Washington Post: Connolly's SAIC Fundraising "falls into a gray area" of the law

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/29/2008 5:49:37 AM

Let's give credit where credit is due: this is an excellent article by Amy Gardner of the Washington Post, who we have frequently criticized as being too sympathetic to Gerry Connolly, Tom and Jeannemarie Devolites Davis.

A senior executive at the government contractor Science Applications International Corp. has encouraged employees to contribute to Democratic congressional candidate Gerald E. Connolly, raising questions about whether the solicitation violated federal campaign finance rules.

In an e-mail this month to "fellow SAIC teammates," Robert A. Rosenberg, a former executive vice president and general manager for SAIC's Northern Virginia operations whom the company calls a "consulting employee," urged colleagues to support Connolly in part because of his "in-depth understanding of our industry."

According to Gardner's article (quoting GMU law professor and former FEC lawyer Allison Hayward), while it is not "known whether any recipients felt compelled to donate because of Rosenberg's senior status," this type of solicitation "falls into a gray area of campaign finance law," because it was sent by Rosenberg "to employees with whom he has professional relationships as opposed to personal friends."  Also problematic, the solicitation "focuses on Connolly's knowledge of the contracting business and what he could do for SAIC if elected to Congress."  And I love this line:

"Connolly leads his rivals in money raised partly because of strong support he has received from the defense contracting interests that have backed Rep. Tom Davis (R)"

Wonderful, huh? As Leslie Byrne says, Connolly appears to have turned SAIC "into an ATM machine for his run for Congress."  Is that the type of "Democrat" voters of the 11th CD want in Congress? I find that truly hard to believe once they know how Connolly operates. Thanks to the Washington Post and Amy Gardner for doing their job -- investigative journalism -- and exposing potential corruption in high public officials. That's how the media is SUPPOSED to work, and how it SHOULD work all the time.  If it did, we'd all be a lot better off.

P.S. Oh, by the way, Rosenberg's email was for a fundraiser on...wait for it....the night of the LCV candidates' forum Connolly skipped!  Yes, it gets slimier and slimier the closer you look.  

Comments



SAIC=revolving door (Shenandoah Democrat - 5/29/2008 7:36:29 AM)
I'm not sure it's available anywhere, but it sure would be nice to have a list of all the high level SAIC employees who use to work in the government. SAIC is a giant continuous revolving door, with high level DOD, DOE, EPA, etc. employees moving through the door bringing business opportunities with them all the time. A bunch of well-dressed prostitutes if you ask me, and I once worked there. This is the hydra-like core of the military idustrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of!


COMMENT HIDDEN (varealist - 5/29/2008 8:02:02 AM)


No, you've got it exactly backwards (Lowell - 5/29/2008 8:14:16 AM)
The only thing "convenient" here is that even for a reporter who has spent the last couple of years totally favoring Connolly and the Davises, this is so egregious that she has written a blistering article in the Washington Post about it. That makes it all the more powerful, coming from a longtime friend of the Conolly/Davis duo.


You touch on a great issue (Alter of Freedom - 5/29/2008 9:58:03 AM)
Reporters should be in the business of reporting facts and not be in the business of taking advesarial or editorial positions with regard to news or substance.

What makes it even more powerful is somehow the implication that the piece in the Post identifies something "so egregious" because it comes from a reporter that is believed to be "symphathetic" to someone.

The facts are either "egredious" or they are not based on the actual facts regardless of what reporter is doing the reporting. If this were presented on a OP-ED page that would be one thing, but as a general piece we are seeing reporters these days bring in their own influence upon a story and actually not so creatively either.

Maybe reporters in the general press are feel they are competeing with bloggers who lets face it have alot more political liscence if you will to express their views within a body of work. Reporters should not be doing that nor be "favoring" anyone in terms  of promoting objective reporting.

And by the way, do we not all get these kinds of emails. Its only when one ends up upon the dektop of someone who finds that it promotes the other side that one makes an issue of it. Whats next no talk at the water cooler at work about politics? I was first prompted to support a Presidential candidate by way of email in this manner during the Primary when it really mattered back before Super Tuesday. It was not offensive to me that it was in support of a guy at the time I was not in favor of supporting.I appreciate those who express a view and care enough to get people involved regardless of the view expressed.

In fact lately, it has been the Libertarians making their voices heard via my email.



Actually (Just Saying - 5/29/2008 10:53:10 AM)
The email itself most likely violates the FEC code...which is the problem.

Beyond that, the problem with the email is not that Rosenberg is supporting Connolly, it's why he claims SAIC employees should support Connolly....because he "represents SAIC' and is "the best candidate to fill the void left by Tom Davis."

NOt only does it contradict everything Connolly has been saying about his employment with SAIC, it doesn't really sound like a Democrat does it? "Fill the void left by Tom Davis," did someone forget this is a Democratic primary?

We're not looking to "fill the void left by Tom Davis" we're looking to fill the void that has resulted from Tom Davis having been in Congress rubber stamping George Bush. You get it?