SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The New York Times reported yesterday that some “movement conservatives are buzzing this week” about my November magazine story that showed that Mitt Romney had “made some strategic donations to a number of well-connected conservative groups in the pivotal early primary state of South Carolina.” Romney, as I noted, has doled out money to at least half a dozen right-wing organizations, including the Palmetto Family Council, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, South Carolina Citizens for Life, and to an organization that sponsored a drive to ban same-sex marriage.
“The donations illustrate how Mr. Romney has invested his financial resources to build his credibility on the right,” the Times reported. “Mr. Romney has been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but has scant history of contributions to conservative groups before he began planning a presidential run.”
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, told the Times that Romney, in the newspaper’s words, “supported the South Carolina groups as a matter of principle.” Romney, Madden said, “put time, effort and resources into building political networks in many of these states with the goal of electing more Republicans to public office.”
But it’s pretty clear that Romney’s donations were intended to buy support for his presidential bid, not merely build political networks. After all, he also funneled money to Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Arizona. With the exception of the latter, those states, like South Carolina, hold key primaries. Is that just a coincidence? Furthermore, if Romney’s only goal were to build GOP political networks he might have spent his money in places other than South Carolina, which is already about as red as it gets.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Commentary — November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.
Years ago, I lived in Montana, a land of purple sunsets, clear streams, and snowflakes the size of silver dollars drifting through the cold air. There were no speed limits and you could legally drive drunk. My small apartment in Missoula had little privacy. In order to write, I rented an off-season fishing cabin on Rock Creek, a one-room place with a bed and a bureau. I lacked the budget for a desk. My idea was to remove a sliding door from a closet in my apartment and place it over a couple of hastily cobbled-together sawhorses.
Age after which Mick Jagger has said that he’d “rather die” than still be performing “Satisfaction”:
A bioengineered lacrimal gland was successfully shedding tears.
Investigators found that a surgeon in Massachusetts accidentally removed a kidney from the wrong patient, and a former mayor in Thailand was given a six-month prison sentence for kicking his doctor in the neck.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”