Romney Faces Unexpected Challenge From Santorum in Michigan

Mitt Romney and an aide, Garrett Jackson, in Michigan on a bus, where a banner from a previous Romney campaign hangs.

NOVI, Mich. — This was supposed to be a state, at last, where Mitt Romney could coast. After all, he grew up here. His father, an automobile executive, had been the governor. And the last time there was a Republican presidential primary in Michigan, Mr. Romney won handily.

A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

Yet, with less than a week until Michigan Republicans vote and with polling suggesting that Rick Santorum is mounting a serious challenge, Mr. Romney finds himself urgently pouring resources into his home state — unveiling gauzy television ads aimed at reminding residents of his family roots and rolling out endorsements from a virtual who’s who in Lansing: the governor, a former Senate majority leader, the attorney general, a former attorney general, and on and on.

While Mr. Romney’s comments against the federal bailout of the auto industry have drawn particular attention in Michigan, his troubles among Republican voters here appear to have less to do with his views on the bailout — which plenty of them say they were not keen on either — than with a shifting political landscape in a changing state and a fading, and in some cases tattered, emotional bond to the Romney name.

“Sure, I’d love to be able to say that our president is from Michigan, but that’s not all that matters to me,” said Cindy Minier, a Republican Party chairwoman from Presque Isle County, who said she was leaning toward Newt Gingrich or, given a second choice, Mr. Santorum. “When it comes right down to it, I just don’t feel that Romney is a real conservative — not a real, true one.”

It is hard to remember that in 2008, Michigan voters perceived Mr. Romney as the more conservative Republican beside Senator John McCain of Arizona, who ultimately won the nomination. This time, of course, others are claiming that mantle. Meanwhile, Michigan is changing too, with its long-struggling economy in the uncertain midst of transition, the emergence of Tea Party groups and conservatives who helped Republicans win a wave of elections in 2010, and an ever-growing generational split between those for whom 1950s- and 1960s-era images of Mitt Romney with his father still stir nostalgia and younger people with blurry memories of Gov. George W. Romney, or none at all.

“It’s a joke,” Randy Bishop, 54 and a Tea Party organizer, said of Mr. Romney’s emphasis on his connections to Michigan. “He left after high school, became the governor of Massachusetts and never looked back.”

Mr. Bishop criticized Mr. Romney for the health care insurance law he supported in Massachusetts, portrayed him as a “moderate in lockstep with the establishment folks” and described Michigan’s economy as a far cry from the manufacturing capital over which Mr. Romney’s father presided. Mr. Bishop said he would vote for Mr. Santorum.

In a way, much of Michigan is only beginning to meet Mr. Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania. Even some supporters here acknowledged that they had not given particular attention to him until this month, when he won a series of races elsewhere. Michigan’s influential Right to Life political action committee said it would not endorse any one Republican over the others; all oppose abortion, it says. But Mr. Santorum drew praise from voters who said their evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic faith drove their political outlook, particularly from voters in the state’s western section and rural northern stretches.

Plenty of Republicans — even some of Mr. Santorum’s supporters — said they believed that Mr. Romney would ultimately win here, given a flood of advertisements and support from influential Republican leaders. Mr. Romney certainly has a base of loyal supporters, some of whom seemed to view the outcome of Michigan’s primary as carrying a special, personal weight, and the notion that Mr. Romney might actually be in trouble here as reason to redouble their efforts now.

“His family made a substantial effect on our state, and you just can’t take that away from him,” said Al Heilman, 76, who said he still had a photograph socked away somewhere of himself meeting Mr. Romney’s father decades ago.

Mr. Heilman, a Republican chairman from Kalamazoo County in the southwestern part of the state, said some people seem to want to penalize Mr. Romney for his business experience. “I don’t understand people who kick people in the shins because they’ve been successful — profits make the world go around,” Mr. Heilman, who retired after running a confections and nuts business, said. “Look, we’re on a dive, and this is the time for a true businessman like Mitt Romney who can turn around the country.”

View the original article here

Montana's challenge to 'super PACs'

More than a century ago, a Montana industrialist named W.A. Clark used his wealth to buy a seat in the US Senate. Mark Twain wrote that Clark’s well-monied politicking had so sweetened corruption in Montana that “it no longer has an offensive smell.”

The state’s voters did rise up, however, at the power of money. They passed the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act. Ever since, the law has prohibited corporate spending on state political campaigns.

RELATED: Eight reasons to ‘mute’ super PAC ads

Now the law is under challenge in the US Supreme Court – the same court that decided in its 2010 Citizens United ruling that corporations have free-speech rights in unlimited spending on campaigns because there is no compelling case that they will demand something in return from politicians. The ruling has spawned a new kind of political-action committee, the “super PACs” now dominating the 2012 election campaigns.

The high court is reviewing a decision in December by the Montana Supreme Court that found the state still has a continuing and compelling interest to justify speech restrictions on corporations under the 1912 law.

Montana, being a state with a sparse population that is highly dependent on big farms and expensive mining, is “especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government,” the state court wrote.

It cited many historical and recent examples of well-financed corruption as well as the fact that corporations have “a substantial presence and are active participants in Montana politics. The many lobbyists and political committees who participate in each session of the Montana Legislature bear witness.”

In addition, the court found a negative influence on voter enthusiasm from the outsized effects of corporate money. Even Clark himself admitted in 1900 that “[m]any people have become so indifferent to voting” in Montana as a result of the “large sums of money that have been expended in the state....”

The Montana court isn’t challenging the US Supreme Court directly on its reasoning in the Citizens ruling. Instead, it points to the ruling’s demand for a compelling interest – evidence – to curb corporate speech. In Montana, if not elsewhere, the evidence is clear.

OPINION: Two cheers for super PACs

If the US justices take the Montana case, they have a chance to refine their 2010 ruling and acknowledge that many states have a compelling case to curb big-money influence. Too many elected leaders allow big donors to influence official decisions.

The corrosive effects of big money on democracy are the legal equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater – a reason to impinge on free-speech rights under certain circumstances. The high court must find a better balance between its protection of free speech for corporations and the rights of a democracy to protect itself from large campaign donors who expect favors.

Sign up for our weekly Opinion and Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Commentary to your daily Monitor newsletter.

View the original article here

Newt Gingrich to Challenge Florida Republican Party for Proportional Delegates

LAS VEGAS - Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is preparing to challenge the Republican Party of Florida after losing the Republican presidential primary there to Mitt Romney on Tuesday.

The "winner-take-all" state had 50 delegates, all of which went to Romney, who won the state with 46 percent of the vote. The Republican National Convention voted to make early voting states proportional for the 2012 election. Florida was penalized for keeping the "winner-take-all" status. If Florida allotted proportional delegates, Gingrich would likely have picked up 16 delegates, while Romney would have walked away with 23 delegates, leaving the other 11 delegates to be split among Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

"Florida was held before a certain date," Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said. "Therefore, we're asking the state of Florida Republican Party to enforce the existing rule."

Hammond told reporters Thursday at a campaign stop in Las Vegas that the campaign is mailing a letter to the Republican Party of Florida, asking it to enforce the RNC proportional rule.

Before the letter had even been sent, the Florida RNC Chairman Lenny Curry responded in a statement that the state would not budge.

"Florida was winner-take-all before Election Day, we were winner take all on Election Day, we will remain winner take all," Curry said. "As Bill McCollum confirmed to Fox News today, had the outcome been different on Tuesday, he would not be seeking publicity for a challenge to the rules adopted by Florida's Republicans. It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

When Hammond was asked if the campaign would be pursuing challenging the Florida RNC had they won, his response was "probably not."

Gingrich has one event Friday in Nevada - a grassroots rally in Las Vegas.

The Gingrich campaign insisted in Florida that it is competing in every state even though the number of public events have been minimal in Nevada so far.

Also Read

View the original article here