New White House Social Secretary Julianna Smoot (photo by Lynn Sweet) Has Close Ties to Convicted Democratic Fundraiser Norman Hsu
The latest weekend firing by the Obama Administration (Van Jones, Gregory B. Craig) is the White House Social Secretary, Desiree Rogers. Rogers left last night under a cloud of scandal for her mishandling of Obama’s first State Dinner (with India) as the famous “party crashers”, the Salahis, somehow gaining entry uninvited. This resignation of a White House Social Secretary in the wake of scandal is yet another “unprecedented” development, courtesy of the Obama Administration. Other firsts from the Rogers tenure include the first claim of executive privilege made on behalf of the White House Social Secretary, as ludicrously stated by chief Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs at the height of the party crashers scandal. Without question, the Rogers tenure was the most scandal ridden tenure of any White House Social Secretary in American history. But enough the now departed Desiree Rogers, and time to analyze the past and present of the new White House Social Secretary, Julianna Smoot.
Left-leaning Politico journalist Ben Smith laments the appointment Obama’s chief fundraiser, Julianna Smoot, as the the new White House Social Secretary:
The promotion of Julianna Smoot to White House Social Secretary is good news for wealthy donors to President Obama’s campaign, for whom Smoot — the chief campaign fundraiser — is friend and point of contact.
Smoot, who had been working in the relative obscurity of the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, will now be the key gatekeeper to the kind of social functions from which donors have complained that this administration, unlike President Clinton’s, has barred them.
But the choice to unite money and access in the person of Smoot — a career political fundraiser whose efforts were downplayed by a campaign eager to focus on small donors — cuts against both President Obama’s broader message of change and against the talking points of her departing predecessor, Desiree Rogers.
Rogers told Lynn Sweet that she saw her role as turning the White House into the “people’s house,” and Michelle Obama praised her in a statement for “welcoming scores of everyday Americans through its doors, from wounded warriors to local schoolchildren to NASCAR drivers.”
Smoot may have the same goal, but her credentials and relationships point in the opposite direction: To ensuring access and satisfaction for the ultra-wealthy elite who will, incidentally, be called on to finance President Obama’s next campaign.
A White House official says appointing a fundraising staffer Social Secretary isn’t “outside the norm” because one of President George W. Bush’s Social Secretaries, Lea Berman, had been such a staffer, though not one of Smoot’s centrality.
As Ben notes, Smoot was Obama’s chief fundraiser for the 2008 campaign and she is a longtime veteran of Democratic fundraising, working for such liberal luminaries as John Edwards, Tom Daschle, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller (all mentioned in today’s White House press release except, of course, John Edwards and Tom Daschle) and others. A 2007 article from the Washington Post outlines the critical role Smoot played in making the Obama presidential campaign a “serious contender” for the presidency, as she created the “fundraising juggernaut” that netted Obama $75 Million by September 2007, earning her the moniker from WaPo of “the $75 Million Dollar Woman”:
On a frigid day in early January, Barack Obama rode the three blocks from the Capitol to a nondescript, four-story, white-brick building where he had rented a spartan office suite.
Obama pulled out a folding chair and sat down with Julianna Smoot, the veteran Democratic fundraiser he had hired to raise the millions of dollars he would need for a presidential bid. Smoot thumbed through a thin list of potential donors that Obama had gathered during his 2004 Senate bid in Illinois and as he helped other politicians raise money for elections in 2006. She frowned.
“It wasn’t much to work with,” Smoot recalled. “But that was how we started. He asked me what he should do, and I said, ‘Start calling. And don’t forget to ask for their credit card numbers.’ “
That was the beginning of a fundraising juggernaut that, perhaps more than any other single factor, helped transform Obama into a serious contender for the presidency. By the end of September, the senator from Illinois had raised more money for his primary bid than any other candidate in either party — more than $75 million. He did it not simply by using the new possibilities of the Internet, for which he has received considerable attention, but by creating almost overnight a network of “bundlers” — a core group of motivated supporters with the Rolodexes to bring along friends and associates.
From all appearances, as described in Ben Smith’s article today and the WaPo’s 2007 piece, amongst other sources, the new White House Social Secretary Smoot is the insider’s insider, with close personal contacts with many if not most major Democratic donors and folks known as presidential “bundlers”, who bundle up maximum donations from others to the candidate and are central to modern presidential fundraising. As chief fundraiser, Smoot oversaw the creation of the Obama bundlers task force in 2007, the 100 top bundlers who went on to form the core of Obama’s fundraising effort, going from the meeting at Obama’s “spartan” office in DC to a spacious 11th floor office in downtown Chicago in less than a year:
Obama’s campaign offices are spread across the entire 11th floor of a Chicago high-rise. The finance team’s desks are scattered around a Ping-Pong table. Tabloid headlines — “Record Haul for Obama,” “Run for the Money” — are taped to the walls.
As the summer wore on, Smoot sat in the middle, tracking dozens of events around the country on her laptop. In a rolling series of phone calls with her regional fundraisers, she pushed and prodded them to hit their goals, then updated her spreadsheets so she could keep tabs on the quarter’s target.
Imprisoned former Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu (seen here with Hillary Clinton) Has Again Popped Up in National News as his Ties to Obama's New Social Secretary, Julianna Smoot, are Revealed
Smoot apparently has little problem with associating with unsavory characters, such as now-imprisoned Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu. The two were quite close, has mutual “respect” for each other as Hsu served as one of Smoot’s “most reliable donors from her tenure as finance chair for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.” Smoot aggressively pursued Hsu on behalf of the Obama campaign, as noted by the 2007 WaPo “$75 Million Dollar Woman” piece:
Smoot knew Obama was not alone in pursuing potential fundraisers. Some were getting daily calls from presidential candidates. One potential bundler contacted by Smoot was Norman Hsu, one of the most reliable donors from her tenure as finance chair for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Hsu would later become mired in scandal as a top bundler for the Clinton campaign, but he was regarded at the time as a prime target because of his reputation for producing a steady flow of campaign cash.
In an interview — before it was reported that Hsu was a fugitive trying to outrun a 15-year-old conviction for running a Ponzi scheme — he recalled his call from Smoot. She asked what he thought of Obama’s bid and whether he might consider helping. “I told her, ‘You’re asking for an unbiased opinion from someone who is very biased.’ She knew I was loyal to Senator Clinton. I told her she was asking the wrong person. We both respected each other well enough not to talk about it after that.”
The NY Daily News detailed the various campaign fundraising crimes that Hsu was convicted of after his May 2008 trial, and at his sentencing (he received 24 years in jail), presiding Judge Victor Marrero declared that “Hsu’s dishonest use of political campaigns to perpetuate his fraud strikes at the very core of our democracy.” CNN reports on the sentencing:
NEW YORK (CNN) – A former Democratic fund-raiser who contributed to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was sentenced Tuesday to 292 months, or more than 24 years, in prison for fraud including campaign finance violations, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara announced.
“Norman Hsu betrayed the trust of his victims by stealing their money with false promises of fake returns in order to finance a luxurious lifestyle…Today’s sentence underscores our commitment to stop swindlers like Hsu in their tracks and bring them to the bar of justice,” Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement.
The sentencing breakdown includes 240 months in prison for wire and mail fraud charges and 52 months in prison for charges of campaign finance fraud. Judge Victor Marrero, who issued the sentence Tuesday afternoon at a Manhattan federal court, said in a statement, “Hsu’s dishonest use of political campaigns to perpetuate his fraud strikes at the very core of our democracy.”
Hsu, 57, was convicted in May on four counts of campaign fraud – one for each year from 2004 to 2007.
Earlier this year, Hsu also was found guilty on 10 counts of mail and wire fraud surrounding his investment practices.
He was indicted in 2007 after an investigation into his two investment companies.
When he was convicted in May, prosecutors said that Hsu not only swindled investors out of at least $20 million but also told some investors to make campaign contributions to the candidates he supported, and suggested that their investments could be jeopardized if they didn’t do as he asked.
Hsu has pleaded guilty to orchestrating the Ponzi scheme.
Obama’s campaign at the time of the public disclosure of Hsu’s alleged criminal wrongdoing (after initial hesitation), decided to donate the funds raised by Hsu for Obama for his first national campaign, the 2004 run for the Illinois Senate seat to charity. Democratic Underground reported in 2007 that “Obama’s team scored a significant hit by helping to place a story in several newspapers revealing that Norman Hsu, a major Clinton donor, had skipped town after having pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft” while TalkLeft pointed out out at the time that Obama’s campaign had criticized Clinton at the time for risking her “independence” by taking shady donations:
Tuesday, Barack Obama’s spokesperson said the Senator would not give up the donations received from Norman Hsu.
… spokesman Jen Psaki said Obama, who has criticized Clinton for taking contributions that could undermine her independence, had no plans to return Hsu’s donations.
Today, he’s had a change of heart.
A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who is a rival of Mrs. Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination, said Mr. Obama intended to give away $7,000 that Mr. Hsu contributed to his committees.
Interestingly, the Newsday story quoting Jen Psaki used by Talkleft above is no longer an available link. Considering the return of the money raised by Hsu after the explicit Obama campaign acknowledgment to the Washington Post in September 2007 that Hsu brought a “major fundraiser” to Obama in the mid-2000’s, Hsu’s links to Obama were not insubstantial, making the choice of Smoot, who herself is closely tied to Hsu, an odd choice by Obama. Hsu received the longest prison sentence for campaign finance crimes in recent history, according to our searches, between the time Obama’s campaign returned some Hsu money in September 2007 and the appointment of Julianna Smoot today. Indeed, as Obama has railed against the “broken” Washington lately over the stalling of his health care plan (and as that battle heats up), the appointment of this fundraiser Smoot, who made Obama into a “serious contender” by using her stellar insider connections in 2007, and considering her not so stellar insider connections folks like Hsu, must be disappointing to those who are true believers in Obama’s “hope and change” mantra as well to centrist fans of good governance.
Regardless, it is clear that, even from the left-leaning point of view, Obama’s appointment of Julianna Smoot represents “good news for wealthy donors to President Obama’s campaign” and a sign of increased influence in the White House of the “wealthy elite” who will fund Obama 2012. Considering the spate of stories last week about the beginning of the campaign operations of Obama 2012, perhaps Smoot’s appointment is unsurprising as she’ll likely serve as a hub for the prior donor network that she established back in 2007 that jumpstarted the Obama 2008 campaign. This move by Obama appears to contradict his 2008 campaign rhetoric about lessening the influence of big money on the White House, his recent condemnation of the Supreme Court decision on corporate donations, and other Democrats recent comments, like those of NY Dem Rep. Anthony Weiner), which bemoaning the influence of large big money in politics. Indeed, Ben concludes his piece by noting that the Smoot appointment “cuts against both President Obama’s broader message of change” and the Rogers and Obama talking points about increased “openness” in the White House to all Americans, not just the wealthy few. Smoot’s deep ties to Norman Hsu certainly punctuate this point of view, and Obama has been under fire from watchdog groups for failing to curb “big money” influence in DC even before the Smoot appointment.
Obama’s comment on the Smoot appointment touches these familiar claims, saying that Smoot shares the Obamas’ commitment “to creating an inclusive, dynamic and culturally vibrant White House.” In response to Ben Smith’s article, an anonymous White House official played the familiar “Bush did it” card by defending Smoot’s appointment as not “outside the norm” because a Bush social secretary, Lea Berman, had been a low-level fundraiser. Of course, Berman was a not the central, chief fundraiser for Bush, like Smoot was in for Obama and as Smoot apparently will be for Obama 2012. Further, the White House Social Secretary’s job has never been filled by the top fundraiser of the President’s campaign, creating another “unprecedented” development from the Obama White House. We can only hope that Obama is correct in his assessment of Smoot, and that Smoot’s appointment does not signal an increase special interest and wealthy donor influence in the Obama White House as we approach the 2010 and 2012 elections. If Smoot couldn’t sniff out an ongoing campaign finance criminal enterprise that Hsu was engaging in as he served as one of Smoot’s “most reliable donors from her tenure as finance chair” of the DSCC for the 2006 election cycle, a reasonable question can be asked as to whether Smoot should be in charge of access of other bundlers and everyone else to the Obama White House.
UPDATE: No reporting yet on the close ties between Smoot and Hsu by the mainstream media. While we do not have the resources to truly investigate the long term ties between Hsu and Smoot, one interesting fact turned up in our research: the single biggest donation that Hsu made during the years for which he was convicted of campaign finance crimes (2004-2007) was $26,700.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in June 2005, at a time when Smoot was the Finance Chair of the DSCC:
HSU, NORMAN
NEW YORK,NY 10016 COOL PLANETS 6/9/05 $26,700 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
The next biggest donation to anyone by Hsu, ever, was less than half of the $26,700.00 donated by Hsu to the DSCC while Smoot was the DSCC finance chair. That explains why Hsu was described by the Washington Post in 2007 as “one of the most reliable donors from her tenure as finance chair for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee” and why Smoot tried a hard sell on Hsu to pull him away from Clinton and to Obama in early 2007. A reasonable inquiry remains to be made as to why Smoot, who apparently could not discern that one of her “most reliable donors” Hsu was in fact engaged in criminal violations of campaign finance laws, is fit to be in charge of all access to the White House. Further, aside from the Hsu issue, considering Smoot is a career fundraiser and insider’s insider, putting her in charge of White House access could be seen a case of letting the fox guard the hen house.
Technorati Tags: 75 million dollar woman, American History, Barack Obama, big money, Centrality, Chief Fundraiser, Close Ties, convicted democrat, Democratic Fundraiser, Democratic Fundraising, Desiree Rogers, Dscc, Edwa, Edwar, Executive Privilege, Firsts, fundraising crimes, Gatekeeper, George W Bush, hsu, insider, Julianna, julianna smoot, Longtime Veteran, newly appointed, Norman Hsu, obama 2008, obama 2012, Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs, Party Crashers, Point Of Contact, Political Fundraiser, President Clinton, President George W Bush, Relative Obscurity, Smoot, Social Functions, Social Secretaries, Social Secretary, Special Interests, Staffer, State Dinner, Trade Representative, Unprecedented Development, wealthy, Wealthy Donors, Wealthy Elite, white house social secretary
Health Care Summit Ends with No Bipartisan Deal
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
The Head Table at the Health Care Summit Today, Which Ended With Little Hope of a Bipartisan Deal on Centrist Health Care Reform
Over six hours of debate and discussion between Republicans and Democrats, with Democratic President Barack Obama moderating and commenting frequently, ended just now with little indication that a deal between the GOP and Obama over health care reform is forthcoming. Obama himself stated that he is unsure that “gaps can be bridged.” The parties essentially talked past each other for hours, reciting their respective scripted commentary and talking points regarding health care reform, with the GOP generally favoring a smaller, incremental health care plan while the Democrats favored a large, comprehensive health care plan.
Media reaction has been generally favorable for all involved, with an interesting surge in praise for the Republican performance from mainstream news sources such as CNN and MSNBC. For instance, CNN’s centrist commenter David Gergen, who has advised four Presidents from both parties, stated as follows this afternoon:
CNN’s left-leaning commentator Gloria Borgen also praised the GOP’s performance, stating that “the Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10). Considering the scolding the GOP took after the last live-TV encounter with Obama at the House Republican retreat from the media, such positive reactions are surprising but indicative of a much more polished and substantive performance by the GOP today. Another commentator, centrist reporter A.B. Stoddard from The Hill, also had kind words for the GOP:
Ace rounds up analysis from conservative journalists who argue that the GOP “suckered” Obama into believing they were lifeless dupes at the House Republican Retreat encounter, and that Obama’s skills did not mesh well with the negotiated format today. Obama also appeared to be the lone effective Democratic participant, with other Democrats focusing more on anecdotal stories about individual health care stories instead of doing the hard work of defending and selling the legislative language.
In what may become the most memorable exchange of today’s affair, GOP House Leader John Boehner sparred with President Obama over why the Administration would not accept a bipartisan deal over incremental health care reform legislation on issues such as medical malpractice reform, insurance reforms and the allowance of interstate competition between insurance companies. Obama responded in non-committal fashion as follows:
All day long, the Democrats attempted to downplay the issue of the use of reconciliation, as epitomized by Harry Reid’s obviously untruthful statement that “nobody is talking about reconciliation” in his opening comments. Obama also danced around the issue, asserting that the American people are not that interested in the “procedures inside the Senate”:
Obama’s comments run counter to several polls released in the last few days, including Fox’s finding that 59% reject moving forward with Obama’s Health Plan unless a deal is reached with the GOP and Gallup’s finding that 52% of the American public reject the use of reconciliation by the Senate to pass Obamacare, while only 39% are in favor.
Nancy Pelosi’s final speaking period was marked by a sour note of attacks on John Boehner (about abortion funding in the Senate bill) and Dave Camp (about the over $400 Billion in Medicare cuts), repeating herself several times while claiming both GOP congressmen were essentially liars.
Obama’s closing argument focused initially on advocacy of strong new federal regulation of insurance companies with a sprinkling in of references to anecdotal stories of individual health outcomes. Obama also defended the national exchange idea as “not a government takeover” but failed to mention that all policies offered on the exchange would have to meet stringent federal benefits requirements and report to a new federal bureaucracy.
Another theme Obama returned to several times was his claim that his plan would provide coverage to all Americans along similar lines as Congress receives, which is a dubious claim at best considering the gold-plated nature of Congressional members’ health care coverage On selling insurance across state lines, Obama agreed in principle with GOP ideas there but his “philosophical concern” with that proposal is a “race to the bottom” that Obama claimed would result if interstate insurance sales were allowed. Obama again stressed his “pilot programs” for medical malpractice, however, as former Kansas Trial Lawyer Association Chief and now HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in charge of the effort, it is unlikely to make a serious dent in trial lawyer profits.
Obama continued in his concluding remarks by claiming that he put forward “substantial” policies that were previously put forward by Republicans, used the term “Obamacare” to refer to the comprehensive health care plan and discussed the “fair share” that employers must pay via the new employer taxes in Obamacare, while repeating that his plan is “consistent with a market based approach.” Obama then claimed that his Medicare cuts are a “Republican idea” and stated that “he will end by stating” that “I suspect that if the Democrats and the Administration were willing to start over and then adopt John Boehner’s bill, we’d get a whole bunch of Republican votes. I don’t know how many Democrat votes we’d get….the concern…on the Democratic side…after five decades of dealing with this issue, starting over, they suspect, means not doing much.” Obama then tweaked Republicans to “do a little soul searching” to find the inner strength to support his plans, and then quickly stated that “I dont know frankly if we can close that gap.”
Obama then moved towards the end of his final remarks with more anecdotes about how folks he talks to don’t want him to wait and that they can’t “afford to wait another five decades.” Obama partially recognized the unpopularity of his health plans by stating “I dont need a poll to know that most of Republican voters are opposed to this bill” and regarding the GOP’s demand to start over, “if we saw significant [GOP] movement, then you wouldn’t need to start over because essentially everyone here knows what the issues are.” The President than set a “a month or six weeks” deadline for additional talks with the GOP and implied that without progress by then, the President would proceed to attempt to push the present version of the Obama Health Plan through Congress and after that have the People decide via elections. On the way out the door, Obama told reporters it was a “terrific conversation” today. Politico sums up the summit as follows:
In the post-summit environment, it appears that Obama did not score a huge victory that many claimed he needed to keep the Administration’s plan to pass the Senate bill through the House and then pass another Senate bill via reconciliation to “fix” the problems with the prior Senate bill. Politico and others are reporting that Obama intends to discard any pretense of bipartisanship early next week and work on pushing Obamacare through both houses of Congress. The WSJ and others are reporting that Obama intends to scale back his present $950 Billion Dollar plan to a $250 Billion Dollar plan in the wake of the summit in order to get a win of some kind on health care. Furthermore, Obama appeared to set a new deadline by the end of March for passing a deal with the GOP before passing Obamacare via reconciliation.. The next few days are sure to be exciting as the fate of the Democratic attempt to pass the largest health care bill in American history hang in the balance.
Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Borgen, Cnn, Commentator, Comprehensive Health Care, David Gergen, Democratic President, Health Care Bill, Health Care Plan, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Little Hope, Live Tv, Mainstream News Sources, Msnbc, Republicans And Democrats, Retr, S David, Six Hours, Summit Ends
Tags: Barack Obama, Borgen, Cnn, Commentator, Comprehensive Health Care, David Gergen, Democratic President, Health Care Bill, Health Care Plan, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Little Hope, Live Tv, Mainstream News Sources, Msnbc, Republicans And Democrats, Retr, S David, Six Hours, Summit Ends
Posted in Daily Content | No Comments »