Taking the Money and Running

Via Joe Sudbay, a nice rebuttal of Michael Steele's recent ad claiming Ben Cardin is beholden to the drug companies:

"Congressman Cardin took money from drug companies," Steele says. "I want to ban gifts from special interests."

The ad does not mention that less than a week before the commercial began airing, a top drug company executive and an industry lobbyist hosted a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for Steele at a K Street steakhouse in Washington.

The invitation to the fundraiser, obtained by The Washington Post, says the Sept. 20 lunch reception was to be hosted by Sally Walsh, a director of federal government relations at GlaxoSmithKline, and Michael Carozza, a lobbyist for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

It advises donors to send contributions to lobbyist Frederick T. Dombo III, who identifies himself on his Web site as a Steele campaign volunteer. Federal records show that Dombo represents AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, one of the largest pharmaceutical services companies in the country.

Let's also remember Steele's infamous encounter with Lee Fang of the Maryland College Democrats on the subject of lobbyists.

For myself, I find it odd that Steele has made so much of his platform, such as it is, about curbing the influence of lobbyists. Even were we to take him seriously on the matter, I would venture that railing against corruption in Washington only gets you halfway to a winning campaign message. That might seem strange to say in the midst of the Mark Foley sex scandal, which apparently is leveling Republicans right and left (no pun intended), but it's important to note that Republicans were already doing badly on a host of issues, chief among them Iraq. And the whole swirl of events surrounding Jack Abramoff fed right into that situation: You could ask, Why is Washington not getting anything done about Iraq, Katrina, immigration, etc.? and get the answer, Because the Republican Congress is in thrall to lobbyists like Jack Abramoff. Bear in mind that Abramoff's shady dealings were about comparatively minor matters, e.g., Indian casinos and factories on the Marianas Islands. Not that they weren't bad; rather, they didn't touch on the major fiascos of the last five years, like Iraq, Katrina, and Guantanamo.

The upshot of what I'm saying is, Steele would be a stronger candidate if he could complement his anti-lobbyist message with a more substantive, comprehensive set of concerns. But then, he would be a stronger candidate if his anti-lobbyist message actually rang true, wouldn't he?

UPDATE: Factcheck.org's analysis of the Steele ad is illuninating.