MyDD :: Duckworth's Photo-op Takes Advantage of a Non-Profit

Duckworth's Photo-op Takes Advantage of a Non-Profit

by michael in chicago, Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:48:23 PM EST

I've complained about Duckworth showing up in my mailbox and no where else - to the tune of four mailers in a little over three weeks now. So imagine my surprise to hear that Duckworth had an event at Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital right here in the district. I guess my surprise was only matched by that of Marianjoy's CEO's when she found out that there was a political event being held at her facility:

There's nothing Kathleen Yosko likes more than publicity for Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital.

But not when it's tied to a political event.

That's why the CEO of the Wheaton hospital is clarifying Marianjoy's position following a highly publicized tour there Feb. 16 by 6th Congressional Democratic candidate Tammy Duckworth.

[...]

The hospital gives frequent tours, and that's all Yosko thought she was providing.

Instead, a posse of television, radio and print reporters followed Duckworth and Cleland around the hospital. Midpoint, the two held a news conference chastising the Bush administration for failures on health care issues.

So not only was this "event" not listed on Duckworth's campaign site so district resident could have come out and asked her questions in person, but her campaign didn't even bother to tell the facility they dragged the media to for a photo op that they intended to do so!

Why is this a big deal? Because Marianjoy is a non-profit:

That wasn't on the agenda, Yosko said.

"She was invited as a disabled veteran not as a candidate. I was taken aback by the level of media there," she said.

As a not-for-profit organization, Marianjoy has tax-exempt status but as a result cannot engage in political activities.

So basically Duckworth's campaign held a stealth media event in a non-profit facility without telling the facility they would be doing so.

Brilliant!

What did the Duckworth's campaign have to say for themselves:

Duckworth spokesman Billy Weinberg said the event wasn't about politics but about health care.

Far from taking advantage of anyone, the campaign sought to bring attention to cuts in the Bush administration's 2007 budget that will hurt facilities such as Marianjoy, he said. These include reductions in medical research, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Centers for Disease Control.

"The event was to talk about health care. We were extremely gratified by Marianjoy's generous hospitality," Weinberg said.

Let's recap here: Marianjoy CEO says she was giving a tour to a disabled vet, not to a candidate. Duckworth's campaign makes the tour a media photo-op "event" using their facility for a political event without telling the CEO they would do so. Marianjoy is non-profit and can't host political events. But the Duckworth campaign claims this isn't taking advantage and that the event wasn't really an event and they are "gratified" by Marianjoy's hospitality that wasn't extended that they took advantage of anyway.

Actions speak louder than words.

Tags: IL-06, Tammy Duckworth (all tags)

Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Duckworth's Photo-op Takes Advantage of a Non- (none / 0)

It sounds like Duckworth's people handled that poorly. And it sounds like the hospital has nothing to do with Duckworth, so its 501(c)(3) status should not be effected.

Duckworth's handlers need to get her out into more public events soon and show that she is more than a veteran with missing limbs, that she has real views.

I would retitle your post "Duckworth miffs photo-op at non-profit hospital." this is not the kind of publicity that her campaign wants I am sure.

by DaveB on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:56:29 PM EST

Not sure (none / 0)

From the reaction of the CEO of the facility, I don't think this was a "miff" but rather came off as planed.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but, hey: (none / 0)

Anything to distract people from the fact that Senator Obama is now appearing in Duckworth's ads.

by Adam B on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reach out and touch the media (none / 0)

Many people who canvassed for Cegelis last time dropped lit for Obama as a favor to his campaign. He's gotten an earful from residents of this district, and lost a great deal of his sheen because of his taking sides in a primary. So much so that he called Christine personally to assure her that if she won the primary she would have his full support.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CBS news video (none / 0)

It's been noted that Obama's actions have made people mad locally. Watch the video:

Link

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeez, Mike (3.00 / 2)

How gullible are you? Look at motives for a second -- the largest political contribution Ms. Yosko has ever made was to Dennis Hastert, and she's also given over $1000 to the American Hospital Association PAC, which gives the majority of its money to Republicans including Hastert, Hyde, LaHood, Biggert, Crane, Shimkus, Weller and Rauschenberger.

Hell, they've already given Peter Roskam $2500.

So you take her gripes seriously?

by Adam B on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:26:27 PM EST

Yes I take her very seriously. (none / 0)

Marianjoy is not just some po-dunk rehab center. It's a regional magnet and highly respected. She might have donated to Republicans, but that wouldn't make her that unusual for a Wheaton facility or resident.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I take her very seriously. (3.00 / 1)

But don't you understand that she might have ulterior motives here?

by Adam B on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I take her very seriously. (none / 0)

Sure. So you are saying she's lying and Duckworth's campaign did actually schedule a political event in a non-profit with her full knowledge, and is just making it all up to hurt a candidate in a Democratic primary.

She may have alterior motives, but what you are asking it spinning more than a little bit.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I take her very seriously. (3.00 / 1)

What's more plausible: that she did know Duckworth was running for office or that she didn't?

There's no reason to trust this source.

by Adam B on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I take her very seriously. (none / 0)

Or either one of us as we are in opposite camps.

Readers, go to their websites and make up your own minds:

Cegelis

Duckworth

Read their events pages. Read their blogs (well, at least Christine's). Read their issue papers. Decide for yourself.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, we're not in "opposite camps" (3.00 / 1)

I'm an independent person who's come up with opinions and analysis on the race. Christine Cegelis has paid you $6429.00 for "web services" over the past year.

by Adam B on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 12:02:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, we're not in "opposite camps" (3.00 / 1)

If contracting for web design somehow discredits Michael, then maybe I can speak here. I've never received a dime from Cegelis or her campaign, and I agree with everything Michael has said here.

by Gary Kleppe on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 05:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, we're not in "opposite camps" (3.00 / 1)

Wow. Cegelis actually pays her bills on time. So this revelation somehow means that the vendor isn't capable of independent thought? Got news --> It'd take a few more zeroes.

Obviously the conclusions of a person analyzing information after conducting only a fraction of the required research instead of obtaining 100% of the facts. Yep, definitely puts a person in the opposite camp.

Michael's on target.

by Philosophe Forum on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 02:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, we're not in "opposite camps" (none / 0)

It certainly means that there's got to be some higher standard for trusting his analysis, no?

by Adam B on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 02:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, we're not in "opposite camps" (3.00 / 1)

The higher standard lies in the individual doing the reading. The individual is responsible for doing complete "homework".

Michael's comments are those of 1 person. There are others providing theirs. The candidates have websites. People can ask questions of the candidates. There are media files of forums & interviews of the candidates. DBs like Lexis-Nexis have publication articles on the 2004 race with Cegelis. The reason for THOROUGH data collection is to provide answers to all the questions before people draw conclusions & make decisions.

I've been a Cegelis "fan" for almost 2 yrs. now. I've watched her campaign. I KNOW the difference been fact & hyperbole. I AM the one that encouraged Michael to check into Cegelis for himself. He didn't put trust in my analysis. I specifically told him not to. I tend to favor people with a public admin education since I have an MPA. He did his own COMPLETE, UNBIASED analysis. After he came to his conclusions, he fully understood why I was so adamant about her being the BEST one for the job on The Hill.

My recommendation is to take responsibility for your analysis. Set YOURSELF to a higher standard.

by Philosophe Forum on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure his conclusions are his own. (none / 0)

And entirely warranted.

But campaign pay, in my opinion, needs to be disclosed.

It feels silly and embarrassing, but it really needs to be disclosed, at least when discussing the campaign you're taking checks from.

I don't think that anybody is really going to figure you've been "bought." But if there's any way to foster that sort of thinking for relatively low-dollar work, it's failing to disclose it.

by Kagro X on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Running for office (none / 0)

They may well have known she was running for office, but that doesn't mean they knew this was going to be a campaign photo op.

by Gary Kleppe on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes I take her very seriously. (3.00 / 1)

It may be that it's not that unusual, but surely it makes hand-wringing about her nonprofit status ring a bit hollow.

by Kagro X on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duckworth's Photo-op Takes Advantage of a Non- (3.00 / 3)

Will you stop with the Duckworth bashing? Don't you have something more constructive to do, like help defeat Republicans?

You don't have to like Duckworth. You can prefer Cegelis. But I sincerely hope that if Duckworth wins the nomination you will support her and not spend the rest of the year bashing her and encouraging people in the district to stay home and let Peter Roskam win.

As a constituent of IL-06, I desperately do not want Roskam as my next Congressman. And I hope that you won't inflict that upon me by continuing your war on the Tammy Duckworth campaign.

My ActBlue page

by Ament Stone of California on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:24:36 PM EST

Re: Duckworth's Photo-op Takes Advantage of a Non- (3.00 / 1)

Amen.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a primary (3.00 / 1)

So are primaries good or bad? Shouldn't the voters decide? And don't they need to be informed to decide? Should I just say nice things about Duckworth and ignore the fact that she keeps changing her positions, shows up late and leaves early to events when she show up at all, and ignore PR stunts like this?

Forget it. If Duckworth's campaign can't hold up to critisism from a blogger in her own district then she's got no chance against Roskam, because if you think what I'm doing hasn't been thought of by his campaign your naive.

I've said many a time on the blogs that I'll vote for who ever wins the primary. But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and watch quietly like a nice little Democrat as Duckworth's campaign trys to pull the wool over everyone eyes.

I don't trust her campaign. I don't like the "reach out and touch the media" focus. I don't like that she doesn't do events in the district and gets the majority of her money from a few well connected donors from Emanuel's donor list.

I don't like that she says one thing at one forum, then another in front of reporters, then another at another forum.

I don't like that she claims to be a progressive but doesn't hold true to progressive principles.

So if you want to censor the opposition in a primary so that we don't hurt the annointed candidate's chances in November, you can forget it. You have yet to say anything but "stop picking on my candidate." I thought Cegelis was the weak candidate here.

Yet Cegelis is so weak that Duckworth's campaign has dropped 4 giant costly mailers in just over 3 weeks and is running TV spots. That's got to be at least $250K of resource WASTED on taking out a DEMOCRAT.

So you want to tell me again which candidate is hurting all Democrats chances in November, because I'm sure there are many other Demcrats running against Republicans who aren't getting this type of help. But I guess they don't have Rahm Emmanuel using his position and influence to prop up their campaigns.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (3.00 / 1)

So are primaries good or bad?

It depends. The primaries where candidates respectfully disagree and use the primary to cordially contrast themselves and end up building each other up for the general are good. The ones where candidates (and their surrogates) sling crap at each other and tear each other down are bad. And from what I've seen annd heard, including their NPR debate, it seems like Cegelis and her lackeys are the ones trying to make this the bad kind of primary.

by Jay on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 02:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (3.00 / 1)

On the contrary, it's more like Emanuel trying to make this the bad kind of primary. He has considerable influence & an ego as big as all outdoors.

Putting Duckworth in the congressional race was a good idea -- in a DIFFERENT CD. Now it just looks like he's telling IL-06 who their candidate is whether they like it or not.

Cegelis has been personally meeting people reminding them of the realities of the Duckworth campaign & that they call the shots thru their votes. Their voice is their vote. Use it.

Those lackeys are volunteers, a massive amount of them, who know the real thing when they see it. Cegelis is a citizen candidate. Duckworth is a conventional-wisdom candidate, product of the system. The FIFTH person approached for the job.

by Philosophe Forum on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (3.00 / 1)

On the contrary, it's more like Emanuel trying to make this the bad kind of primary.

Really? How? By deciding he supports one candidate and doesn't support another? Show me where Emanuel has said one negative thing about Cegelis. Not opening the money faucet from his PAC isn't the same as running a negative campaign.

Now it just looks like he's telling IL-06 who their candidate is whether they like it or not.

Maybe so, but if this were the case they could figure it out for themselves without running Duckworth down, no?

Those lackeys are volunteers, a massive amount of them, who know the real thing when they see it.

Do you honestly think that you are the first person to have volunteered for a political campaign? Jeebus, you people should grow up.

by Jay on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 05:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (3.00 / 1)

Never said Emanuel's running a "negative" campaign. His background provides very long, deep tentacles so he's using every trick imaginable to give additional credence to his endorsement of Duckworth -- whether she deserves it or not.

Providing the facts & the rest of the story of the Duckworth Campaign isn't "running her down". They just eliminate the rose-colored glasses everyone's using to see her with. The campaign-in-a-can is nothing more than a smoke-&-mirrors illusion. Long on gloss. Short on substance.

Duckworth should be in Congress. IL needs her there -- in a different CD like IL-10, IL-14, IL-13, IL-19. After she loses the Primary, I'd like to see her work on her platform, get to know the people, understand more about the IL issues, & run again in 2008. Both Duckworth & Cegelis in Congress could totally kick ass. Maybe be a positive influence on Bean. I doubt that she will. She's a rotor-wing jockey. Getting her flight status back was her only goal after her discharge from Walter Reed. That's what I find so sad about this entire situation -- the incredible waste of such amazing potential.

Emanuel screwed up. He knows it. The latest Obama TV ad is the last act of a desperate campaign. Had he put his ego on hold & used a little more common sense, he would've realized the true value of the FIFTH person approached to run in IL-06.

For the record, I'm a resident of IL-12 (that's So. IL to non-Illinoisans & residents of the 51st state wannabe). I never volunteered for the Cegelis Campaign. I don't work for it in any way. I discuss the facts on my own based on my independent research & answers to questions I've received over the past 2 yrs. Try it sometime. Enlightenment is a wonderful thing.

by Philosophe Forum on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 07:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (none / 0)

Why is it that anytime an "establishment" campaign does something smart, the Deaniacs call it "desperate"?

Involving Obama is smart politics, nothing more.

by Adam B on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (none / 0)

It's not the "doing", it's the timing. It's bad marketing timing, too. Video ads were in the can & ready to go. By releasing the ads so early, it gives voters time to think about the pros & cons of voting for Duckworth. It gives voters time to think & change their minds. Marketing 101 basics.

Also, the robo-calling isn't working. People aren't showing up to Duckworth-only gatherings. Forum audiences have been very cool to her. From the reports & feedback, it's been obvious that her numbers are tanking. I'm guessing even worse than I first expected. There's no other reason to release the video ads 4 wks before the Primary.

by Philosophe Forum on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 01:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (none / 0)

The best way to get people to vote for you is to reinforce the belief that your victory is a foregone conclusion -- people like to vote for winners. This ad reinforces that belief.

by Adam B on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 09:49:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a primary (none / 0)

This is one I have to agree with you on.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 11:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duckworth's Photo-op Takes Advantage of a Non- (3.00 / 1)

Facts aren't Duckworth-bashing. For a campaign built on smoke & mirrors, facts are a refreshing change.

Duckworth's handlers are part of one of the most expensive & best PR firms. This was obviously an "accident" done on purpose. A desperate stunt for someone that refuses to interact with the IL-06 voters.

It also proves that Cegelis is the best person to go up against a crony like Roskam. It's a good thing she'll win the Primary. In the General campaign, Duckworth would get eaten alive!

by Philosophe Forum on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:50:40 PM EST

Photo-op (none / 0)

Wow, a candidate running for office goes somewhere and does something which the media covers it (planned or unplanned - who cares?) and all the political ingenues wring their hands? Please. If I wanted election coverage to this depth I'd spend all of my time watching the Faux News Channel.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 04:12:49 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.