For Clinton, Millions in Debt and Few Options

The NY Times reports:

With her campaign now officially suspended, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confronting still another challenge: whittling down what is believed to be the largest presidential campaign debt in history.

Besides the $11.4 million of her own money that Mrs. Clinton lent her campaign, she had about $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors at the end of April, according to her most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission.

It is unclear how much debt she will ultimately report, because the campaign is still adding up the figures for May, which it must file to the commission by June 20. But Mo Elleithee, a campaign spokesman, said, “We don’t expect the debt number to look significantly different than it did on our last report.”

Other, far more affluent candidates have poured more of their own money into their presidential bids, like Mitt Romney, who spent more than $44 million in an unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination this year. His money was technically classified by his campaign as a loan, but it was clear from the beginning that he was simply self-financing a large part of his campaign.

What makes Mrs. Clinton’s situation unusual is the combination of unpaid bills and her own personal loan. Records show that other unsuccessful candidates owed less than half to their vendors than what she owes to businesses. “It’s unprecedented,” said Jan Baran, a campaign finance lawyer with Wiley Rein.

Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, for instance, ended his campaign for the Republican nomination also owing numerous vendors, but his total debt was $3.6 million, including $500,000 he lent the race.

And in one of the more memorable cases of debt, former Senator John Glenn of Ohio ended his 1984 Democratic presidential bid with nearly $3 million in debt. He struggled for more than 20 years to pay it off until the Federal Election Commission issued him a reprieve.

Mrs. Clinton’s options for retiring her debt are limited. On the positive side, she has raised about $1 million online and by mail since polls closed in Montana and South Dakota last Tuesday to end the primary season, her campaign said. The continued flow of donations, even after Senator Barack Obama had crossed the threshold of delegates he needed to claim the nomination, may indicate that some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters may be devoted enough to pitch in to help with her debt.

Otherwise, the most discussed option is for Mr. Obama, now the presumed nominee, to encourage his fund-raising team to help her with a series of joint events.

Campaign finance laws prohibit Mr. Obama from simply transferring money from his war chest to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. But Mr. Obama’s fund-raisers could ask their donors to give to Mrs. Clinton.

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, will meet with some top Clinton fund-raisers on Thursday in New York, according to the Web site Talking Points Memo and confirmed by a Clinton fund-raiser.

Several Obama fund-raisers interviewed, however, said privately that they believed helping Mrs. Clinton with her debt would be difficult, given that they are also being asked to raise money for Mr. Obama and to build up the coffers of the Democratic National Committee, which badly trails the Republican National Committee in cash on hand.

They also pointed out that some Obama donors would find it difficult to overcome the animosity they had built up during a long, hard-fought primary season.

In an example of just how difficult it can be to raise money for another candidate, Senator John McCain’s campaign agreed this year to help Mr. Giuliani retire his debt, but progress has been slow because of the need to raise money for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and the party.

Even as Mrs. Clinton must raise money to pay her bills, her campaign must liquidate more than $23 million in contributions set aside for the general election. They can do it by either returning it to donors or designating it for her Senate re-election campaign in 2012, provided she obtains permission from her donors to do so.

Mrs. Clinton could simply shutter her presidential campaign committee and transfer her remaining debt to her Senate campaign fund and continue to raise money to pay it down.

But several campaign finance experts were divided about whether she could take the money from the general election designated to her Senate coffers and use it toward her debt.

Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, said that he believed such a maneuver was possible but that he would advise her to obtain an advisory opinion from the commission to guide her. “I think there’s a good argument that she can,” Mr. Gross said. “It’s not 100 percent clear.”

But Mr. Baran said he believed categorically that the action would be illegal.

There is technically no deadline for Mrs. Clinton to pay back her creditors, but because of a clause in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance measure that was intended to limit the ability of candidates to self-finance campaigns, she has until the convention in August to pay herself back. After that, the most she could recover is $250,000.

Mrs. Clinton could also whittle down her debt by re-negotiating what she owes with her various creditors, but the Federal Election Commission would have to sign off to ensure that a good-faith effort was made to pay off the debt. It also must be satisfied that the renegotiated bills do not amount to an in-kind donation from a corporation to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

“If they think there was a sweetheart deal, they may raise some questions,” Mr. Gross said.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s largest outstanding bills are to some of her closest advisers, who might be willing to cut her a deal. Mrs. Clinton, for example, owes nearly $5 million to the firm of her former pollster and senior strategist, Mark Penn.

Seeking Superdelegates

As the Democratic Party's superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $900,000 they've received from the candidates

Capital Eye reports:

At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these "superdelegates"—the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.

And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

Because superdelegates will make up around 20 percent of 4,000 delegates to the Democratic convention in August--Republicans don't have superdelegates—Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven't yet made up their minds. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them. Anticipating that their intense competition for votes in state primaries and caucuses will result in a near-tie going into the nominating convention, the two candidates are making personal calls to superdelegates now, or are recruiting other big names to do so on their behalf. With no specific rules about what can and can't be done to court these delegates, just about anything goes.

"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "

Superdelegates will make their decisions based on a number of factors, said Richard Herrera, a political scientist at Arizona State University. Some have long-time political and personal ties to Clinton or Obama, some will support the candidate they think is more likely to beat the Republican nominee and others will commit to the candidate who won their state's support. Deciding whom to support based entirely on contributions from the candidates would be a political liability, Herrera said.

"I think Democrats, both regular delegates and superdelegates, see this year as an opportunity to really take back the White House," he said, "and I don't think there's that short-term political concern that money will play that kind of role. It's a much bigger picture at this point."

The superdelegates themselves say the same thing—that any money flowing from the presidential candidates to the delegates' own campaigns hasn't had any sort of influence on their decisions. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn't received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate. Policy and a personal relationship with the Clintons, not money, swung his vote into her camp, according to spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has known Mrs. Clinton for 15 years and has certainly had a close relationship with President Clinton as well," Ardo said. "I think those are the factors that are really more relevant, especially given the small fraction of his fundraising that Clinton's contributions made. It'd be ludicrous to tie that contribution to his support."

Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.

In addition to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, at least two other governors who have endorsed Clinton have also received contributions from her in the past. Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland received $10,000 and Oregon's Gov. Ted Kulongoski received $5,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, has not endorsed a candidate but received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle.

The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.

Contributions to candidates for federal office are relatively easy to track, but money given to state and local officials is harder to spot. Campaign finance reports from Senate candidate committees are still filed on paper, making it difficult to know who is receiving money from them. For that reason it's possible that Obama and Clinton have given superdelegates even more than the $904,200 the Center for Responsive Politics has identified. While Obama has received the support of numerous state governors, state legislators and local officials, it does not appear that his leadership PAC or presidential candidate committee has contributed to any of them. His PAC did make one interesting contribution in 2006: for her Senate re-election, Hillary Clinton received a $4,200 contribution from Obama.

Another senator running for office in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, collected $10,000 from both Clinton and Obama. As a superdelegate, Whitehouse is backing Clinton for the White House. "His decision was based on his relationship with the Clintons. President Clinton nominated him to be United States attorney in 1994, in Rhode Island, and he believes Sen. Clinton is the strongest candidate," said spokeswoman Alex Swartsel, adding that money wasn't a factor in Whitehouse's decision. "We were a top targeted Senate race in 2006 and we received a number of contributions, including those from Clinton and Obama."

Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."

Chart: Money to superdelegates

How Bill Clinton's Aide Facilitated a Messy Deal

Mr. Band Introduced Italian to Ron Burkle; Lawsuit Over Spending

The Wall Street Journal reports:

For the past six years, the road to Bill Clinton has often run through Douglas Band, a 34-year-old former White House intern who has helped manage Mr. Clinton's time, accompanied him around the world and even fielded some of his calls.

Two years ago, Mr. Band befriended a handsome and charming Italian businessman named Raffaello Follieri. The young Italian, now 29 years old, had moved to New York in 2003 to launch a business buying and redeveloping Roman Catholic Church properties. He claimed close ties with Vatican officials that would smooth the way for deals, according to business associates and material issued by his company, Follieri Group LLC. He also said he could help Mr. Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, with Catholic voters during her presidential campaign, people in the Clinton camp recall.

As a gatekeeper to the former president's web of business and charitable enterprises, Mr. Band helped Mr. Follieri get into business with Mr. Clinton, according to people involved with the three men. In 2005, Yucaipa Cos., a Los Angeles investment firm where Mr. Clinton has been a partner and a senior adviser, agreed to invest up to $100 million in Mr. Follieri's church-property venture.

Later, Mr. Band helped Mr. Follieri secure several million dollars more from Michael Cooper, a Toronto real-estate executive and supporter of Mr. Clinton's humanitarian initiatives. Mr. Band received $400,000 from Mr. Follieri for arranging that deal. Mr. Band's connection to Mr. Follieri was reported in Il Sole/24 Ore, an Italian newspaper.

These days, the Clinton camp's relations with Mr. Follieri are in tatters. Yucaipa managing partner Ron Burkle, Mr. Clinton's longtime friend, has sued Mr. Follieri in Delaware state court for allegedly misappropriating at least $1.3 million. The lawsuit claims Mr. Follieri used Yucaipa's investment money to fund a lavish lifestyle that included a Manhattan penthouse, five-star meals and private jets for Mr. Follieri and his girlfriend, actress Anne Hathaway. Mr. Follieri has denied any wrongdoing. Mr. Cooper has demanded his money back.

Since leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton has earned more than $40 million giving speeches, has raised billions of dollars for his own charitable foundation and other causes, and has entered into business relationships with Mr. Burkle and others. Today, heads of state, business leaders and other notables will gather in New York for the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, an organization that obtains charitable pledges from various sources.

Mrs. Clinton's presidential run is likely to draw scrutiny of her husband's recent activities. Jay Carson, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, said in June that while the former president had met Mr. Follieri a few times, "he obviously meets hundreds of people every day, and does not know him well."


His aide Mr. Band referred questions about the Italian businessman to Mr. Carson. In written responses, Mr. Carson said Mr. Band "became friendly" with Mr. Follieri, who "explained to Doug and others his unique business opportunity" for buying Catholic Church properties. "Doug and others made introductions for Raffaello." He added that Mr. Band didn't keep the $400,000 sent him by Mr. Follieri for arranging Mr. Cooper's investment.

Mr. Follieri declined to discuss his dealings with Mr. Band.

Mr. Band, a Florida native, joined the Clinton administration as an intern in 1995 and rose to become the president's personal aide. In 1998, he was interviewed by investigators for independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who were looking into Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Band told them he got to know Ms. Lewinsky at the White House and, at her request, had accompanied her to the 1995 White House ball, according to an interview memorandum prepared by investigators.


When Mr. Clinton left office in 2001, Mr. Band stayed with him. Without his young aide, Mr. Clinton said in a 2003 speech, "I could not get through the day." Adds one longtime Clinton associate: "When Doug calls up, it's like having the president call up."

As he embarked on his post-presidency life, Mr. Clinton and his wife had relatively few assets and millions of dollars in legal bills. Over the next half decade, he hopscotched the globe, often with Mr. Band at his side, giving speeches at up to $450,000 a pop. He raised large sums for his library and his foundation and snagged nearly $10 billion in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative.

To help keep Mr. Band from accepting job offers in the private sector, arrangements were made to supplement his income, people familiar with the matter say. Mr. Burkle's Yucaipa operation, for example, paid Mr. Band through a company called SGRD, these people say. In 2001, Mr. Band and a family member set up two entities in Florida using the SGRD name, public records indicate. Mr. Clinton's spokesman didn't respond to questions about Mr. Band's financial relationships, other than the one with Mr. Follieri.

When Mr. Follieri arrived in Manhattan in 2003, he had big ambitions. Citing the changing demographics of many U.S. Catholic dioceses and the litigation costs of the church's sex-abuse scandals, he told potential investors that the church needed to sell lots of property. Buying such properties and redeveloping them could help both the church and urban communities where many of properties were located -- and would produce tidy profits for investors, according to Follieri Group marketing material and presentations.

A résumé posted on the company's Web site says that while Mr. Follieri was attending the University of Rome in the late 1990s, he founded a cosmetics company called Beauty Planet that attained "tremendous success" and licensed a line of products to "an internationally renowned hairstylist." Beauty Planet financial records on file in Italy indicate that the firm was small and had three straight years of losses, although Mr. Follieri has told people the company was ultimately profitable.

Mr. Follieri's résumé also says he worked as executive vice president of EFFE Holdings, "a London based, privately held investment firm" that "purchases large real estate packages from government holdings in Europe and the Middle East" and "is also active in oil trading as well as gold and diamond mining," with "mining operations in Gambia, Senegal and Angola." British public records show an EFFE Holding Ltd., with Mr. Follieri listed as a director, was formed in 2002 and dissolved two years later. (Mr. Follieri has told people there also is an EFFE entity in Luxembourg involved in those activities.)

Mr. Follieri's father, Pasquale, is president of the Follieri Group. In 2005, he was convicted in an Italian court of misappropriating more than $300,000 from a failed resort company whose assets he had been charged with overseeing. He has denied wrongdoing and has appealed the conviction.

By early 2005, Mr. Follieri was cropping up in New York tabloids as the boyfriend of Ms. Hathaway, a rising Hollywood star whose movie credits include "The Princess Diaries," "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Becoming Jane." The 24-year-old actress sits on the board of the Follieri Foundation, a charitable entity that Mr. Follieri started. Although she was mentioned in Mr. Burkle's lawsuit against Mr. Follieri, she isn't a defendant. In a statement earlier this year, Ms. Hathaway's spokesman said she has "faith the court system will sort this out."

Mr. Follieri was introduced to Mr. Band by a mutual acquaintance in the spring of 2005. The two "met and spoke frequently" and socialized, says Mr. Carson, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, adding that Mr. Band had such regular contact with many people.

One of the introductions Mr. Band provided was to Mr. Burkle, and in mid-2005, Mr. Follieri struck his deal with the investor. A Yucaipa partnership where Mr. Clinton served as a senior adviser formed a joint venture with the Follieri Group. Yucaipa agreed to invest as much as $100 million into the venture to buy church properties for redevelopment as mixed-income housing units, community centers and retirement facilities, among other things.

Mr. Follieri moved his business operation into leased office space on Park Avenue. He employed Filipino nuns as receptionists and installed a small altar in one room, according to people who visited the office. He began renting an "extremely costly" penthouse, complete with a staff that included an executive chef, the Yucaipa lawsuit says. Although it was supposed to be for the joint venture, Mr. Follieri moved his personal effects there and appeared to take up residence, the suit says. A spokesman for Mr. Follieri says the Italian's residence in the $40,000-a-month penthouse "has nothing to do with Yucaipa."

The Follieri Foundation pledged $1 million to vaccinate Honduran children against hepatitis. At last year's annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, Mr. Follieri was individually called on stage for a personal thank you from Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Follieri's connection to the Clinton camp opened horizons outside of the U.S. Being honored by the former president "adds credibility" to a person, says a spokeswoman for Bahrain's Economic Development Board, whose chief executive, Sheik Mohammed bin Essa Al-Khalifa, met Mr. Follieri through the Clinton Global Initiative. Mr. Follieri subsequently visited Bahrain seeking investment dollars, but he didn't leave with a deal. His Clinton ties also helped get him a meeting in São Paulo with former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, part of an effort to find additional investors, people familiar with the meeting say.

Mr. Follieri also approached Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim, by some calculations the world's richest man, who has been a major supporter of Clinton humanitarian efforts. In July 2005, Messrs. Follieri, Burkle and Band visited Mr. Slim on his yacht in the Sea of Cortez for an afternoon of chatting and jet skiing, according to people involved in the trip. There were subsequent communications about a possible joint Latin American real-estate venture, but no deal was closed, these people say.


On occasion, Mr. Follieri socialized with the Clintons. In his recently published autobiography, Terry McAuliffe, a Democratic Party leader who is now chairman of Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, includes a group photo from a January 2006 party in the Dominican Republic resort of Punta Cana. It shows Mr. and Mrs. McAuliffe, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Ms. Hathaway and Mr. Follieri. The former president has his arm over the young Italian's shoulder. Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Mr. McAuliffe, says the photo was taken at a dinner party at the home of designer Oscar de la Renta. Messrs. McAuliffe and Follieri shook hands and said hello, their first and only conversation, Ms. Sefl says.

In the spring of 2006, Mr. Cooper, the chief executive of Toronto-based Dundee Realty Corp., who this summer accompanied Mr. Clinton through Africa, agreed to put several million dollars into a joint venture with Mr. Follieri to purchase Catholic Church properties in Canada. Mr. Clinton's spokesman, Mr. Carson, says Mr. Band received a $400,000 "finder's fee" from Mr. Follieri for helping introduce the two men. Mr. Carson says Mr. Follieri "offered" the money. Another person familiar with the payment says Mr. Band requested it.

Mr. Band didn't keep the money, Mr. Carson says. He gave half to another person who helped bring the two businessmen together, and half to Mr. Cooper himself, according to Mr. Carson. Mr. Cooper agrees with that account. Mr. Follieri declined to comment on the payment.

Mr. Cooper recently demanded that Mr. Follieri return the millions of dollars he had put into the venture on the grounds that Mr. Follieri hadn't found any suitable properties to buy, according to two people involved in the transaction. Mr. Cooper declines to go into details about his venture with Mr. Follieri, citing "potential litigation."

Mr. Follieri's spokesman says numerous properties were offered to Mr. Cooper's operation, but it failed to act. Mr. Follieri believes he held up his end of the bargain and doesn't owe any money back, the spokesman says.

Mr. Follieri's joint venture with Yucaipa spent about $50 million for about 10 properties, including two former churches in Philadelphia and vacant church land outside of Chicago. But Mr. Burkle came to believe that Mr. Follieri was misusing Yucaipa funds to finance a lavish lifestyle.

In May, Yucaipa filed a lawsuit accusing Mr. Follieri of "systematically misappropriating" at least $1.3 million to fund personal expenses and activities of the Follieri Foundation. In a written response at the time of the suit, Mr. Follieri denied wrongdoing and countered that Mr. Burkle blocked efforts to develop the purchased properties. The two sides are now engaged in settlement talks.

Mr. Follieri's discussions with Mr. Band extended beyond real estate. Two people with ties to the Clintons say Mr. Follieri's offer to help Sen. Clinton win over Catholic voters in the presidential race might have helped the young Italian win support from Mr. Band and others for his real-estate business.

"Follieri spoke to Doug about how he could use his Catholic Church relationships/authorization to help Hillary in her presidential bid," said Mr. Clinton's spokesman, Mr. Carson, in an email. "Similar to Doug's reactions to many of Follieri's other ideas, Doug was polite, may have appeared responsive, but did not pursue it." Mr. Follieri's offer, he added, "had no impact or relation to Doug introducing Raffaello to others."

One person in the Follieri camp says the request for campaign help came from the Clinton side. The Burkle lawsuit closed off those discussions, this person says.

Mr. Follieri's Vatican connections remain something of a puzzle. Andrea Sodano, a consultant to the Follieri Group, is the nephew of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's secretary of state until last year. Cardinal Sodano, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's United Nations representative, and three other "reputable" people contacted Mr. Band to vouch for Mr. Follieri, Mr. Carson says. Cardinal Sodano's personal secretary says the cardinal declines to comment. A spokesman for Archbishop Migliore denies that the U.N. representative ever vouched for Mr. Follieri to the Clinton camp.

Mr. Follieri is now searching for new investors.

Laura Bush Pitches For The GOP: "For Bush's birthday, a gift for the whole Party"

USA Today reports:

If it's birthday time for a politician, say it with money.

Republican Rudy Giuliani held a round of birthday fundraisers in New York last month. Bobbie Edwards promised her special pecan pie recipe to anyone who contributed $6.10 for the June 10 birthday of her son, Democrat John Edwards.

Well, someone else's birthday is coming up, and our USA TODAY colleague Kathy Kiely passes along the latest e-mail solicitation. The Republican National Committee has enlisted Laura Bush to make the pitch.

The first lady asks Republicans to sign an e-card to President Bush, who turns 61 on July 6. Also, she writes, "please consider commemorating President Bush's 61st birthday with a gift our entire Party can share." Suggested gift: $61.

Republicans have slipped in fundraising since the Democrats swept Congress last fall. Democratic party committees have seen jumps, meanwhile, and Democratic candidates for president have so far outraised their Republican counterparts.

Bush's Fundraising Dinner Raises $15.4 Million

The Washington Post reports:

President Bush says polls don't matter to him, but his slumping popularity appears to be influencing fellow Republicans in a way that hurts _ money.

Bush's yearly fundraising dinner for Republican congressional candidates on Wednesday generated $15.4 million _ no small amount, but almost half as much as the $27 million the event brought in last year. Bush raised $23 million at the same dinners in 2005 and 2004.

The take at this year's annual gala benefiting the national Republican Party also took in much less than usual.

Bush helped raise $10.5 million at the event last month, compared with $17 million last year, $15 million the year before and a record $38.5 million in 2004, when he was running for re-election.

No matter what the numbers, organizers of the President's Dinner on Wednesday were upbeat.

"We are very excited about the success of this event and the enthusiasm we are seeing from our supporters," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Our conference and our supporters are dedicated to reinstating a Republican majority and are working hard to position Republicans for a successful 2008."

The NRCC co-sponsors the dinner with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The dinner raised $7.9 for House candidates and $7.5 million for Senate candidates.

Democrats seized on the apparent drop in Bush's fundraising prowess.

"Republican Senate candidates have been afraid to be seen in public with the president since last year, but they could at least always count on him to raise unprecedented amounts of money for their campaigns," said Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Now he's not even good for that."

Voters last November put Democrats in control of the House and Senate, weakening Bush's ability to push through legislation in his final two years in office. Both parties are heading into a wide-open election cycle, with control of the House and Senate in play and no incumbent president or vice president seeking office.

Public approval of the job Bush is doing now matches its all-time low, according to an AP-Ipsos poll this month. Only 32 percent said they were satisfied with how Bush is handling his job overall, the same low point AP-Ipsos polling measured last January.

Meanwhile, the Republicans campaigning for Bush's job are doing their best to distance themselves from their party leader.

Democrats Improve Fundraising While GOP Flags

USA Today reports:

This just in from the Federal Election Commission, more hard evidence that Democrats are energized.

Our colleague Fredreka Schouten passes along word that national Republican party committees raised $61.2 million in the first four months of this year while their Democratic counterparts raised $59.4 million.

The figures reflect a 25% decline in receipts for Republicans and a 26% increase for Democrats compared with the same period in 2005.

If you look back to 2003, the last presidential cycle, the trend is even more dramatic. Republicans registered a 21% decrease while Democrats showed a 126% increase.

The new numbers show a shift in where Democrats are putting their money. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported a 45% increase in receipts over the same period in 2005, and the Senate committee posted a 38% increase. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, registered a 6% decrease.

Contributions to all three Republican committees declined.

The committee receipts mirror activity on the presidential front. First quarter reports to the FEC showed Democratic presidential candidates outraising Republicans by about 3-to-2. Candidates in both parties raised an aggregate $133 million during the quarter, not counting money carried over from Senate campaign committees.

Senators Who Weakened Drug Bill Got Millions From Industry

Senators who raised millions of dollars in campaign donations from pharmaceutical interests secured industry-friendly changes to a landmark drug-safety bill, according to public records and interviews.

HOW SENATORS VOTED

The Senate voted 49-40 this week to require U.S. officials to certify the safety and effectiveness of prescription medicines imported from foreign countries. The vote effectively killed an effort to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from abroad. A "yes" vote, supported by drugmakers, was a vote to adopt the certification requirement and a "no" vote was a vote to defeat it.

Here are the top recipients of contributions from pharmaceutical executives and political action committees from 2001 through March, and how they voted:

Senator 2001-07 contributions Vote

Richard Burr, R-N.C. $520,694 Yes

John Kerry, D-Mass. $304,888 Yes

Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. $281,040 Yes

Arlen Specter, R-Pa. $259,699 Yes

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah $241,850 Yes

Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa $216,599 No

Max Baucus, D-Mont. $199,000 Yes

Chris Dodd, D-Conn. $192,025 Did not vote

Tom Carper, D-Del. $183,794 Yes

Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. $174,338 Yes

Source: USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance data

The bill, which passed 93-1, grants the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority to monitor the safety of drugs after they are approved. It addressed some shortcomings that allowed the painkiller Vioxx to stay on the market for years after initial signs that it could cause heart attacks.

However, the powers granted to the FDA in the bill's original version were pared back during private meetings. And efforts to curb conflicts of interest among FDA advisers and allow consumers to buy cheaper drugs from other countries were defeated in close votes.

• A measure that blocked an effort to allow drug importation passed, 49-40. The 49 senators who voted against drug importation received about $5 million from industry executives and political action committees since 2001 — nearly three quarters of the industry donations to current members of the Senate, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data compiled by two non-partisan groups, Center for Responsive Politics and PoliticalMoneyLine.

• Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said he demanded removal of language that would have allowed the FDA to ban advertising of high-risk drugs for two years because it would restrict free speech. Roberts has raised $18,000 from drug interests so far this year, records show, and $66,000 since 2001. His spokeswoman, Sarah Little, said he "takes great pains to keep fundraising and official actions separate."

• Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., claimed authorship of a change that reduced the FDA's power to require post-market safety studies. He said he wanted to target drugs only if there was evidence of harm. Gregg has raised $168,500 from drug executives and PACs since 2001 and sided with them in four key votes.

• The bill's chief sponsors — Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., — agreed after consultations with industry officials and others to modify a proposal that all clinical drug studies be made public, said Craig Orfield, Enzi's spokesman. Under the change, only those studies submitted to the FDA would be available.

Enzi took in $174,000 from drug interests since 2001; Kennedy, $78,000. Their spokesmen said the money did not influence them.

Senators also voted down an amendment that would have made it harder for scientists who have accepted money from a drug company to advise the FDA on drug approval applications from that firm.

"It's not that money buys votes," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the lone vote against the bill. "But you have a culture in which big money has significant influence. Big money gains you access, access gives you the time to influence people."

Orfield, Enzi's spokesman, said compromise is necessary in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome any single senator's objection. "Our objective is to get something that can pass," he said.

The pharmaceutical companies spend more money on lobbying than any other single industry — $855 million from 1998 to 2006, according to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.

"I don't think there is any lobbying group in town that has the clout of the drug industry," said Ron Pollack, director of Families USA, a left-leaning consumer advocacy group.

The biggest drug trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, praised the bill after it passed. The group's spokesman, Ken Johnson, said its critics "never point out that a great deal of this money is spent trying to defeat bills … that are designed to cripple this industry."

The bill, which now goes to the House, was based in part on the recommendations of a report by the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences. The Institute was asked by the FDA to examine drug safety in the wake of the scandal over Vioxx, which Merck withdrew from the market in 2004 amid evidence that the drug put users at increased risk for heart attack and stroke.

The report offered two dozen recommendations for improvement. Chief among those was that Congress should grant FDA the power to require a system of post-market surveillance, which the Senate bill would do. But two other key recommendations were not followed in the measure: That FDA should have the power to ban consumer advertising for the first two years of a drug's market life; and that FDA scientists who investigate post-market side effects should work in an office separate from those that approve drugs initially.

The bill "does not sufficiently address the underlying problems," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who in recent years held hearings featuring FDA whistle-blowers who said their concerns about drug safety were ignored.

[Full list of votes here.]