Now Kerry must face up to those tough questions

John Kerry, the Democratic favourite to face George Bush in the US presidential elections, has taken millions of dollars in financial backing from special interests and lobbyists. Kerry, who has made fighting special interests a key part of his campaign, has also backed legislation favouring some of his donors and written letters on behalf of corporate backers. Questions about Kerry's financial backers come as his campaign has been forced to fight back against sex scandal rumours after a right-wing gossip website alleged the Massachusetts senator had had an affair with a much younger intern. After weeks of positive press, Kerry's background is now coming under intense scrutiny as the fight with Bush looms.

Kerry - like Bush - has recruited an army of 'bundlers' who skip around strict campaign finance laws by gathering $2,000 cheques from friends and employees into bundles of $50,000 or $100,000. Kerry has 32 $100,000 bundlers and 87 $50,000 bundlers. They come mainly from powerful law firms, real estate companies, financiers and lobbyists.

Kerry has received more money from lobbyists over the past 15 years than any other serving senator. Some of Kerry's close links with lobbyists have raised eyebrows among supporters used to his campaign slogan: 'From the moment I take up office, I will stand up to special interests.'

Kerry has strong ties to lobbyists for the telecommunications industry. Michael Whouley, a top Kerry political aide, is a registered lobbyist for telecoms giant AT&T. Kerry has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Boston lobbying firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky. Kerry's brother Cameron is a lawyer for the company which represents communications firms and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

Between 1999 and 2002 Kerry sponsored two law bills and co-sponsored six more that were seen as advantageous to CTIA's interests. One of Kerry's main bundlers, Chris Putala, is employed as a lobbyist by the CTIA. 'We are beyond the point of whether he takes money from special interests, but rather what, if anything, has been done in response to the funds,' said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the Centre for Responsive Politics watchdog.

Kerry and his wife are also personally linked to the fortunes of the telecommunications industry. Official records show the couple have at least $17 million invested in firms with a stake in the industry. Tracing the actual effect that donations have on politicians' decisions is virtually impossible. A Kerry spokesman has denied Kerry has ever acted in response to donations.

But Paul Davis, co-founder of internet firm Predictive Networks, has seen the process of how fundraising and legislation mix. Kerry met a top Predictive executive on 25 July, 2000. A day later Kerry introduced a Senate bill that would allow internet firms to monitor what their consumers were viewing and that Predictive had been lobbying for. In February 2002 Predictive chief executive Devin Hosea threw a fundraiser for Kerry in Boston. Kerry was given a lift back to Washington DC in a private jet. Hosea threw a second fundraising party that summer. In the end Hosea become one of Kerry's $100,000 'bundlers' .

Davis said many executives and investors at the firm were disturbed by the links with Kerry, as they were Republican supporters. But some even wrote Kerry cheques at the parties. 'One (Republican) wrote out a cheque for the maximum amount. Philosophically, you look at that and think what could they possibly have in common,' Davis told The Observer.

Davis said there was never any suggestion from Kerry or his staff that there was a 'quid pro quo' deal on offer but that some Predictive executives had assumed it was implied.

In 1996 Kerry accepted money raised by controversial Taiwanese entrepreneur Johnny Chung after writing a letter to help a businesswoman friend of Chung's. Chung later pleaded guilty to funnelling illegal donations to the campaigns of Kerry and Bill Clinton. More recently disgraced ex-senator Bob Torricelli admitted he was raising cash for Kerry's campaign. Torricelli was the subject of a high-profile investigation into fundraising favours that ended his career in 2002.

All of this punches a hole in the key aspect of Kerry's dramatic rise to the front of the Democratic race: his 'electability'. The first Republican attack ad of the presidential campaign was emailed to six million people last week. It concentrated solely on Kerry's links to special interests.

Republicans think Kerry cannot be stopped by his rivals and they now know their opponent. Many Democrats believe that is why allegations over Kerry's sex life have now been made on the Drudge Report, a gossip website that broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The woman at the heart of the alleged affair, a former journalist, is believed to be hiding in Kenya. Democrats see the Drudge story as a smear to take the heat off Bush at a time of growing disquiet about his service in the National Guard during the Vietnam war. It is a long-standing Republican strategy to leak stories to right-wing websites which are picked up by mainstream media.

So far, despite worldwide coverage of the allegations and a strong denial from the Kerry camp, the major American newspapers and television networks have been slow to cover the story.

Even some Republicans expressed dismay that the story emerged. 'It is unsubstantiated crap. I want Kerry to lose, but I respect him and this sort of stuff just dumbs down America,' said Ron Kaufman, a top Republican strategist. Many Republicans believe they don't need dirty tricks. They will use Kerry's votes to cut defence spending and raise taxes to portray him as weak on national security and a fiscal liberal.

They will also use Kerry's position on gay marriage to show him as far to the left of middle America. 'He is both economically and culturally too liberal when it comes to people in the key battleground states,' said Stephen Moore, head of the right-wing Club For Growth, which has close ties with the White House.

Republicans are starting to see Kerry as a possible repeat of the disastrous campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988. Kerry was Dukakis's deputy when Dukakis was governor in Massachusetts. 'We just have to say Massachusetts liberal. That's enough to put people off,' said Kaufman.

So far Kerry has used his aura as a Vietnam war hero to shrug off attacks, but Democratic strategists remember the Republican campaign run against Democratic senator Max Cleland in 2002. Despite Cleland losing two legs and one arm in Vietnam, Republicans portrayed him as weak on national security. They ran TV ads against Cleland with pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Cleland lost.

...and this from the BBC:

The Democrats have had their best week in three years. While George W Bush has been struggling to explain where he was during the Vietnam War and where Saddam Hussein's weapons went to, the Democratic road show has rolled south.

This primary season is looking less and less like an election and more like an orchestrated display of Democratic values.

The attractions have included a real general, a clean cut lawyer and a feisty former governor.

And all of them have been acting increasingly like a chorus line to the star turn, a grizzled, decorated Vietnam veteran who has pulled men from the waters of the Mekong Delta under enemy fire.

Principles

There has been none of the below-the-belt character slurs and back-stabbing that normally takes place in primaries. The party has not been split asunder by ideological differences.

In fact the whole event is in danger of descending into a cauldron of civility and general agreement.

Six weeks ago John Kerry was not even on the radar in Tennessee.

On Tuesday he won by 14 points from his nearest rival.

Tennesseans even think he is very principled. They say he stands up for what he believes in more than the others.

And he barely visited the state.

'Liberal'

This is a major shift from last week's primaries which showed that Democrats thought John Edwards and Wesley Clark were more principled than Mr Kerry.

This is all very flattering for the senator from Massachusetts, but it will not help him much in a campaign against George Bush.

Part of the value of a primary is that it gets a frontrunner in shape for the big event.

John Kerry's weakness, which Republicans are certain to exploit, is that he can be portrayed as a 'Massachusetts liberal'.

This means more than just being a liberal from the second state in the nation.

To millions of Americans, 'Massachusetts liberal' is slang for someone who is white, wealthy, out-of-touch with middle America, weak on defence and a supporter of liberal social policies.

Mr Kerry's camp says it is ready for this line of attack.

Strategy

But John Kerry has been in public office for 25 years.

That gives the Republicans a lot of ammunition.

They can show pictures of him when he was deputy to Michael Dukakis, one of the most hapless Democratic politicians.

They can wheel out his opposition to the first Gulf War and his support for gun control and gay rights.

John Kerry can neutralise this to some degree by his illustrious service in Vietnam.

Kerry's record in Vietnam is playing well with voters But the one group which was not very impressed by him in Tennessee and Virginia was conservative Democrats, which suggests that the 'Massachusetts liberal' tag is not going away.

It will be interesting to see when the Democrats fold up their road show and declare Mr Kerry the winner.

The party hierarchy would like to do it as soon as possible to conserve money for the general election. But some Democratic strategists think they should keep it going for a while longer.

The campaign is providing lots of positive publicity and air time. And as long as there are other competitors in the race, the Republicans cannot unleash their firepower on the nominee.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.