Earlier this week, the NRCC attacked three freshman New York House Democrats -- Reps. Michael Arcuri, Kirsten Gillibrand and John Hall-- and two New York Democratic House candidates, Dan Maffei and Eric Massa, for taking money from Spitzer.
Massa returned the cash but only after the NRCC circulated three freeze-frame photos of Massa and Spitzer together, taken from one of Massa's own campaign ads, which featured the words "trust," "integrity" and "respect."
Kuhl, who rushed out a press release on Spitzer the afternoon the scandal broke, could also learn a bit from Tom Reynolds. Reynolds has said nothing that I can find on the matter. Luckily for Reynolds, his presumptive opponent, Jon Powers, didn't get any money from Spitzer, so the NRCC didn't send out a press release about him.Massa is running for a second consecutive time against Rep John R. "Randy" Kuhl, Jr. (R-N.Y.), who is no stranger to controversy himself. Kuhl's sealed divorce records were leaked weeks before the 2004 election, when Kuhl was elected for the first time. Kuhl's now-ex-wife alleged that Kuhl pulled not one but two shotguns on his wife at a dinner party and threatened to shoot her, according to media reports at the time.
Comments
I love that the NRCC -- currently under FBI investigation for some form of embezzlement -- is sending out mailers about other people's "dirty money".
STFU is probably the best advice I can give to any politician or committee of the other party when a personal scandal breaks. If the scandal is really just about the person rather than the person misusing their office, then the press releases from the other party look like they're exploiting one person's misery for political gain.
The Spitzer incident is similar to the Craig incident. Each person has a long-term destructive sexual obsession that leaked into their public life. But neither misused their office while pursuing that obsession. Unless there's misuse of office, I don't see how campaign money is "dirty" or why the other party should bang the drum.
Actually, the U.S. Attorney's office is investigating whether Spitzer did misuse his office. From WCBC.com (http://wcbstv.com/local/eliot.spitzer.prostitution.2.675894.html):
Experts say "Client 9" could face the following charges:
....
* Misuse of state resources, if he used his state-issued credit card for hotels or meals with prostitutes as well as if he was being protected by State Troopers during his dalliances.
That's a speculative list of what he "could" be investigated for. The reports I've seen show that he went out of his way to make sure all the expenses of the prostitutes were paid in cash or wire transfer, down to the mini bar, which is part of why he needed to move around so much money. As for troopers, Liz Benjamin had an item from a trooper who said that Spitz probably dismissed them for the night and then snuck out to another room in the same hotel.
In addition, that's certainly not a misuse of office in the same sense as Mark Foley, Ted Stevens or William Jefferson. Foley used his office to get close to pages, and the leadership looked the other way even though they were provided evidence that he was doing it. That's misuse of office plus looking the other way. Ted Stevens is being investigated for having some work done by a contractor who he did political favors for. Jefferson is accused of taking a bribe.
More detail that may be of interest: Kuhl's opponent Massa points out that Kuhl has also not given back all the money he got from Tom DeLay. More of that "glass houses" thing. . .
1. It certainly appears that Spitzer did not misuse his office in the way Foley, etc. did
2. I actually see no need to return the money Spitzer gave anyone. Money should be returned if it is trying to buy influence, but there is nothing that Massa can do for Spitzer now. Giving back the money is just posturing to me and not just in this case.
On 2: Necessary posturing, because he'd get a bunch of flak over it. Better to just dump the money and move on.
I'd like to second the sanity of the last two comments: it's not necessary ethically to return the money but, unfortunately, it is necessary politically. The two of you have nailed it.