Freedom’s Watch already a player in House contests

Democratic House candidates may face more than their opponents this fall.

Freedom’s Watch, the conservative advocacy group, has party leaders worried about the role such organizations will play in the November elections.

{mosads}Unlike cash-strapped Republican candidates and committees, Freedom’s Watch and other advocacy groups can take unlimited donations, worrying Democrats who have been talking about gains across the country.

“You’ve seen [House Republican campaign chairman] Tom Cole [Okla.] saying, ‘You know, thanks for throwing me a life preserver,’ “ Democratic House campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) told The Hill last month.

Freedom’s Watch has attacked Democrats since last year’s debate over the Iraq military surge.

And in last month’s special House election in Louisiana, Don Cazayoux, the Democratic state senator who won the seat, found himself a target of the group. Freedom’s Watch aired a barrage of ads that suggested Cazayoux supported tax hikes and measures making it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain public health benefits — unpopular positions in a district represented by Republicans for three decades.

Republican candidate Woody Jenkins needed the help. He raised just $475,000, little more than half of Cazayoux’s haul. Freedom’s Watch spent about $550,000 on its ads, according to a source familiar with the group’s involvement.

Democrats believe Freedom’s Watch’s effort in that race foreshadows what their candidates will face later this year.

“That can very quickly change the playing field because [Freedom’s Watch] can take unlimited contributions,” Van Hollen said. “I mean, our fundraising is all done consistent with the fundraising limits for political committees.”

To blunt Freedom’s Watch advertising, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) filed a federal complaint charging the group with colluding with the National Republican Congressional Campaign (NRCC).

The complaint noted that both organizations ran ads suggesting that Cazayoux would support certain tax hikes.

The Democrats also mailed literature to Louisiana voters highlighting one of Freedom’s Watch’s main backers, Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. His company had profited from deals with China, “where the government persecutes Christians and has a history of forced abortion and sterilization,” according to the DCCC’s mailing.

In response to the DCCC, Freedom’s Watch spokesman Ed Patru accused the Democrats of trying to “squelch First Amendment rights.” NRCC spokesman Ken Spain said that the Democrats have made “audacious claims that border on the point of lunacy.”

Freedom’s Watch has been spoiling for a fight, both in elections and congressional debates. It got its start last August, spending $15 million on ads urging Republicans in Congress to support President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus’s request for more funding in the Iraq surge. And it paid for $86,000 in ads helping Republican Bob Latta (Ohio) in his special-election victory last winter to succeed the late Rep. Paul Gillmor (R).

Freedom’s Watch has also broadened its language to appeal to the sentiment for change, which Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been talking about on the presidential campaign trail. But the group dismisses the type of reforms that Obama and his fellow Democrats call for.

“Much of what we’ve heard from some of the outspoken proponents of change is nothing more than bigger government, higher taxes and less individual liberty,” said Patru.

More frequently, however, the group sends e-mails criticizing the Democratic-led Congress, particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on the issue du jour, be it gas prices, the housing crisis or foreign policy.

The group’s focus on Congress isn’t a surprise considering the men running it. After its first president, former Bush White House aide Bradley Blakeman, resigned in March, Freedom’s Watch hired Carl Forti, a former NRCC communications director and strategist for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Patru, the group’s day-to-day spokesman, was one of Forti’s NRCC deputies.

The influence of groups that are required to be nonpartisan but still advocate for conservative or liberal issues has grown since the 2002 ban on unlimited contributions to parties. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 helped sink Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential bid. MoveOn’s criticism of Republican congressional members in 2006 amplified the message of Democrats calling for a new direction in Iraq and on domestic policies.

Freedom’s Watch is one of a number of Republican-friendly groups that have talked about building a model like MoveOn’s, which relies on small donors and a membership of more than 3 million. But it has yet to deploy significant voter organization efforts or disclose the amount of small donations it has received, which it isn’t required to do under its 501(c)4, nonprofit tax code.

Patru said that Freedom’s Watch has made “significant progress on that front [in] the nine, 10 months we’ve been in existence.”

Regardless of where Freedom’s Watch may be right now, Republicans at both the national level — Cole has said he’s “very excited” by the group’s efforts — and the local level aren’t shunning the advertising it can provide.

“I almost see it [more] as a sort of balancing factor than as an advantage,” said Aaron Baer, communications director for the Louisiana Republican Party. “Not, certainly, against DCCC, but against the [Service Employees International Union], the unions, the MoveOn.org .”