Roland Burris is back in the news over the past week with the release of a federal wiretaped mid-November conversation between Burris and recently removed Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's brother whom was beating the bushes trying to add to Rod's campaign war chest for an improbable third term as governor. In particular, Roland is under scrutiny for changing affadavits regarding the timing of discussions of the seat with Blago representatives (he indicated no discussions between a summer fundraiser and post-Christmas, but there were apparently calls after Obama's election and hence availability of his Senate seat). There was Roland's unsolicited suggestion during the conversation of possibly making a contribution through his lawyer/partner. This kind of shell game is prohibited by by Illinois campaign laws. Then there's this badly worded discussion from the transcript:
BURRIS: I mean, I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this and still be in the consideration for the appointment.
ROB BLAGOJEVICH: I hear you. No, I hear you.
BURRIS: And if I do that, I guarantee you that that will get out and people will say, Oh, Burris is doing a fund-raiser, and then Rod and I are both going to catch hell. And if I do get appointed, that means I bought it. If I don't get appointed, then my people who I'm trying to raise money from are going to look at me and say, yes, what was that all about, Roland? I mean, so Rob, I'm in a -- I'm in a -- a dilemma right now, wanting to help the governor.
The way a number of people (e.g., Chris Matthews) would understand the emboldened portion of the quote is implying a quid pro quo, e.g., the donators expected some political benefit to Burris in exchange for doing the fundraiser. I just don't know how to interpret how the reaction of the donor fits into the dilemma. I can't for the life of me understand why Burris didn't simply say, "Look, Rob. I want to help, but I'm a candidate for the vacated Senate position and cannot talk to you about fundraising. You know my record for fundraising for the governor, and if and when the timing is right, I hope to help again."
Burris is arguing that the wiretap actually validates his contention that Blagojevich never got any donation to his reelection campaign from him once it became clear that Obama would win the Presidency and his seat would be vacated. He basically told Matthews and others that all he was doing was making vague promises for modest contributions (e.g., $1500), mostly to avoid alienating Rob, which would likely scotch whatever slim chances he had.
There is no doubt that Burris knew that his appointment to the Senate by an indicted governor, about to be impeached and removed from office, was a political kiss of death. The Democrats, both state and national, wanted to distance themselves as far away from Blagojevich and "pay to play" corruption as possible. The fact is, the Illinois legislature had the opportunity to strip Blagojevich of his ability to make the appointment and establish a special election. The fact is that the Illinois Democrats were worried about a voter backlash which could propel a clean-cut Republican candidate, like Congressman Mark Kirk, into Obama's seat, a major setback to the party. I think that at that point, the Senate seat appointment became more a matter of principle for Blagojevich, to defiantly assert his authority as governor and I think he saw the pick of Burris as ultimately validating his position that he didn't sell the seat by naming an established, respected African-American. In fact, in comparison to earlier "pay to play" numbers, it's fairly difficult to make the point Burris was buying the seat even if he had made a $1500 donation. Burris had cooperated in previous fundraising efforts for the governor, and there is no evidence that Burris offered anything over and beyond his normal pattern offundraising to get special consideration. Finally, it's a well-known fact that Congressman Danny Davis had been offered the seat before Burris and turned it down.
Let me make myself perfectly clear: I think the Illinois Democrats have run the state into the ground with tax-and-spend measures and gimmick accounting, and I think that 2010 should be a change election in Illinois--including the election of a Republican governor and a Republican senator.
A renomination of Roland Burris would all but hand the Senate seat to the GOP; I think anyone remotely associated with Blagojevich, including Burris, is done next election. I think Burris was hoping that his preexisting public service record would carry the day and perhaps he would divide-and-conquer his challengers just as Obama did, by getting a huge percentage of the black vote. However, the black vote fragments in a 3- or 4-candidate race (i.e., vs. Giannoulias and Schakowsky). One poll I see shows Burris with a 27% approval rating among next spring's potential primary voters, which is like blood in the water for challenger sharks. My guess is that the state Democratic Party will try to limit the candidates to face Burris assuming Burris announces an intention to seek reelection. The Senate Ethics probe (over the multiple affadavits) and Senator Durbin's announcement he will not support Burris for reelection will probably finish off any diminishing hopes he may have. I expect that Roland Burris will eventually and gracefully withdraw, perhaps to make way for another African-American candidate like Davis or Jackson to enter the race.
