Did Jack Oliver, a top fundraiser for Sen. Jim Talent and former deputy chair of the Republican National Committee, secretly receive a $10K personal check from the Coushatta Indian tribe?
That's the line MO DEMS are pushing. The facts, however, suggest differently.
It's indisputably true that, on a ledger released by the tribe, an entry, dated March 6, 2002, lists plans for a $10K check to be written to one "Jack Oliver."
Not out of the ordinary; as the party's liaison with major donors, Oliver frequently raised money; donors often wrote checks to the RNC because he asked them to. That his name would appear in the records of one party to one such transaction is not unusual.
A copy of the actual check, written about nine days later and provided to the Hotline by the RNC today, lists the recipient as the Republican National Committee.
Why? The tribe wanted to achieve "Eagle" level status. Who recruited Eagle-level donors? Jack Oliver.
There is no mention of Jack Oliver's name on the actual check and the RNC provided documentation showing the check was duly cashed.
The other entries in the same ledger, which listed checks the tribe had authorized its political agents to write, were all sent to campaigns and parties -- including, incidentally, Sen. Tom Daschle's DASHPAC.
So why was Jack Oliver's name in the ledger entry? As one of the party's chief fundraisers, his job was to raise money. He may have solicited the donation. His name may have appeared on a direct mail piece that spurred the Coushattas to give. He sought out donors who wanted to reach a particular donation level.
Either way -- there is no evidence that the check was written to Oliver, or that he cashed a check, or that he had any reason to solicit any personal money from the Coushettas. The available evidence, which includes documentation kept by all sides in the matter, links the ledger entry to a legal RNC contribution. The RNC, in fact, cashed the check, and appropriately so.
The Dems are engaged in what logicians would call the fallacy of poisoning the well -- framing an argument by cherry picking some facts about Oliver's life and career -- and then using that frame to argue that every subsequent action should be interpreted in the worst possible light, eliding over simpler, benign, and far more likely explanations.
It's similar to what Republicans engage in when they demand PA SEN candidate Bob Casey Jr. return a check from a former associate of Jack Abramoff's who, at the time he wrote the check, had left Abramoff's firm and had nothing to do with Abramoff or any of the tribes. Or when the Republican Party bases much of its knock on Harry Reidfor, apparently, representing Nevada gaming interests.
The other criticism against Oliver -- for example, that he allegedly helped generous donors to the RNC (some of them Abramoff-connected) get meetings with government officials -- they are what they are.
Except even here, part of the attack's conclusions do not follow from the evidence. The article cited in a MO DEM release says only that the Coushettas asked Oliver to help set up a meeting between a tribal official and a Dept. of Interior official. The meeting later took place. Post Hoc; Ergo, Propter Hoc? There's no evidence that Oliver helped the tribe. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
BTW: We'll engage in the fallacy of common practice by saying that finance chairs of the party in power routinely help donors set up meetings with officials; (Dems in the Clinton Administration certainly did.)
This context will not do much to tame the political debate -- and Jack Oliver can defend himself, if he wants -- but the facts do not support the charges floated by the MO DEM party. [MARC AMBINDER]
The MO Dem release is after the jump.
