Senator Mikulski wrote me back about endorsing Lamont

[Sparkly]

Dear (Sparkly),

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on the Senatorial race in Connecticut . It's good to hear from you.

While I appreciate knowing of your views, the Standing Rules of the Senate and federal election laws strictly prohibit me from engaging in any campaign activity from my Senate office. As you know, there are several months of debates and campaigning before Connecticut voters ultimately choose who will represent them in the upcoming election. I encourage you to continue to be involved in this process and speak out about the issues that are important to you.

Thanks again for keeping in touch with me. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

So all the Democratic senators who've expressed support for CT's Democratic candidate are violating rules?? That's "campaign activity?"

I'm disappointed in her. :(

[rpannier]

1. Funny...that means for over 200 years

every Senator and Congressman has been violating these laws/rules.
I always thought better of her.
I didn't realize she thought we were all that stupid.

[karynnj]

15. No - the phase "from my Senate office" is key

For example, Senator Kerry does NOT have any statements on this race on his Senate web site, he has sent out comments and requests that people give Lamont money from JohnKerry.com (which is legal). He also posted on Dkos on this - again, not from his Senate office.

Remember the issue of Gore making fund raising calls from his VP office - the fund raising was not the issue, the use of the office was. (It also was clear that that Gore likely did not know there was a problem - or he would have called from elsewhere.)

[rpannier]

57. Thanks for the info

makes sense.
But, as far as I know, she hasn't publickly supported Lamont.

[madfloridian]

2. Then Boxer and Clinton and others broke rules campaigning for candidates?

Sounds lot a lot of rules are broken when it is convenient to do so. Boxer has campaigned for two primary candidates in Florida who were picked by Rahm. Did Bill and Hill campaign for Lieberman before the primary.

I could name a lot of others.

[rhombus]

3. exactly

Triangulation when it benefits them.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Barb's office e-mail is taxpayer paid, Hil's trips to CT are campaignfunds

[otohara]

4. Same Response From Salazar

talking points memo !

[Stinky The Clown]

5. How come she answers you and not me??????

I feel left behind. I wrote her, too. I'm gonna go eat worms.

I'm very disappointed in her. That reply is a cop-out, pure and simple.

I also recall calling her office and Reid's office the day Connecticut was strapped with a self-declared 3rd party candidate. I wanted to let them know that I want the former Democratic committee assignments that were once held by some former CT Dem to be reassigned. In both cases, what sounded like young staffers or interns promised 'to let the Senator know' my feelings.

Babs, my dear, I really wanna keep lovin' ya ..... but you make it hard, Hon.

[gratuitous]

6. Weasel and weasel words

The weasel is in the words "from my Senate office." When someone asks her an inconvenient question, she scurries back to her office and proclaims Queen's X. Can't answer. Rules say so.

Come on, Barbara. I'd expect this kind of semantic shenanigans from the likes of Tom DeLay or Bill Frist. Being an elected official and a public servant, your constituents have the right to know where you stand on important issues.

[Captain Hilts]

9. It's the law. THIS is why they have the campaign phones in another bldg.

[gratuitous]

11. I'm not "turning" on Mikulski

But she's being indisputably and unnecessarily weaselly. She's made other endorsements in other races, all without violating the Senate rules. And as I said, this is the sort of mushmouth sophistry I'd expect from the likes of Tom DeLay or Duke Cunningham or (yes, I'll say it) Joe Lieberman. Mikulski's better than any of those gentlemen; it's too bad to see her stooping to use their tactics to avoid unpleasantness.

[Captain Hilts]

14. You can't endorse candidates on your Senate e-mail account.

You can do it by other means. Speaking to a reporter is acceptable, using campaign funds is acceptable.

The person who started this thread should have written her care of the Dem Party of Maryland, not to her Capitol Hill office or e-mail.

[Sparkly]

16. MD Dems has the same email address.

http://www.mddems.org/ht/display/Officials/officialOfficeType/2/officialView/office/officialLevel/1/pid/333149

Are you saying she could endorse Lamont, would endorse him, or has endorsed him via a different email account?

[gratuitous]

17. Mikulski can't go to another computer or switch to another account?

Nope, sorry. Doesn't wash. Appeal denied. Verdict: Weasel.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Not on Senate property. They are not allowed to campaign there.

She has to walk a block or two over to the DNC to make calls, etc. that relate to campaigns and endorsing candidates.

That's how the system works. It's the law. Read response #15. I t's n o t M i k u l s k i. It's the LAW.

Republicans walk over the Capitol Hill Club right by the Capitol South metro stop. The DNC is down the hill a block or two.

[Sparkly]

19. Okayyy, so from wherever, she could make a statement of support

for Lamont -- same way others did.

[gratuitous]

24. Well, if her principles aren't worth walking a block or two for

I can see why she'd have a difficult time sticking up for them. I mean, come on! a block or two to walk, and it's August, and it's hot in DC this time of year, not to mention the humidity.

Nope, still doesn't wash. Request for reconsideration denied. Still a weaselly way to avoid the issue.

[Captain Hilts]

26. Pssssst...senate isn't in session. nt

[Sparkly]

39. All the more reason it has nothing to do with her "senate office." nt

[beaconess]

42. The letter was sent to her Senate office - she cannot respond to your

political question contained in it, even if she were to leave the building. The fact that the letter went to her Senate office makes any response, regardless where she does it.

If you want an answer to a political question from a Senator, write them in their campaign office, not their Senate office.

[Sparkly]

44. Want to prove that?

Give me the email address to her "campaign office."

[wndycty]

47. I give up that is why I called them mature and ignorant. . .

. . .they want her to break the law. They don't or better yet REFUSE to understand and acknowledge that it is illegal for the Senator to endorse a candidate using tax payer funded resources.

[Sparkly]

49. Please read this carefully....

NO ONE on DU wants ANYBODY to break the law!!!

It is NOT illegal for a Senator to endorse someone else.

I am NOT speaking about using tax-payer funded resources to do so.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

7. i thought the law was ...

that elected officials couldn't use public funds or resources for political purposes ...

there is no possible interpretation of that that i can see that would have precluded Mikulski from responding to your question ... she would not have had to campaign but could have either a. asked you to contact her at another "unofficial" address or b. merely stated her intent to support Lamont which wouldn't seem to actually constitute "campaigning" ...

the response she chose to make seems sadly unresponsive ... didn't she "endorse" Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004? how is that any different?

oh, and btw, be sure to read this:

source: http://www.senatoridaruben.com/ht/d/sp/i/834263/pid/834263

Also released at the event were letters from U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski and U.S. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (who were unable to attend) expressing their endorsement for Ruben's re-election.

[beaconess]

43. Responding to the letter received in her office IS a use of govt. funds

Why not just send the letter to her campaign office instead of accusing her of being a weasel? She's just following the rules - something we blast Republicans for failing to do.

[Captain Hilts]

10. How easily you guys turn on a good liberal. Wow. nt

[Sparkly]

22. I said, "I'm disappointed in her."

I'd hardly call that "turning on her."

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

20. That sounds like Giant

RIGAMAROLE to me! Definition: "a set of confused and meaningless statements"

WTF :wtf: What's her real reason?

[tabasco]

21. Mikulski is a great Democratic senator.

Your attempts to sully her are inappropriate.

She cannot campaign from her Senate office. What part of that do you not understand?

When a constituent writes to her at her Senate office, that is Senate business, and her reply will be in accordance with the law.

If your letter encouraged her to support Lamont, good for you. She has received your message and probably many others. She will act accordingly in the way she thinks best.

Your expectation to receive anything other than this generic response is silly.

[Sparkly]

23. "Your attempts to sully her" -- wha???

:eyes:

I urged her to offer a statement of support as many other Democratic Senators have. What part of that do you not understand?

Edited to add link to Bob Geiger's recent tally: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Bob%20Geiger/160

[Stinky The Clown]

25. "What part of that do you not understand?"

You're missing the larger issue.

Fact: Lieberman has bolted the party.

Fact: That took place a while ago.

Fact: Some other Senators have endorsed Lamont.

Fact: Some other senators have endorsed Lieberman.

Fact: Some senators, Mikulski included, and Maryland's other senator, Sarbanes, for that matter, have chosen to not endorse - a weaselly and inexplicable position. Sparkly and I both feel generally good about both our senators. But this is just not a good thing. We've disagreed with her on other issues over the years, too. Is that also being 'sulliers'?

Reading this thread as somehow 'sullying' Mikulski is wrong. It is a simple statement of facts.

[wndycty]

27. This entire thread is ignorant and immature. . .

. . .there are a number of politicians in HUGE legal trouble for engaging in the political process on the tax payers time. Anyone who has ever worked in government and has taken ethics classes knows that its HIGHLY ILLEGAL FOR HER to use her Senate office or TAXPAYER FUNDED resources to endorse a candidate.

[welshTerrier2]

28. i won't refer to your OPINION as immature

but i would ask you whether all the other Democrats who have endorsed various candidates are ignorant for taking "HUGE legal risks"? i mean, that's your main point, isn't it?

why did you have to make this a personal attack on the OP?

no one argued she should use TAXPAYER FUNDED resources to endorse a candidate ... does that mean she is PRECLUDED from endorsing a candidate using OTHER RESOURCES? Mikulski has endorsed other political candidates in the past; how do you reconcile that with the current situation?

too many so called party loyalists think that Democrats are above criticism ... they aren't ... it doesn't necessarily mean you don't support them overall; but shouldn't we express our disappointment when we believe they are hurting the party or not being fully forthcoming with their responses? i certainly wouldn't call that being immature; in fact, I'd consider it the norm ... it would be immature to expect anyone to agree with absolutely everything every Democrat does or says ...

[wndycty]

30. If she wants to do it from her campaign office. . .

. . .but the OP wrote her Senate office and the Senator cannot legally endorse a candidate on Senate letterhead. . .its that simple.

[Sparkly]

35. There was no letterhead, first of all.

Second, I wrote to her because the very SAME manner of contacting other Democrats (phone calls, etc.) were met with express support for a fellow Democratic candidate.

I wanted her to do what they did, and come out in support of CT's Democratic candidate. It's NOT that big a deal.

Even IF there is some reason she has, that they did not, for fearing a basic statement of party affiliation, she could have replied, "Please see my past statements on that matter" or some such. There have been NO statements from her or her staff, afaik, expressing support for Lamont.

"It's that simple."

[Sparkly]

32. Thank you!!! Geeeeeeeeezz.........

Since when is writing to your representatives, or saying you're "disappointed," such an outrage?!? (Maybe THAT's why they don't hear enough from our side -- people think it's wrong to let them know?!?)

My letter to her was respectful. I think she's a great senator, and began by telling her that I've always been proud of her work representing Marylanders. I didn't call her names, swear, claim she's a DINO, in my letter or in this thread or anywhere else.

The response here is absolutely baffling to me!!! :wtf:

[welshTerrier2]

34. the bottom line: Mikulski still has NOT endorsed Lamont

they can tap dance and twist around and spin anything they want to ... they can properly cite the Senate rules that preclude campaigning on the taxpayer's dime ... they can do anything they want to ...

but, in the end, in a race that sends a primary winning DEMOCRAT against someone who chose to not accept the verdict from Democratic voters, Mikulski has apparently decided not to back the Democrat in the race ... it's her right to do that but it's incredibly disappointing and she certainly shouldn't HIDE behind the Senate rules ... she owes you and all of us a clear statement of why she refused to endorse the Democratic Party's nominated candidate ...

[Sparkly]

37. Precisely.

That's exactly why I'm disappointed.

What I'm frustrated with here is the notion that it's wrong to urge a representative to represent us. I know the excuse (and I'm sorry, it is an excuse -- all the proof needed is all the other senators who managed to answer the simple question).

How many times do we hear talk about "moving to the left" here (or "moving to the center" from others) and I keep going back to this: It's about the constituency. Creating a vocal, voting constituency for our causes and principles and ideals is perhaps the MOST effective thing we at the grassroots can do, imho.

So why all the fuss when that's actually done? I don't get it.

[Sparkly]

29. What IS your problem?? List of senators who managed to endose Lamont...

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Menendez
Murray
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

Again, see Bob Geiger here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Bob%20Geiger/160 (Complete with 800 # to the Capitol.)

I want my senators to do what THEY did. A statement from a spokesperson, a press release, an answer from their office staff, SOMEthing. It's a simple question, to which they can make a simple answer, as others did.

Our representatives need to hear from their constituents. There is NOTHING wrong with contacting them with your views, urging them to support something (or someone) or vote "no" on something, etc. I don't know about you, but I write to my senators all the time!

It is NOT a big huge illegal act to say they support a fellow Democrat. (Running their own re-election campaigns from Senate offices is something else.)

Have you NEVER heard of one Democratic expressing support for another? Really?

Talk about "ignorant and immature!!"

[wndycty]

31. You are missing my point . . .SHE CAN ENDORSE HIM, but. . .

. . .not on Senate letterhead or from her Senate office!

[Sparkly]

33. So WHAT??

(Her reply was an email, btw.)

There are many other ways to express support for a fellow Democrat -- as the others I listed did. Mikulski and her spokespeople have not stated support for Lamont, and so I wrote to her to urge her to do so.

PERIOD.

To me that's a civic duty, not an outrage.

[wndycty]

36. Was the e-mail address a ".gov" if so she couldn't use it to endorse

:kick:

[Sparkly]

38. This is ridiculous.

First of all, I find it VERY hard to believe that she can't express support for a fellow Democrat in a return note to a constituent without it being considered "campaigning."

Second, it's very easy to use another email, if that's an issue at all.

Third, other senators' staff gave simple answers via phone. Were they "campaigning from their offices?"

Fourth, if that's not a problem but an email is, the email might have said, "Phone my office for a reply."

Fifth, this whole line of "can't endorse" rhetoric is ridiculous.

Mikulski endorsed Ruppersberger:
http://www.dutchforcongress.com/announceday.html

Mikulski endorsed Kerry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3682-2004Feb24.html

Mikulski endorsed O'Malley:
http://www.martinomalley.com/content823

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Do you have any idea how bogus your argument is?????

No one asked her to campaign for Lamont using her Senate office resources. Someone **did** ask her if she endorsed Lamont. That's a **proper** question from a constituent.

You seem to be all hellbent to make a case that is failed and has now degenerated to not being able to let it go.

You keep citing this 'dot gov' and 'senate stationary' stuff, but what of the **essential point**? The 'dot gov' sorta stuff is incredibly tangential and essentially meaningless when one looks at the ***essential point***. In fact, one could interpret your deathgrip on your position as one of endorsing non-endorsements of the Democratic candidate in CT. Surely that's not your point, is it?

As stated in post #25 to this thread, above:

You're missing the larger issue.

Fact: Lieberman has bolted the party.

Fact: That took place a while ago.

Fact: Some other Senators have endorsed Lamont.

Fact: Some other senators have endorsed Lieberman.

Fact: Some senators, Mikulski included, and Maryland's other senator, Sarbanes, for that matter, have chosen to not endorse - a weaselly and inexplicable position. Sparkly and I both feel generally good about both our senators. But this is just not a good thing. We've disagreed with her on other issues over the years, too. Is that also being 'sulliers'?

And what about the notion of contacting our elected reps? Were we njot to have asked Sen babs why she didn't endorse Lamont, that would have been seen as a fault on the OP's part. So she makes contact and you see that as a fault on the part of the OP.

Which way do you want it?

[beaconess]

41. Don't be disappointed - she's just following the rules

It is illegal for her to respond to this political question directed toher office on her official stationery.

She can engage in political activity all she wants - but she can't do it from her Senate office or using any official Senate materials (including her stationery).

Write to her campaign office and you'll get a response.

[Sparkly]

45. So how is it that Bob Geiger got responses from the Democrats listed

but not Mikulski?

Are you saying she might indeed support Lamont but just not having any way of telling me so??

That's absurd!

I posted three endorsements she made, above.

I posted a list of other Democrats who've managed to support Lamont, above.

I posted a link to Bob's latest "tally" thread, above.

This "rules" excuse is a red herring. She has NOT made a statement in support of Lamont, and I wrote to urge her to do so -- PERIOD.

[wndycty]

46. They are not paying attention, they want to be pissed. . .

. . .so they are not listening to any rational arguments about ethics laws as it relates to political activity utilizing tax payer funded resources. They want to hate, they want to be pissed. . .that is why I called them immature and ignorant. Its one thing to be pissed because she has yet to endorse Lemont, its another thing to ignore the ethics laws she is following. I give up.

[Sparkly]

48. "I give up."

After all these posts explaining it to you (notably, #28, #29, #33, #35, #38, and #40), I thank you for "giving up." :eyes:

[Sparkly]

50. THIS has gotten so out of hand, I need to respond to my own post....

Let me be clear: NObody on DU is advocating for ANYone to "break the law."

There is NO law against Senators endorsing other candidates.

The Democratic Senators who've endorsed Lamont did NOT break any law.

My state senators have not made statements one way or the other, and I wrote urging them to do so. I posted the reply I received from one of them. I NEVER asked them to act illegally.

To anyone trying to create fodder for the opposition (or doing so inadvertently): The facts remain: Nobody on DU is attempting to promote illegality, nor have the Democratic Senators listed as endorsing Lamont engaged in illegal activities.

I don't want this thread to be locked, because the "non-statement" position is worth discussing. As "no-comments" in Geiger's posts, our Maryland Senators' stances are worth discussing. But please, let's stop insinuating that ANYone is even SUGGESTING breaking the law, or that any Democrats have done so by expressing support for our CT Senate nominee, Ned Lamont.

[wndycty]

51. Just acknowledge it would have been inappropriate for her to have . . .

. . .put an endorsement out on her official senate letterhead and/or utilizing a ".gov" e-mail address and the issue is dropped.

[Sparkly]

52. For GOD's SAKE

I have NO IDEA about whether that would or wouldn't be illegal -- but I neither asked nor required her to do that!!!

Again -- she's endorsed others, legally.

Other senators endorsed Lamont, legally.

She and her staff gave no reply where others did, legally.

I wrote her a letter, legally.

She responded to me, legally.

MY point is that she COULD have, LEGALLY, endorsed Lamont. She COULD have, legally, let me know that she'd done so. She has NOT taken a position.

This is NOT a matter of my asking her do to anything inappropriate, illegal, or even having the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

To your ultimatum about the issue being "dropped": YOU admit that no one on DU "wants" anyone to do anything illegal, no one here solicited anyone to do anything illegal, no Democrats who've endorsed Lamont did anything illegal, and Mikulski's past endorsements of others were not illegal.

THEN "the issue is dropped."

[welshTerrier2]

53. i'd add one more item to your list ...

AND, Mikulski has still not endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee ...

[Sparkly]

54. Yes.

I did say:
"She and her staff gave no reply where others did, legally."

My concern, as I've tried to express in my last few posts and in important messages, is that DU not be seen nor quoted as advocating illegality, and that the Democrats who've endorsed Lamont not be maligned elsewhere as doing something illegal...

I'm sure you see where I'm going, wt...

Endorsing Lamont is NOT illegal. So I think this whole line of discussion should STOP (not necessarily this particular thread, but....).

Check your messages.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

55. maybe it's a maryland law

and she misspoke?

[Sparkly]

56. There's no special Maryland law I know of.

And she's a woman who does not "mis-speak."