EMILY's List Weighs in on "Pay-to-Play" Connolly

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/25/2008 6:06:35 AM

By the way, Emily's List is "the nation's largest political network and financial resource for women candidates."  It is "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office."  Here's what Emily's List says about the 11th CD race, and why it is so important to elect Leslie Byrne:

A tough primary campaign. To win the Democratic nomination, Byrne must defeat Gerry Connolly, the powerful chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Connolly, known as an over-the-top, bullying campaigner, has ties to deep-pocketed developers who can fund his campaign. This race is advancing quickly and Byrne must move fast to consolidate support before the June 10 primary. She needs immediate help from EMILY's List members to raise her $3.5 million budget and win this seat for Democrats.

Please click on images to "embiggen."

h/t to Not Larry Sabato

Comments



This mailing has the virtue of being true (Hiker Joe - 5/25/2008 2:10:51 PM)
As a 30 year resident of Fairfax County, I am aware of the $10,000 contribution from the Lerners two weeks after their rezoning was approved.

I also know about:

The 40 something $199 contributions from another developer before their rezoning was voted on by Connolly ($199 to try to skirt disclosure requirements) including $199 from the nanny of the firm's Chairman.

The $500 from the cook (who lived in Maryland) of a prominent developer.

The $2,500 from a small developer a month before his rezoning was scheduled to be voted on. This developer contributed to Connolly neither before nor after that.

And too many other examples to mention here.

"Pay-to-Play" is a term frequently used in Fairfax to describe the relationship between developers' campaign contributions to Connolly and approval of their projects. It is good that Emily's List is publicizing this scandal. More voters need to know about it.



Very enlightening (Teddy - 5/25/2008 2:54:13 PM)
and I myself received the subject mailout, so I tend to believe it went either to all registered Democrats, or at least to those known to vote in primaries. The citations in it were interesting, and make it hard to refute. In the same mail came another postcard from Leslie about the Iraq war with a repeat of Webb's endorsement. Connolly is already complaining loudly about unwarranted "negative advertising."  


Emily's List (Flipper - 5/25/2008 4:13:27 PM)
Emily's List is quite effective in trashing any candidate who runs against one of their endorsed candidates.  

Look what Emily's List did to Barack Obama - misrepresenting his votes in the Illinois legislature on the choice issue and  sending out viscious post cards on the choice issue the day before the NH primary, costing Obama the win in NH.




They were wrong then (Lowell - 5/25/2008 4:24:01 PM)
but they're right now.  I guess in politics there are never any permanent friends, but there are a lot of strange bedfellows. :)


Ugh (acluka - 5/25/2008 9:26:38 PM)
So basically, they are wrong when they are against your candidate, and right when they are for your candidate?

I am sure that Emily's list believes that they are being truely consistent with their attacks.

I think it is unfortunate that harsh attacks are being used in the first place. Isn't that what Obama is fighting against? The end of politics as usual, the end of divisive politics like this advertisement embodies? Isn't this why people are flocking to Obama, because he is doing something different, somthing that is not the typical mold of a politician?

I look at this ad, and I think, "Oh, it's politics as usual"  and know that they support Byrne, and that she is embracing "politics as usual." Regardless of the ad not being "endorsed" with her campaign, she is tied to it, and it is unfortunate.  

This is fundementally why I hesitate supporting her: Because her rhetoric and her actions are in conflict with one another.

sigh.



The Emily's List mailing was right on the money (Hiker Joe - 5/25/2008 10:37:26 PM)
Connolly's contributions vs related land use issues are a matter of public record. I've recounted only a few of them in my post above. Your case would be better served by addressing these facts.

In this case, Emily's List is doing a public service in disclosing this information.



Ha! (Just Saying - 5/26/2008 8:38:55 AM)
This is fundementally why I hesitate supporting her: Because her rhetoric and her actions are in conflict with one another.

And what's your suggestion, that supporting Connolly will solve that problem? Don't you see that the argument made in the mailer from Emily's List and the arguments made about Connolly's employement with SAIC is precisely that Connolly's rhetoric and actions are so egregiously in conflict with one another?

Why is it negative to point out that Gerry Connolly has serious questions floating around out there about which constituency he intends to represent in Congress?

These are completely legitimate concerns. Ending pay to play is exactly the kind of politicing that Obama wants to end. Obama wants to get rid of this kind of special interest grasp on our legislators.