Tom Steyer Should End His Candidacy Immediately-- And Bloomberg Shouldn't Run At All

There are always exceptions to blanket statements in politics, but, at least, to my mind, that billionaires should not be supported in presidential runs is not one of them. Steyer may be a better candidate, issue-wise than, say, the far more conservative and venal Michael Bloomberg, but he's still a billionaire who thinks he's entitled to buy whatever his money can buy. AP reporter Alexandra Jaffe exposed the latest ugliness. Steyer is attempting to blame it on an aide but it's likely to lead to the end of his candidacy... and just as Bloomberg is trying out his new presidential candidate outfits.

With apologies to David Bowie (RIP)

A little background: Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, has written himself a series of checks to the tune of $47,597,697, 95.87% of the $49,633,653 his campaign has collected. He's spent more than any other candidate so far, including Trump. But it hasn't done him that much good. His RealClearPolitics polling average is 0.9%, tucked between Tulsi (1.6%) and Michael Bennet (0.5%). The most recent poll-- from YouGov for The Economist shows him with a 34% favorable rating among Democrats but also shows that a plurality of Democrats (47%) and a majority of registered voters (53%) either don't know who he is or don't know enough about him to have an opinion. He's the first choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters and also the second choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters.

After spending tens of millions of dollars in ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, he fares better in those two states, a polling average of 2.8% in Iowa and 2.7% in New Hampshire. But the new scandal-- offering public officials bribes to endorse him-- should kill whatever momentum his advertising budget has bought him. Jaffe wrote that Pat Murphy, a former state House speaker who is Steyer’s top advisor in Iowa has been offering campaign contributions to local politicians in exchange for endorsements. Although the bribery isn't technically illegal, "payments for endorsements would violate campaign finance laws if not disclosed. There’s no evidence that any Iowans accepted the offer or received contributions from Steyer’s campaign as compensation for their backing." So far the only crooks who have taken up Steyer's offer are former Iowa state Rep Roger Thomas and former South Carolina state Rep. Harold Mitchell. Neither ex-legislator could probably persuade anyone outside of their immediate families to vote for Steyer.

But the proposals could revive criticism that the billionaire Steyer is trying to buy his way into the White House. Several state lawmakers and political candidates said they were surprised Steyer’s campaign would think he could buy their support.

Tom Courtney, a former Democratic state senator from southeastern Iowa who’s running for reelection to his old seat, told The Associated Press the financial offer “left a bad taste in my mouth.”

Murphy didn’t respond to a request for comment. Alberto Lammers, Steyer’s campaign press secretary, said Murphy was not authorized to make the offers and that the campaign leadership outside of Iowa was unaware that he was doing so until the issue was raised by The Associated Press.

Courtney declined to name Murphy as the Steyer aide who made the offer, but several other local politicians said they received similar propositions, and all confirmed the proposal came from Murphy himself. Most requested anonymity to speak freely about the issue. Another, Iowa state Rep. Karin Derry, said Murphy didn’t explicitly offer a specific dollar amount, but made it clear Derry would receive financial support if she backed Steyer.

“It was presented more as, he has provided financial support to other downballot candidates who’ve endorsed him, and could do the same for you,” she said.

Courtney described a similar interaction with Steyer’s campaign.

“Tom, I know you’re running for Senate. I’m working for Tom Steyer,” Courtney recalled hearing from the aide. “Now you know how this works. ...He said, ‘you help them, and they’ll help you.’”

“I said, ‘it wouldn’t matter if you’re talking monetary, there’s no amount,’” Courtney continued. “I don’t do that kind of thing.”

Lammers, Steyer’s campaign press secretary, said the candidate hasn’t made any individual contributions to local officials in Iowa and won’t be making any this year. In an email, Lammers said Steyer’s endorsements “are earned because of Tom’s campaign message,” and distanced the candidate from Murphy.

“Our campaign policy is clear that we will not engage in this kind of activity, and anyone who does is not speaking for the campaign or does not know our policy,” Lammers said.

The overtures do not appear to have made much of a difference for Steyer. Aside from Murphy’s support, Steyer has received the endorsement of just one Iowan since entering the race in July-- former state Rep. Roger Thomas.

Thomas did not respond to phone calls, but in a statement provided by the campaign, he said that he endorsed Steyer “because he’s the outsider who can deliver for Iowans on the issues that matter most: getting corporate corruption out of our politics and putting forth a rural agenda that revitalizes communities across Iowa.”

Thomas’ endorsement was issued in October after the close of the most recent campaign finance reporting period, which ended Sept. 30. The disclosure Steyer filed offers no indication that he directly gave Thomas any money.

Experts say a campaign could violate campaign finance laws if they don’t disclose payments for endorsements.

“It’s legal if you disclose a payment for an endorsement on your campaign finance report,” said Adav Noti, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington. But, he added, “It would be unlawful if you don’t disclose it, or you disclose it but try to hide who the recipient is, or try to hide what that purpose was.”

A trio of former Ron Paul aides faced legal trouble in 2016 over similar issues during the 2012 Iowa Republican caucus campaign. Campaign chairman Jesse Benton, campaign manager John Tate and deputy campaign manager Dimitri Kesari were convicted in 2016 of charges related to arranging and concealing payments for then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who switched his support from then-Rep. Michele Bachmann to Paul just six days before the Iowa caucuses. Sorenson served 15 months in jail for his role in the scheme.

It’s unclear whether Murphy could face a similar legal complaint, but the issue could revive scrutiny of how Steyer is deploying his financial resources. The billionaire businessman built his fortune in banking and investment management before turning to politics, and though he’s never held public office he invested tens of millions of dollars in political activism and electoral politics before launching his presidential bid this year. Prior to his presidential run, Steyer’s most recent focus was a multi-million-dollar, pro-impeachment campaign, and as the U.S. House takes up the issue, he’s argued he’s put it on the national agenda.

Steyer has largely self-funded his presidential campaign, spending $47.6 million of his own money in the first three months since launching his bid, much of that on online fundraising and advertising. Steyer has qualified for the November debate, but he remains at the back of the pack in early-state and national polls.

And then there's the even worse billionaire than Steyer-- far worse-- who's jumping into the race with the express purpose of smearing Elizabeth and Bernie and their/our progressive agenda. Let's remember, whether it's a relatively benign billionaire like Steyer or a full-on plutocratic villain like Bloomberg or Trump, a billionaire is a billionaire and any and all of them are absolutely terrible for democracy. They do not mean you and I or our families or way of life anything but ill. They must, must, must be stopped at all costs. Wasn't Trump enough as a lesson?