The double bind on 'special interests'

AT LEAST Republicans don't run against the special interests. They just take their money.

Democrats do both.

At the very moment every Democratic presidential candidate is railing against corporate special interests and pledging to banish them from Washington, the organizers of the Democratic National Convention confirm they are looking to raise money from Washington lobbyists who represent corporate interests.

After getting what it can from local corporate interests, Boston 2004, the group running the party's July convention, is focusing on Washington lobbyists.

"We have reached out to lobbyists and some other friends in D.C. who represent these companies on a national basis," David A. Passafaro, Boston 2004 president, told the Globe's Frank Phillips.

But, never let the facts get in the way of the rhetoric.

On the night of his first-place finish in the New Hampshire primary, John Kerry declared: "I have a message for the influence peddlers, for the polluters, the HMOs, the big drug companies that get in the way, the big oil, and the special interests who now call the White House their home. We're coming. You're going. And don't let the door hit you on the way out."

In his speech to New Hampshire supporters, second-place finisher Howard Dean proclaimed, "We can take back America and stand up for working families and middle-class families again and take our government back for the people who built it instead of corporations and special interests, and we will."

A major component of John Edwards's platform relates to evening the playing field between average Americans and, as he, too, specified in New Hampshire, "the special interests, the big corporations."

On his campaign website, Edwards promises to ban members of Congress and the president from taking campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists if president.

Then there is Joe Lieberman, who framed his decision to continue his presidential campaign this way: "And what is our cause? What moves us forward? It's larger than me and it's a cause we share -- it is for a politics that puts the national interest above special interests or partisan interests." Wesley Clark promises to establish an Openness Doctrine that will require more disclosure about special interests. Meanwhile, his role as a lobbyist for a company seeking a contract with the Department of Homeland Security is raising questions.

So far, the Democrats running for president have not issued a press release to complain about Boston 2004's solicitation of special interests they supposedly abhor. Or perhaps they are merely against Republican special interests, not their own? It's very confusing.

A recent US Supreme Court decision upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that bans so-called "soft money" -- money donated to political parties rather than to candidates themselves. But, as always, there's a loophole. Because Boston 2004 is a nonprofit group, it can legally accept soft money. National corporate donors are free to give, and Boston 2004 is going after them.

Democrats do face a fund-raising challenge here in Boston. The big-name fund-raisers are tied up with presidential campaigns and too busy to help Boston 2004; an ever-shrinking local corporate base is tapped out, anyway. To win the convention, Mayor Thomas Menino and Senator Edward M. Kennedy first won $20 million in pledges from local businesses. Congress recently approved giving $25 million each to Boston and New York, the site of the Republican National Convention, to underwrite security costs. Questions remain as to whether that is enough to cover security expenses.

Meanwhile, Republican Governor Mitt Romney insists that the state won't pay for any convention-related expenses, leaving Boston residents vulnerable to convention-related bills.

For Democrats, looking to Washington lobbyists to help fund Boston's convention makes perfect fiscal sense.

It is also perfectly hypocritical.

That's politics.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.