Senator’s Absence Worries Democrats as Gun Votes Near

Mr. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and the oldest member of the Senate at 89, has been out for weeks dealing with health complications partly from cancer treatment he received several years ago.

But with Democrats scrambling to come up with enough votes to overcome resistance to the most sweeping gun-control legislation in a generation, Mr. Lautenberg’s presence (or absence) is shaping up to be critically important.

Aides insist that Mr. Lautenberg, who has been undergoing physical therapy for weeks, will try to get to Washington once the voting begins on the assortment of gun-safety measures, which are expected to come to the floor in the coming weeks.

Mr. Lautenberg’s aides say he is eager to return, particularly given that he introduced an amendment to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

“Senator Lautenberg is feeling better and hopes to be in Washington for gun votes,” Caley Gray, a spokesman for the senator, said in a statement on Monday.

For weeks, rumors and concern have been swirling about the health of Mr. Lautenberg, who this year announced that he would retire rather than seek a sixth term in 2014. The senator cast his most recent vote in the Senate on Feb. 28.

The preoccupation with Mr. Lautenberg, one of the chamber’s most ardent advocates of gun control, has only intensified as the Senate moved in recent days to begin the most significant debate on gun legislation in two decades.

For the last few weeks, Mr. Lautenberg, who received a diagnosis of stomach cancer three years ago, has been grappling with debilitating and long-term consequences that powerful chemotherapy treatment has had on his leg muscles, according to people close to him.

As a result, he has been using a wheelchair while undergoing physical therapy to regain his strength. But Mr. Lautenberg, an extraordinarily proud man who served in World War II, has not wanted to show up in the Senate in a wheelchair, according to those who know him.

For Democrats, the interest in Mr. Lautenberg’s health goes far beyond the coming votes on gun legislation.

Should Mr. Lautenberg decide to retire before his term ends, his departure could have a significant impact on the balance of power in the Senate, where Democrats hold 53 seats and are typically joined by two independents.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican, would have the legal authority to make an interim appointment to the seat. And he would almost certainly select a Republican, depriving Democrats of a crucial vote in the Senate.

View the original article here

Liberal Donors’ Plan Worries Top Democrats

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and other officials conveyed concern that Democratic candidates could be at a disadvantage if the contributors, many of whom had stayed on the sidelines of the 2012 campaign until now, decide not to spend money on television ads that push back against a torrent of attacks from conservative “super PACS” in the presidential election and Congressional races.

The views highlighted concerns about being outgunned by outside groups raising huge amounts of money to back Republicans, and suggested a rift between Democratic leaders and some liberal donors.

“The idea that these progressive groups are essentially re-creating the wheel is perplexing and troubling,” said David Krone, the chief of staff to Mr. Reid. “Why go off and build a redundant grass-roots and get-out-the-vote organization that the Obama campaign is clearly invested in?”

The Democratic officials were responding to an article in The New York Times on Tuesday that the financier George Soros and other major donors had decided to avoid a head-to-head confrontation in television advertising by pro-Republican groups and would instead spend money registering new voters and building stronger turnout organizations.

Mr. Krone, who is not involved in super PAC operations that are trying to keep the Senate majority in Democratic hands, and other advisers said television advertising was the most powerful way to win races. Democratic strategists have spent months trying to lure Mr. Soros and other donors into the fray of election spending.

“Why would they rule out this tried-and-true medium?” Mr. Krone said on Tuesday. “I can guarantee the Republicans are covering all bases and will have a coordinated plan.”

The criticism from Mr. Reid’s top adviser, which was echoed in interviews with party leaders, highlighted the lingering tensions and frustrations in the Democratic Party over the influence of outside money on the campaign and the inability of Mr. Obama’s supporters to raise substantial sums for a pro-Obama super PAC. Wealthy Republicans have made contributions at record-setting levels, while many wealthy Democrats have shied away from giving.

The decision by Mr. Soros and like-minded donors to help finance independent Democratic groups drew disdain from several Democratic officials. A senior party leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the donors, said: “They don’t get it. What they are doing makes no sense.”

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, declined to comment on Mr. Soros’s plans. But many liberal donors, including Mr. Soros, have raised objections to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the door for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending. They say they did not believe they could match the Republican groups, so they wanted to try a different approach and back several liberal groups rather than put their financial muscle behind a single effort.

A spokesman for Mr. Soros, Michael Vachon, said financing the grass-roots groups made more sense because liberal groups could not compete with the “floodgates to special interests’ paying for political ads.”

The acrimony among the Democrats — Mr. Soros and many party leaders, including Mr. Obama, are often at odds — could have a real effect on the campaign. Democratic candidates at all levels have expressed concerns about not having the firepower to respond to conservative groups like Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity. And the decision by Mr. Soros and other donors to direct their money to grass-roots efforts revived memories from the 2004 presidential campaign when the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort was largely outsourced and widely seen as ineffective.

The Democratic infighting, which is likely to intensify, comes as Mr. Obama’s campaign is spending $25 million this month to broadcast his first major television advertising campaign.

Mr. Vachon, the spokesman for Mr. Soros, declined to comment on the criticism from Mr. Reid and other Democrats.

But aides to some of the liberal groups that will receive some of the $100 million dismissed the criticism and said the Obama campaign and party leaders simply wanted to have control over donors.

View the original article here