E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
When Rick Santorum took the stage to deliver his victory speech in Missouri on Tuesday, he was flanked to his right by his daughter and to his left by his wife.
Yet just over his shoulder stood the billionaire whose financial support has helped keep the campaign afloat, even in its darkest days.
Foster Friess, the primary funder for the pro-Santorum Super PAC "Red, White and Blue Fund," travels with the inner circle of the campaign; he has given suggestions to advisers about media strategy; and on Friday, he will introduce the presidential hopeful at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The relationship between Friess and the campaign he supports is one of the clearest examples of how candidates are pushing the limits of the only rule governing their relationship with Super PACs -- no coordination.
Laws prohibit candidates and the Super PAC supporting them to discuss things like how to spend money or campaign strategy. But where the line is drawn between being an outside supporter and being an actual part of the campaign has become increasingly blurry as the 2012 presidential cycle has continued.
Santorum is not the only candidate pushing the limits. Newt Gingrich met with his Super PAC funder Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas ahead of the Nevada caucus earlier this month. Mitt Romney has appeared at fundraisers for "Restore Our Future," the Super PAC supporting his candidacy. And earlier this week, the Obama campaign announced that top advisers and even cabinet secretaries would appear at events for a pro-Obama Super PAC.
But no one else this campaign season has been as public as Santorum about his very close relationship between the campaign and the wealthy supporter helping to finance his Super PAC.
The New York Times reported that Friess, as of Dec. 31, had given the Red, White, and Blue Fund $331,000 -- more than 40% of all of its financing.
"I'm very, very fastidious about conversations I've had with him. Foster's been a friend for years and years and years and continues to be a friend. We don't talk about any activity of the Super PAC at all," Santoum said last week in Montrose, Colo. after a rally where Friess cheered him from a front row seat. "I have no idea about what he's doing or how much he's giving and I don't want to know. We talk about family. We talk about other activities. He's very careful in that regard and so am I."
Santorum staffers point to their openness about Friess' involvement as proof they are doing nothing wrong. He is a visible presence on the campaign trail and has done an increasing number of television interviews coinciding with Santorum's resurrgence.
But it is that openness that has caused some observers to scratch their heads and make the case that there really are no rules separating campaigns and Super PAC donors. In front of reporters this week, Friess questioned campaign staffers about why the candidate had not done a local interview he tried pitching them on.
"If you want us to do it, we'll do it," one aide finally told him.
The former Pennsylvania senator's spike in popularity after winning races in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado has brought with it a renewed interest in the campaign and the role of the Wyoming billionaire. It was during an appearance on CNN the morning after his three state victory where Santorum faced a question about Friess' presence on stage with him the night before.
"Foster Freiss doesn't run my Super PAC. He may be a donor to it, but the people who personally runs my Super PAC, I haven't spoken with in about five months. So, no, I mean, as far as the conversations we have, Foster has been a long personal friend for 20 years," said Santorum.
"And we have spent a lot of time together," he added. "But we also know what the law is and Foster doesn't run the Super PAC and we don't talk about anything regarding those matters. So he's someone, again, who is a friend and will continue to be a good friend."
The response marks a shift in Santorum's defense of Friess. Previously, he described him as nothing more than a friend with whom he converses about anything but campaign matters. Yet now, the candidate says that Friess simply does not run "Red, White and Blue Fund" -- so having him so close to the campaign is no legal issue at all.
"Basically, our lawyers have told us that it's very, very simple. You just don't talk about the Super PAC," Friess said Wednesday on CNN, defending his looming presence on the trail.
And for Friess, the idea that he is pulling the strings of a presidential campaign is laughable to him.
"I have so little control over the Super PAC; all I did was write a check. In fact, Newt came up to me the other day and made some remark about one of the ads. And I said, 'You know, I don't see the ads.'"
"So I'm not the hands on guy, I like writing the check and then I turn it over to the guys who make it happen."
Leave a Comment:
This guy "SANTOROM " creeps me out he reminds me of the Rev Jim Jones and his cult ..I saw his cult followers touching him on tv . This just isn't where America should be going . 86% of this country is totally against this cult stuff !Llook how it ended for them !
I thought this was a no no. Rick isn't supposed to have any direct interaction with his super pac.
"So I'm not the hands on guy, I like writing the check and then I turn it over to the guys who make it happen."
Wait a second, I thought these billionaire types were supposed to be rich because they are smart and work hard. This guy is obviously neither if he expects Team Santorum to, "Make it happen," and insists on not being involved.
No wonder our, "JOB CREATORS" aren't creating any jobs; they are a bunch of lazy idiots.
Know I know why the GNOP want tax cuts....so the rich guys can create jobs for the campaigns....yeaaa...that's the ticket.....
Not lazy just out of their minds if they think Rick is the "One". Talk about wasting you money.
Obama/Biden 2012
So Rick makes a mark in the campaign, and now it's his turn in the pickle barrel! The attacks come against any GOP candidate that may make a move to win the nomination, and the DNC talking points will now filter out to find the dirt against him.
Now when will we discover more information about the Obama? Oh, that's right, he's spent millions to have his records sealed. Why and what is he afraid of of? Transparency anyone?
Winermaker: Me thinks you've been sipping!
No, no, no sandy, look at the facts. Each of the Republican candidates has a rally in the polls, and the DNC digs up dirt, provides it to the Obama SuperPac media outlets, then the focus is on the candidate to refute the alligation. Certainly removes the candidate from projecting his/her ideals for leadership of the nation.
Each GOP candidate has had the dirt brought out when they moved forward.
But seriously, why would someone spend large sums of money to have records sealed? Shouldn't his background be as open and reported on as the candidates that oppose him?
And I do sip my product - it is that good!
Campaign financing at it's worst. Things will never change.
"But it is that openness that has caused some observers to scratch their heads and make the case that there really are no rules separating campaigns and Super PAC donors."
You're kidding.....SOME observers? Is there even ONE observer out there who actually believes otherwise?
I'm not "scratching" my head; I'm banging it against the wall.....
"If you want us to do it, we'll do it," one aide finally told him.
=========
Uhhhhh....this is not coordination or strategy alignment?
DUH!! This is old news. All you had to do was watch Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. They were able to make show everyone how SuperPacs have made a mockery of the democratic process.
The whole thing is a joke, which makes the supreme court justices supreme jokes.
It is all about money, money, money especially with the Republicans. We need to make sure that we send a message loud and clear that money CANNOT buy an election. If we allow it than we lose control of our government of the people, by the people, and for the people to be replaced by government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
If money doesn't buy an election baldeagle11, then shouldn't Obama take the high road and not accept SuperPac funding from those Democrat 1%'ers?
baldeagle,
I see you nicely forgot to include Obama as one that will be taking in millions from PAC's as well. I don't begrudge him for doing so, but he is a hypocrite for saying no and then turn around and accept PAC money. So your comment should equally apply to all candidates running for president, right? And just to be clear, unions are considered the same as a corporation.
Didn't take long for the union basher to get here. Obama would be a fool not to take PAC money given the millions that Republican businessmen are tossing at their clown posse in their effort to lower their taxes to nothing and remove all regulations so that they can finish stealing us all blind. Obama's problem is that the Democratic party doesn't have the billionaires that the Republicans do to fund him and since Wall Street is now fully in the Republican camp he's right in doing what he did. As much as Republicans want to buy our government, there are still many who are going to do everything they can to prevent it. Republicans would spend us into complete bankruptcy with their corporate welfare projects.
It's amazing that you refuse to equate the two. Unions give just as much as corporations do and to think otherwise is just plain foolish. Obama has his billionaires to tap for his SuperPAC. I always find it funny that the left can bash all these CEO's from corporations for their high salaries, but we have never seen any published figures of what union leaders earn. Why is that? At least with public corporations they are required to disclose what they earn, it's too bad that the unions can't play by the same rules.
JK You are wrong, it is published. Try your google button!
Sandy,
You won't be offended if I don't believe you when you can't even provide a link...Unions have done as much damage as corporations. So...let me ask you this, how come the union leaders don't disclose how much they earn? You do realize that they get paid off the backs of their rank and file don't you? I mean these guys don't work for free. Someone has to pay their salaries... As for CEO's, public companies have to report their top executive salaries and benefits. If an investor doesn't agree with the compensation policy of a particular company, then he doesn't have to invest in the company. Unfortunately, union rank and file don't get that choice. They simply keep feeding the "beast" and in turn are bullied if their viewpoints don't align with their union leaders. But to the point of contributions, unions have contributed far more than corporations. Perhaps you should try your google button...
unions are 7% of the work force if in your wildest dreams you think they have any where near the money that corperations have you are crazy republicans keep bashing them because they want absolutly no orginized voice to speak for working class people. remember a working man that votes republican is like a chicken voting for col. sanders.
Mark,
I noticed that you didn't address any points I made about unions. In California for example, would you like to explain to me of all the donors for the race for Governor, that Jerry Brown's largest donor was a union?? Care to explain that?
It's charity work. The one percent is buying candidates for the voters. The Koch brother bought a governor for Wisconsin. The problem is that he governs for the Koch brothers, not the state. As far as the governor himself, Wisconsin wants an adult in the office at least, not a boy who calls teachers bad names.
Oh really....you mean since he put the big union thugs in their place and now school districts and cities now aren't being bankrupt.....he is easily going to win re-election....wisconsin is not going to keep raising taxes to pay for big union....sorry but you couldn't be anymore wrong.
john david: Do you watch the news?
We need publicly financed elections with strict spending and time caps. It will have large impact on who I vote for.
At least she didn't pal around with terrorists who tried killing police officers....bazinga.....lol
A new ad by Americanlp showing "Romnenomics"
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>