CHICAGO -- There were gingerbread houses on the tables and lights on the Christmas trees at the White House holiday reception last December, but George W. Bush was haunted by the ghost of a Hungarian-born billionaire.
It was right before the US Supreme Court upheld the campaign finance overhaul law, and Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Lowell and a chief sponsor of the package, gently taunted the president, telling him, "Mr. President, the Supreme Court is going to rule soon on the law you and I made together."
The president, Meehan recalled, responded dryly, "Is it going to be OK for George to spend all that money?"
Bush -- whose campaign has already raised $170 million -- wasn't talking about himself. He was referring to George Soros, the 73-year-old financier who has spent some $5 billion to promote democratic principles around the world and who now says he will spend what it takes to elect a Democratic candidate in his new home country.
Soros, whose condemnations of Bush are as lavish as his bankroll, could bridge a critical fund-raising gap between the GOP and the Democrats. To Republicans, Soros is a meddler and a megalomaniac who imagines his wealth gives him the right to tinker with politics from Albania to Washington.
They are eagerly awaiting new regulations from the Federal Election Commission that might stop Soros from funding certain anti-Bush groups.
"I have made the rejection of the Bush doctrine the central project of my life for the next year . . . and that is why I am ready to put my money where my mouth is," Soros said in an interview, describing Bush as a unilateralist who has bungled the Iraq situation, alienated foreign leaders, and used the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as a "pretext to pursue a dream of American supremacy that is neither attainable nor desirable."
Soros, who experienced Nazi and Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, now warns that Bush's policies will alienate the world and choke off civil liberties.
Born in Budapest, Soros left in 1947 for England, where he attended the London School of Economics, and then moved in 1956 to the United States, where he made billions as a financier and chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC.
For the last 15 years, Soros divided his time between making pots of money and giving it away, funding democracy-enhancing projects abroad through his Open Society Institute.
Amassing a fortune through clever -- some would say ruthless -- capitalist ventures, including bold currency speculations, Soros has enraged free-marketeers with his criticism of capitalism itself and of Bush's foreign policy doctrine.
Soros's most recent book, "The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power," is an attack on Bush's preemptive military action against Iraq.
The pledge to spend millions to defeat Bush has rattled many conservatives.
Some have warned that Soros might use his investing prowess to tamper with the US financial markets right before the election to damage Bush's prospects, a charge Soros's associates dismiss as an absurd conspiracy theory. Others have accused him of comparing Bush directly to the Nazis -- a charge Soros says is based on a misinterpretation of his statements about tolerance of critical thought here -- and some Republicans charge that he is skirting the campaign-finance laws he claims to support.
For his part, Soros said he was honoring both the letter and the spirit of the law, which seeks to remove special interests from campaigns.
A Jew who lived in Nazi-occupied Hungary, Soros compares what he calls the administration's "Orwellian double-speak" to more repressive regimes.
"This development does remind me of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Communist regime," Soros said, echoing earlier comments that enrage some of his opponents.
"Comparing the actions of the president of the United States, any president, Democrat or Republican, to the Third Reich, to the Nazis, is quite troubling," said Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress. "If one is going to become a leader in our political process, you would hope that he would share the values of our democratic system and not make these ridiculous, outlandish comments."
Soros said his comments have been misused.
"My position has been distorted . . . [by people saying] that I called Bush a Nazi, which I didn't do, I wouldn't do, because I know the difference," Soros said.
Soros gets hate mail, and the Republican National Committee has sent letters to supporters warning of the threat posed by Soros's fortune.
Republicans, too, have wealthy benefactors who contribute to conservative causes, Soros notes.
So why does one rich liberal provoke such animosity?
Perhaps, Soros's admirers say, it is because Soros acts against type. He made his money through sophisticated investments and yet has been highly critical of the system that enabled him to make so much money.
"Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat," Soros wrote in The Atlantic in 1997.
And Soros gives away a great deal of his money, financing the New York-based Open Society Institute and Open Society foundations and organizations in more than 50 countries.
"To the conservatives, it's one thing if you're a highly identified liberal like Ted Turner -- it's a completely different thing if you're a captain of industry and you're saying to the public, `This is a very dangerous agenda,' " said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "It's a hard thing, I think, for conservatives to see someone like them against George Bush."
Soros has "taken a lot of grief from the Republicans for doing what he thinks is right," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of Americans Coming Together, or ACT, which has received what Rosenthal called a "critical" $10 million commitment from Soros.
In Central and Eastern Europe, the financier is regarded with gratitude and some suspicion.
The Central European University Soros established in downtown Budapest has given many in the region an opportunity to go to college.
But some in the region are not sure of Soros's motivation.
"The typical skepticism around the region is that he's just doing it to save on taxes. People don't believe in philanthropy that much," said Nicholas Sevari, an international business consultant in Budapest.
The Hungarian ambassador to the United States, Andras Simonyi, said he admires Soros's work but disagrees with him about Iraq. The Hungarian government was an early supporter of the Iraq war and has committed soldiers there.
In the United States, Bush's supporters are hoping Soros can be thwarted by a stricter interpretation of campaign finance laws.
While Soros is restricted under the McCain-Feingold Act from making unlimited contributions to political parties or candidates, he has been allowed to commit millions to organizations that run ads critical of the administration.
"I would be definitely willing to spend more. I probably will spend more, because there is such a disparity [between Democrats and Republicans] in the amount of money available for the media campaign now," Soros said. While he was "very keen on [former Vermont governor Howard] Dean," Soros said he was "delighted' to see Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts emerge as the Democrats' pick and said he would be willing to hold a fund-raiser for Kerry.
Soros has already given at least $15 million to several left-leaning groups, including the aggressively anti-Bush Moveon.org, ACT, and the Center for American Progress. He faces a challenge from those who want to limit the activities of so-called "527" organizations Soros is helping to fund; the Federal Election Commission may issue rules governing 527 groups in May.
Such organizations are not subject to the same contribution limits imposed on campaign and party committees. But Soros, who backed the campaign finance law, said he is not violating the spirit of the act.
"The purpose of campaign finance reform was primarily to remove special interests from influence, from access, and supporting 527s doesn't give me or anyone else access," Soros said. "I think I am justified in what I am doing."
*******************************************************************************************
George Soros Backs Obama (But Hedges His Bets)
Floyd Norris, New York Times. January 27, 2007, 11:19 am George Soros, the billionaire former hedge fund manager, met with a group of reporters over lunch on Saturday — he paid the check — and offered views on everything from markets to American politics to Bill Gates as a philanthropist.
His own spending on what he calls “civil society” projects is on the rise. “It peaked at $600 million in the mid-90’s,” he said. “I meant to cut back to 300, but I never quite got there.” After stabilizing at about $400 million a year, it will be between $450 million and $500 million this year, Mr. Soros said.
He said he is introducing new projects to promote a common European foreign policy and study the integration of Muslims in 11 European cities.
Mr. Soros commended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for doing good work while avoiding the hostility he had encountered with his efforts to hold governments accountable for spending. “They have chosen public health, which is like apple pie,” he said.
The United States is now recognizing the errors it had made in Iraq, he said, adding, “To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future.” Mr. Soros said Turkey and Japan were still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany’s rejection of its Nazi-era past.
“America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” he said. “We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.”
As for the U.S. 2008 presidential race, Mr. Soros, who gave $18 million to Democratic advocacy groups seeking to defeat President Bush in 2004, said he supported Barack Obama. But he also said he would support Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination. John McCain, he said, had “compromised far too much with the Bush administration” and was unlikely to win the Republican nomination. And who will win? Mr. Soros said he thinks the leading possibilities are former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
On investing, which made him rich, Mr. Soros said that “hedge funds are the market now,” which makes it much harder to beat the market than when he was a prominent hedge fund manager. He cautioned that the heavy use of debt to leverage up financial transactions — both in hedge funds and in companies bought by private equity funds — could prove damaging when and if the economy stumbles. — Floyd Norris
***************************************************************************************************
April 30, 2007
Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception
By Ed Lasky
It is well-known that George Soros, the hedge-fund manager, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. But relatively few people realize that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros his family members to be particularly generous in support of Obama's Senatorial campaign.
Because Obama was running against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires), Obama could, and did, receive especially large donations from individuals, to so-called "millionaires exception." Normally individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but when candidates are running against millionaires, these limits are lifted and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not include money that Soros was able to funnel to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros was able to raise from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.
After taking advantage of the special freedom to raise large amounts of money from influential individuals, and as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, news was leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had personal scandals associated with them. The release of this news devastated both of their campaigns, leading to an easy run to victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election. The New York Times Magazine revealed earlier in the year that David Axelrod, Obama's chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.
Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull's second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role - that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama's TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that "we had nothing to do with it" and that the campaign's television ad schedule was long planned. "An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you," he told me.
In mid-March George Soros wrote his latest broadside against the "Israel Lobby"-calling for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and stating that America should be dealing with Hamas, the terror group that is now the governing authority of the Palestinians. This was published in the influential New York Review of Books. So inflammatory were Soros's comments that a few leading Democrats issued rebuttals. While some Congressmen did so personally (Robert Wexler, Eliot Engel), a spokeswoman did so for Barack Obama. Jen Psaki, of the Obama campaign, said,
"Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinion. But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree.
"The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas - a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction - meets very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view."
Obama received some praise for separating himself from George Soros on March 21st, even if he chose to do so through a spokeswoman. The New York Sun ran an article with the headline, "Obama rebuffs Soros" on March 21st . Hope springs eternal, but in this case, not so much.
New York magazine revealed in an article regarding Barack Obama's fundraising prowess that a mere two weeks later, after this so-called rebuttal of Soros (on April 9th), Barack Obama attended a fundraiser at the New York residence of Steven and Judy Gluckstern. There was a photo at the beginning of the article of Obama speaking from a stairwell to the small group assembled to give him money for his campaign? None other than...George Soros was in the audience.
It seems that Obama's "criticism" (or rather the perfunctory criticism offered by a spokeswoman) of Soros for his anti-Israel diatribe (which was also a veiled insult to American supporters of Israel) has not prevented Barack Obama from socializing with, and receiving money and support from, George Soros.
Since Barack Obama has proudly proclaimed his purity regarding fundraising ethics, one might ask him two questions about his campaigns against Blair Hull and Jack Ryan. When the scandals surfaced that led to these millionaire opponents withdrawing from the races, did Obama then refuse to accept donations that exceeded normal campaign limits because he was no longer running against millionaires?
And since he was no longer running against multi-millionaire candidates that could fund their own expensive campaigns, did he see fit to return any of the excess amounts he collected under the millionaire's exception?
