Why political fundraisers are off limits to the press

Political candidates often try to impose a blackout on what is said at fundraisers. Microphones have to be turned off. At least they try to shut them off and stay away from reporters by banning them from closed events. Why is that? The simple logic and harsh reality is that candidates don't want the general public to know what they say to wealthy supporters because there are two different stories. The wealthy and powerful get the real story while the general public gets spin. Its not rocket science. Its just politics as usual.

 Marine CH-53D Sea Stallion

Camp Dwyer, Helmand province, Afghanistan, May 31, 2012

Hot microphones, awkward utterances and other goofs

Mitt Romney was recently overheard at a Florida fundraiser telling wealthy insiders that he would (i) eliminate and/or reduce Housing and Urban Development and Education department funding and (ii) eliminate some tax deductions that significantly benefit higher and middle class earners, e.g., deducting state taxes from  federal taxes. On balance, that seems to somewhat shift the tax burden to the middle class to at least partially pay for tax rate cuts for the wealthy. (That perception needs analysis from an unbiased expert.) According to the news source, NBC's Garrett Haake, these kinds of details were not intended to be heard by the public and had not been told to the public so far in this campaign. Only wealthy republicans deserved to hear that kind of good news.

According to Romney himself, it is a mistake to give the public too much detail about what a candidate would do in office until after an election - that would give an opponent spinning points for political attacks. Assuming that advice applies generally to candidates running for office, it makes sense to keep the public in the dark and then do whatever feels good because doing otherwise might cost the candidate the election. That apparently means that candidates believe that the public generally cannot or does not distinguish spin from reality. How interesting, especially if that is true. Is that true?

 Navy SH-60B Seahawk landing on USS Germantown

South China Sea  June 4, 2012

Things like this have happened before. Last year (2011), former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was overheard telling president Obama "Netanyahu, I can't stand him. He's a liar . . . " To that, Obama glumly replied "You're sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day." Some Republicans took that as an opportunity to attack President Obama for his allegedly bad attitude and policies toward Israel. That would seem to confirm the wisdom of Romney's advice to keep ones mouth shut and tell the public as little as possible, preferably nothing whenever possible.

Similarly, in March of 2012, President Obama was overheard telling Russian President Medvedev to wait until after the 2012 U.S. elections for flexibility on compromising over a missile defense system. Republicans immediately attacked. What Obama said was something a republican president would have done under the same circumstances, but that's not the point.

Any opportunity to attack a political opponent is fair game, even if the attacker would have done exactly the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Hypocrisy isn't even a remote concern when an opportunity to attack comes along. How well the general public understands this is unclear.

 Security teams shooting at stuff for Jordanian King Abdullah II

Amman, Jordan, May 16, 2012

So, are all of these awkward moments about equal? Does the general public deserve to hear the same things that the rich and powerful get to hear in a campaign? One can argue that when a politician is doing things like speaking privately with world leaders, maybe the public should not hear it. At the least, the world leader might not speak candidly for fear of getting sucked into nasty U.S. politics. One can argue that when a presidential candidate is trying to keep the public in the dark about domestic policy goals, maybe the public should hear it before the election, not afterwards. One can argue that the public should hear all (or none) of it. One can argue all kinds of things.

However, when it comes to what Romney said and his attitude toward the public, California Moderates believes he has no credibility. His attitude is crystal clear. He is publicly campaigning as one thing, a moderate, while apparently being something else, a fairly hard core conservative government hater ideologue. If it were otherwise, his public statements would be hard core conservative (assuming the public was that conservative) and his private utterances would be more moderate. His real interest is what comes out in private, not in public. In private, there is money to be had from wealthy people. Money is necessary for getting elected, so that's where a candidate's loyalty has to lie. That's where at least some honesty has to come out or the money won't flow.

Don't forget, Mr. Romney denied recalling his cruelty to a classmate while he was a high school student. That also points to Mr. Romney's willingness to lie to the public when he thinks it makes sense to do so.

U.S. Marines taking a much-needed shower aboard their comfortable hovercraft

 Persian Gulf, May 1, 2012

They both do it

Its not the case that president Obama won't do the same when circumstances dictate. Given that reality, and it is reality, why should the public have any faith in much of anything any candidate says? Both democrats and republicans are spinning the public for their own benefit and for the benefit of the special interests who align with them. There is no reliable way to know what is real and what is spin. Maybe the best you can do is to guess about what general direction a candidate will take when in office based on what they say in the primaries.

One can argue that in the elections maelstrom, the public interest is mostly irrelevant - getting elected is more important. Political candidates do protect themselves by keeping the public in the dark instead of giving details and risking attack. If it is the case that telling the public more serves the public interest, what we have now arguably is an example of service to one's self before service to the public interest.