Campaign Diaries

Burris has now acknowledged having entered Blagojevich’s pay-to-play rules, though Illinois’s junior Senator continues to insist they are anything but.

I never understood the argument that Burris was not tainted by the Blagojevich scandal. Why would Blagojevich be interested in offering it to Burris for nothing given that he was asking other contenders for money, favors or lucrative jobs? Sure, nothing in the allegations concerned Burris, but is the question not a legitimate one? That Burris never offered a strong response and chose to defend the Governor rescue made it all the more more pertinent.

As if Rod Blagojevich would have given that Senate seat away for nothing.

The latest revelation comes a day after we learned that Burris had sent the Illinois state House an affidavit correcting his sworn testimony of January 8th: Blagojevich’s brother Robert had asked Burris to raise money for the Governor’s re-election campaign, the affidavit said. At the very least, Burris added that he had refused to help Blago raise funds because it would not have been proper.

It only took him a few hours to contradict himself. By Monday night, Burris told reporters that, in fact, he had tried to raise money for Blagojevich, that he had done so after talking to Robert about the Senate seat and thus while he knew he was under consideration for the Senate appointment.

If that is not pay-to-play, I am not sure what is. Yet, Burris seemed to think that of his explanation as a defense. Here are excerpts from the press conference’s transcript:

So some time shortly after Obama was elected, the brother called. And now in the meantime, I’d talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fund-raiser on. Nobody was—they said we aren’t giving money to the governor… So when the brother called me back, I said, ‘Well, look Rob…I can’t raise any money from my friends. I said, maybe my partner and I, you can talk this over and see, could we go to some other people that we might be able to talk to that would help us out if we give–because we give a fund-raiser in the law office, nobody going to show up. We’ll probably have a thousand dollars for you or something to that effect.’

Oh, by the way, in that first conversation with him (Rob in October), so that part is where I raise a question about the Senate seat with him. But no other time do we talk about the Senate seat. So then we came back, and when he called me back the third time, because I went to talk to my partner, and we then assessed the situation and said, ‘Look, you know, I’m interested in the Senate seat. I can’t raise any money for him.’ And so he called me back and I told him back and I told him that. I said, ‘No. 1, I can’t raise any money for you and I can’t give you any money because I don’t want to have a conflict.’ I mean, that should give some indication of my commitment right there to get out of pay to play and they’re still trying to tie me in to pay to play.

Let us recap:

1. Burris says he talked to Blago’s brother in October about his interest for the Senate seat, so that seems to be the earliest time at which Burris had expressed his interest to be under consideration.
2. Then, after Obama’s election (in November) and after he has already asked Blagojevich to consider him for the Senate seat, Burris ” talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fund-raiser on” and told Robert that “We’ll probably have a thousand dollars for you or something to that effect.”
3. Later still, Burris talks to Blago’s brother again and tells him, “I can’t raise any money for you.” And he thinks of this third step as evidence that he refused to engage in pay to play…

In a new editorial, The Chicago Tribune calls on Burris to resign and offers this depressing summary of the scandal:

Let’s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama— unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor’s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn’t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

The conclusion is clear indeed: Burris should resign. Yet, given that he was self-admittedly willing to go to great lengths to obtain this seat, it is doubtful that these latest disclosures will embarrass him enough to push him into an early departure.

And Democrats would be in quite a bind if Burris were to resign. Would Governor Pat Quinn dare name a replacement, or would the state legislature call a special election to resolve this mess? As we established a few months ago, a special election would be a huge opportunity for the GOP. On the other hand, if Burris does not resign, these latest reveltions would be a blessing for Democrats because they seemingly guarantee that Burris will face a top-tier challenger and that Democrats will not have to deal with Burris’s name on the ballot in November 2010.

Despite that ambiguity, Democrats now have no choice but to turn on Burris in a way that they have not done since Blagojevich appointed him. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (a potential senatorial or gubernatorial candidate) has asked the Sangamon County prosecutor to investigate Burris on potential perjury charges, Democratic state legislators said they felt “betrayed,” and Burris himself said he was open to a Senate ethics inquiry.

—

Even if he survives these latest revelations and decides to run for re-election, Burris looks to be doing everything he can to alienate the groups he cannot afford to have rally against him. The Chicago Tribune reports that Burris is refusing to say whether he supports the Employee Free Choice Act, organized labor’s top priority.

EFCA is likely to come up for a Senate vote sometime in the next two year. Needless to say that labor will back primary challenges to any Senator who votes against card-checks, and it is difficult to imagine Illinois’s Democratic Senator going that far. Even if Burris ends up voting in favor of EFCA, labor will certainly remember if he only offers tepid support; as far as unions are concerned, this is the most important piece of legislation in decades and they cannot afford to waste time pressuring a supposedly liberal Senator.

If Burris runs for re-election and a pro-labor Democrat like Rep. Schakowsky challenges him, it is looking increasingly unlikely unions would stay on the sidelines.