The Left must be afraid of Fred Thompson. The latest attack on the former Tennessee senator: he's violating the "spirit" of campaign finance laws by toying with his candidacy for too long, even as he builds the framework to hit the campaign trail running. Yet unfortunately for her readers, ABCNews.com's Jennifer Rubin leaves out the liberal leanings of the two major critics of the former senator that she cites in her recent story. Indeed, one group's president even has a link to First Amendment breacher, er, campaign finance reformer John McCain, a GOP candidate, while the other group's executive director previously worked for Democratic 2008 candidate Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) as well as liberal pols such as Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Here are the offending passages, followed by my commentary (portions in bold are my emphasis):
Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW] — a nonprofit organization which promotes ethics and accountability in government — disagreed. "You don't need to hire a policy director and other operational staff just to test the waters. In addition, he appears to have raised far more money than necessary to prove he has national support," she said.
"At this point he's abusing the testing the waters exception to avoid having to disclose his contributors."
Paul Ryan, FEC program director and associate legal counsel of the Campaign Legal Center — a nonprofit organization that works in the areas of campaign finance and government ethics — noted that Thompson has 15 days to file declaration of his candidacy from the time he decides to become candidate. But if he does not, according to Ryan, "to the extent he has decided he is a candidate but has not registered as a federal campaign committee or disclosed his funds, at the very least, he has violated the spirit, if not the actual letter, of the law."
As the Reagan era saying goes, "personnel is policy." It's something Rubin would do well to learn when reporting on groups like CREW and the Campaign Legal Center. A cursory review of the Web sites for both groups reveals their liberal skew in both personnel and policy.
Trevor Potter, the president and general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, for example, "served as Counsel to Congressional sponsors of the BCRA [the McCain-Feingold law] in the McConnell v. FEC litigation."
Hmm, wasn't one of those congressional sponsors one Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who would be a rival for the nomination for President should Thompson jump in the race? Yet that fact was curiously left out of Rubin's story.
And while Rubin may consider CREW an apolitical advocate of "ethics and accountability," it definitely skews to the left in its staff roster and its target list (see their lawsuits and calls for investigation pages).
As for Sloan, here's her official CREW bio (emphasis mine):
Melanie Sloan serves as CREW's Executive Director. Prior to starting CREW, she served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia where, from 1998-2003, she successfully tried cases before dozens of judges and juries. Before becoming a prosecutor, Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, working for Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) and specializing in criminal justice issues.
In 1994, Ms. Sloan served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY). There, she drafted portions of the 1994 Crime Bill, including the Violence Against Women Act. In 1993, Ms. Sloan served as Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then-Chairman, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). Prior to serving in Congress, she was an associate at Howrey and Simon in Washington, D.C. and at Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal in Los Angeles, California. Ms. Sloan received her B.A. and J.D. from the University of Chicago and has published in the Yale Law and Policy Review, Legal Times, The Washington Post, and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I was listening to Thompson t
July 16, 2007 - 11:19 ET by BruzillaI was listening to Thompson talking to Hannity during the Atlanta Freedom Concert, and he told Hannity that he has made up his mind about running but that he wasn't ready to announce yet. If he has 15 days, I would think that 15 days would start from the date of the concert at least.
But how do you know what he decided? How do you know if he decided not to run, but then changed his mind later? Is there a "change of heart" provision to the law?
}}----> Thompson
July 16, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Cool ArrowSeems to me it is the entire group of current candidates jumping in early rather than Thompson announcing late.
If I'm not mistaken, this stands to be the longest election period in history and although there's a big shuffle for positioning among the States, the laws governing declaration haven't changed.
Assuming he also runs, woul
July 16, 2007 - 11:40 ET by sarcasmoAssuming he also runs, wouldn't anything said about Fred also apply to Al Gore??
JMR
}}----> Gore's entry
July 16, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Cool ArrowNo, he'll be "fashionably late"
No. Democrats are exempted
July 16, 2007 - 12:51 ET by BruzillaNo. Democrats are exempted from this law under the Cuomo precedent.
The Left: "Come on, Fr
July 16, 2007 - 12:49 ET by drillanwrThe Left: "Come on, Fred. We can't wait any longer! We have a ton of non-issue, unimportant personal stuff, on top of made-up crap, that we've been sitting on to have the media stick it to you with ... and then completely bury the facts or have the media NOT provide a retraction for. Hillary's paid good money to have her folks work very hard on this. You're just being mean-spirited not declaring yet."
My biggest concern with Fre
July 16, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Conservative VoiceMy biggest concern with Fred is will he follow through?...it seems there is more hype than substance. I see a lot of us say Run Fred Run, but why? I can definately understand why conservatives don't support McCain, or why social conservatives don't support Rudy, but why should I support Fred? (Don't get me wrong, Im not anti-fred...just wondering if Fred is Steak and potatoes or frosting on a cake )
What I find even more interesting is how much people will hate Romney, but have a love fest for Fred. Not seeing much difference. What I also find exhausting is there is so much written with so little substance on any candidate...is there a site that does a fair job on stating the platform of the candidates and rate the trust of actually following through on the promises? I didn't watch the debates, because I find the debates to be a joke...again a place where they state slogans and sound bites, not a real debate. I would rather see the candidates write their debates in blog format...giving links and argue why we should even consider them.
Media hit pieces definately help the candidates look better among conservatives...but I think we need to not vote for someone just because of hype.
CV,Your concern with Fred &am
July 16, 2007 - 18:15 ET by BlondeCV,
Your concern with Fred & his "follow through" is legitmate.
Personally, I'm waiting to see how it all shakes out, once he gets in the race (or not).
The media has obviously been pushing McCain....too bad for them. That dog's not going to hunt, in fact it's about ready to be euthanized.
But I believe most people's enthusiasm for Fred Thompson is that he has demonstrated conservative beliefs. Mitt, coming from MA, is a little too liberal on certain things...not to mention that certain people won't vote for him regardless of how conservative he is (think Debra). It's stupid, I know, but it's a fact. As for Rudy, he's far less conservative than I'd prefer, but if it ends up that he's our candidate, I'll support him. IMO, he & Fred are the only ones capable of winning in the general election (unless something off the wall happens between now and November 2008).
You should read Fred Thompson's blogs. Pretty interesting.