Inside Politics

In denial

“Six months ago, pundits were predicting that congressional Republicans’ patience with the Iraq war had run out. Led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they were going to storm the Oval Office, deliver the news that no more funding would be forthcoming and thereby save their skins in the 2008 elections. Things have a funny way of working out,” Jennifer Rubin writes at www.spectator.org.

“Gen. [David H.] Petraeus did not just win the rhetorical argument in September because MoveOn.org overplayed its hand. He won because facts on the ground had shifted, Democrats who returned reported significant progress and commentators not known for their support of the war concurred that the surge was working. President Bush got his breathing room,” the writer said.

“Fast forward a few months. Now the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are in agreement. The Democrats’ unseemly denial of reality and refusal to recognize the surge has indeed worked has become painfully obvious. Popular opinion on the war has turned and continued funding seems assured. While the future of Iraq’s political stability remains in doubt, those who supported the surge are no longer the ones with egg on their faces.”

Ethics nightmare

As Congress returns to work this month after its end-of-year recess, lawmakers, lobbyists, nonprofits and businesses face new and more restrictive ethics laws that already are causing headaches in Washington.

“None of it is intuitive — none of it makes sense,” said Stefan Passantino, a political and election law specialist with the law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge, during a meeting with journalists yesterday at the National Press Club.

The firm has sponsored several seminars and meetings in recent weeks on K Street, Capitol Hill and elsewhere to brief concerned parties about the new regulations.

The Democrat-led Congress last summer approved stricter rules on dealings between lawmakers and lobbyists.

The new laws, which took effect Jan. 1, ban most lobbyist gifts to members of Congress — including junkets and lavish parties — and makes lawmakers identify lobbyists who bundle more than $15,000 in contributions for them.

It also requires members of Congress to list pet spending projects, known as earmarks, on a public Internet site 48 hours before the bill goes to a vote and to certify that neither they nor their family have a financial interest in the project.

But the laws include an array of confusing provisions, legal analysts say. Buffett-type dinners are subject to different regulations as ’sit-down’ meals,” for example. And new laws dealing with large-scale parties will have a big affect on how political parties organize their national conventions.

“This is not the kind of thing [Congress] intended when they passed” the law, Mr. Passantino said. “These are unintended consequences.”

Because of the confusion over the laws, many nonprofits and companies — particularly small outfits without large legal staffs — may choose to outsource their lobbying efforts.

Some nonprofits and companies also may choose not to invite members of Congress to events for fear of violating the new laws, analysts say.

Movie critics

The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement yesterday that a movie criticizing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement, the Associated Press reports.

Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation’s campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues “Hillary: The Movie” and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the Democratic New York senator is in the presidential race.

Attorney James Bopp argued they should be considered “issue-oriented” speech because viewers aren’t urged to vote for or against the Democrat.

“What’s the issue?” asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.

“That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,” Mr. Bopp replied. “That is an issue.”

“Which has nothing to do with her campaign?” U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.

“Not specifically, no,” Mr. Bopp replied.

“Once you say, ’Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,’ aren’t you saying vote against her?”

Mr. Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word “vote.”

“Oh, that’s ridic …” Judge Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.

Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.

The movie is scheduled for six screenings in theaters, once each in California, Nevada, South Carolina, Arizona, New York and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods is regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.

Backing Thompson

Human Events, the national conservative weekly, is endorsing Fred Thompson for president.

Editor Jeb Babbin told this column yesterday that he and the other editors at Human Events chose the former Tennessee senator because they view him as the most-reliable conservative in the Republican field.

“He is a reflexive conservative.” You don’t have to worry about where he is coming from,” Mr. Babbin said.

The editors yesterday were putting the finishing touches on the endorsement, he said, but it will be posted today at humanevents.com and will appear Monday in the print edition.

He said the decision to back Mr. Thompson was not meant as a criticism of anyone else, and, in fact, they had taken a close look at former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“We like Romney a lot, but he’s more a problem solver than a gut-level conservative,” Mr. Babbin said.

c Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes.com.