveOn, CfG, etc.) have to announce what they have done within 24 hours after expending the money. It gets reported directly to the FEC on a "24 Hour notice."

Remember that the film crew is an independent contractor (in this case, "Crews Control"). So, while I didn't hear anything about the refusal to identify themselves, even if they did, they wouldn't have identified themselves as an "NRCC" film crew. In fact, legally, since they wouldn't be able to tell the Rainville campaign what they were doing until after the NRCC discloses the expenditure, I'm pretty sure they weren't allowed to tell the Welch campaign, either.

Now, if they refused to say what company they worked for, then, yeah, that's kind of just a dick move.

 

No, I don't, because the establishment doesn't hate Chafee at all. Chafee's a vote for McConnell for Majority Leader. End of story. That's how the establishment and the national political apparatus thinks. The chances of getting another Republican from Rhode Island are almost nil, so you hold on to what you got while you can.

You confuse the establishment with the base & grassroots. The establishment is first and foremost, Republican. The base and grassroots are first and foremost, conservative. It's the National Republican Senatorial Committee--not the the National Conservative Senatorial Committee.

The base and grassroots supporters certainly despise Chafee. They are the reason he is in trouble. Their outlet is the Club for Growth, right now. The NRSC is fighting them tooth and nail over this, because their focus is maintining the Senate majority, not ideological purity. And, might I add, the NRSC is taking a heavy hit over this. Look at their individual contributions (especially unitemized, under $250...the small time donations) this year compared to past cycles. They are way down and one of the big reasons is their support for Chafee over Laffey.

The exact same thing happened in 2004, and on a much bigger scale. Do you remember the Specter/Toomey primary? The NRSC, under the leadership of George Allen, backed Specter 100%, as did the White House. That's just how it works. It's an incumbent retention based system, first and foremost.

I know people love to see backroom conspiracies involved in any Republican election tactics, but you're just completely off-base here. The facts are pretty simple:

1) The NRSC's two main goals are to get its incumbents re-elected and to maintain (or expand, in certain years) the GOP Senate majority.
2) Chafee is a sitting GOP senator, so he automatically gets NRSC support.
3) He's in trouble because of the base and CfG targeting, so he not only needs public support, he needs financial help.
4) The NRSC has done polling in Rhode Island, testing a number of messages.
5) The NRSC has done research on Laffey.
6) Based on that polling and research, the NRSC has made independent expenditures on behalf of Chafee in Rhode Island on the topic of illegal immigration.

 

Just in case there's any doubt that the GOP establishment in Washington is supported Chafee (at it's own peril with the base), look what the RNC is doing (the RNC has taken over GOTV efforts from the NRSC/NRCC):