Campaigns & Elections' Politics Magazine today announced that it will be launching a Canadian edition beginning next month. The magazine will be a state-of-the-art digital edition and will be distributed electronically.

This launch, along with the recently unveiled Latin American edition, joins the U.S. flagship publication in broadening the reach of Campaigns & Elections by tens of thousands of political and public affairs professionals throughout the hemisphere.

“Readership of the original Campaigns & Elections’ Politics Magazine in Canada has always been strong,” said Jordan Lieberman, the publisher of Politics. This will build on decades of success and ensure that information about important developments in the world of politics, campaigns and elections are accessible to all.”

The Canadian edition of Politics will borrow from parts of the U.S. publication, as well as develop unique Canadian content that will be written by Canadian experts. “I am delighted that Campaigns & Elections have decided add a Canadian edition of Politics to their growing list of magazines,” said Bernie Morton, the magazine’s Canadian Associate Editor. “Now Canadians—and the world—can have a specific place to read about the latest in Canadian politics, campaigns, and elections. There is great excitement among political junkies about this news and I am honoured to be a part of it."

The Canadian Editorial Advisory Board, in development, currently includes Canadian political notables Anie Perrault, John Capobianco, Robin Sears, and Don Guy. Included in the growing list of regular contributors will be Warren Kinsella, President of Daisy Consulting Group, who will provide readers with insight on the challenges and decision making during campaigns in his column titled “In the War Room,” as well as Brett Bell, Principal of Grassroots Online, who will enlighten readers about online campaigning and social media in modern politics with his column “Open Source.”

Founded in 1980 by Stanley Foster Reed, Campaigns & Elections’ Politics magazine (www.politicsmagazine.com) covers the strategies, techniques, and personalities of modern politics. It is read by thousands of federal, state and local elected officials, candidates for public office, party activists, issue campaigners, political consultants, campaign staffs, lobbyists, PAC directors, university professors, news reporters and numerous behind-the-scenes opinion makers.

Politics magazine is the pre-eminent magazine dedicated to educating, informing, entertaining and connecting all those who touch politics, from high-profile players to political junkies and casual observers. The magazine is published by Political World Communications, LLC, under the parent company MJH & Associates.

MJH & Associates is a leading provider of publishing, research, information, and education for the medical, financial, and political industries. MJH & Associates serves the needs of hundreds of thousands of political professionals, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and managed care professionals through an extensive suite of magazines, journals, e-mail databases, websites, events, and personal meetings. With names like The American Journal of Managed Care, Pharmacy Times, MDNG, Oncology & Biotech News, and HCPlive.com as part of our publishing group, we reach more than a half million readers each month.
Canadian readers may receive the magazine at no charge here: politicsmagazine.com/trial/

- ## -

For more information:
Bernie Morton, Associate Editor - Canada
bmorton@politicsmagazine.com
416.723.5533

About the Canadian Editorial Advisory Board

Anie Perrault
A lawyer by training, Anie Perrault is President of Communications Anie Perrault (CAP). She specialized in communications for science and technology organizations and has recently concentrated her work in her region (Easter Townships region in Québec), working particularly for wine producers. Ms. Perrault was Vice-President, Communications, of Genome Canada from April 2001 to December 2004 and was responsible for all communications and public relations of the corporation, particularly those with the public, governments and the academic and scientific communities. This included developing and implementing complex communications strategies and working in a national multifaceted environment. Ms. Perrault was also responsible for the development of Genome Canada’s public education programs as well as its media relations, website, publications and special projects.

Before joining Genome Canada in April 2001, Ms. Perrault served for almost two years as national Director of Communications and Public Affairs for Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, Rx&D, a national association representing the pharmaceutical research industry.

Ms. Perrault was also involved in federal politics and served, from June 1998 to October 1999, as Attachée de presse and Senior Advisor to the Right Honourable Joe Clark, P.C., M.P. She also worked as Special Advisor to Peter MacKay, M.P. (1997) and the Hon. Jean J. Charest (1989-1991; 1995 referendum; 1996-1997). From 1992 to 1995, Ms. Perrault practiced law in Montreal at the law firm Davis, Ward, Phillips & Vineberg.

Ms. Perrault was elected as a municipal councillor for the city of Bromont, Québec in November, 2009. Her responsibilities as city councillor include economic development, the Bromont TechnoParc and the recent addition of the MicroElectronic Research Centre, tourisms and international events, and all communication issues.

John Capobianco
John Capobianco has been involved in the political process for over 20 years and has built a solid reputation and an extensive network in all three levels of Canadian government. As well, John has spent close to 10 years in the financial sector. In 1995, John moved to the provincial government serving an Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament, a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Education. For the past nine years, John has worked in the government relations and public affairs industry serving clients in all the major industry sectors.

He is Senior Vice President, Public Affairs for Edelman Canada. John's penchant for federal politics and his recognition across the country as a leader in the conservative movement led him to be recruited from the National Blue Committee to serve both on the Steering Committee of the United Alternative, and as a National Councillor for the Canadian Alliance Party.

His activism has made him a well-known figure in Canadian politics and as a regular commentator and political analyst in the media.

John ran unsuccessfully as the federal Conservative candidate for the Toronto-area riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore in both the 2004 and 2006 elections. John earned his BA in Political Science and Economics at York University. He continues to speak at various political and public affairs conferences, and has presented at Campaign & Elections seminars in Washington, D.C.

He currently sits on the Board of the Albany Club of Toronto, is the President of The Canadian Club of Toronto, President of the Public Affairs Association of Canada, and Chair of the Board for the National Broadcast Reading Services Inc.

Robin Sears
Robin Sears is a Senior Partner with Navigator Ltd., a strategy and public affairs firm. As a senior communications and public affairs advisor with experience on three continents, Robin has led client teams in healthcare, financial services, media and in international democratic development.
As national director of the New Democratic Party, Sears built their policy making infrastructure, first issues publication, and first national direct mail fundraising . As national campaign director he managed their three most successful national elections.

Deputy Secretary General of the world's largest organization of political parties, under German Chancellor Willy Brandt, he was responsible for communications, finance, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. Robin worked with leaders in the Middle East, Central America, and Southern Africa

As Chief of Staff to Bob Rae, during the "Accord" government he managed the relationship between the Peterson cabinet and the NDP. As Ontario's senior diplomatic representative in Asia, he managed seven offices from Tokyo to India, promoting trade, investment and tourism.

For a global executive search firm, Robin managed regional and global practices in Tokyo, Hong Kong and Toronto. He was the first Asia president of the pioneering digital search firm, Futurestep, for two of those years. He is a senior writer for Policy Options magazine, Canada's leading policy journal, and a regular guest on CBC Newsworld's Politics.

Don Guy
Don Guy has been described in Canadian national media as a “policy wizard” and as “the brightest guy in Canada right now” for his deep insight into the nexus of public opinion, policy and communications. He has also been called “arguably the most successful Liberal strategist of the post-Chretien era”.

As President & CEO of Pollara Strategic Insights until December 2009, Don provided research-based strategic advice to a select group of clients. Today, Mr. Guy serves as strategic consultant to Fortune 500 and leading Canadian companies and CEOs on a wide range of image, branding and corporate reputation campaigns and issues. Politically, Don’s research-tailored strategic counsel has helped candidates win hundreds of local, provincial and federal races across North America since 1993. Most recently, Don served as campaign director for Michael Ignatieff’s successful 2008 Liberal Party of Canada leadership campaign.

The Toronto Star calls him “the brilliant strategist” and “central architect” of consecutive majority election victories for Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario Liberal Party in 2003 and 2007. After the 2003 election victory, Don entered the Ontario government as Chief of Staff to the Premier, a position he left to run the successful re-election campaign four years later. He will reprise that role for the 2011 Ontario general election.

Don has a B.A. (Hon) from Carleton University and an M.A. from the University of Toronto, where he also pursued doctoral studies in political behavior.

Today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission is delighting most political consultants—at least from a business perspective. The ruling, which overturns longstanding limits on corporate money in elections, will likely be a major boon for the industry, with campaign spending expected to soar.

The biggest winners in the short-term: media consultants. And the most visible impact for 2010: more political ads than anyone knows what to do with.

“It’s going to be like the Wild West,” says Tom Edmonds, president of the Republican media firm Edmonds and Associates. “We’re back to pre-Watergate times now when it comes to campaign finance law.”

Edmonds calls the ruling a win for free speech but says the ultimate impact on the industry will take a bit longer to sort itself out. Partners at his firm are reading and digesting the Court’s ruling as quickly as they can and already talking to clients to “get a handle on what the best way to deal with it is.”

While the ruling lifts the ban on corporate and union money, direct contributions to candidates from those interests are still barred. That means the money will either flow freely to third party groups to spend, or corporate entities will simply spend the money on their own ads. Either way, millions of dollars more will make it into the pockets of the consultants who produce political communications.

Still, it’s not entirely good news for media consultants says Democratic media strategist Tad Devine. “Our efforts to communicate with voters could actually be substantially undermined by having so much corporate money thrown into elections at the final hour in completely uncontrollable ways,” Devine says.

A senior strategist for Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004, Devine recalls the havoc caused by third party groups running ads in an attempt to help the Kerry campaign. “The intentions were good,” says Devine. “But the effect of that advertising was to undermine our strategic course in the campaign.”

The real winners on the media side might be those consultants who focus more on corporate and issue advertising. “For those who work with aggressive advocacy groups on either side of the aisle, it’s a big boon to business,” says Kimberly Scott, a Democratic fundraiser who has worked closely with the labor movement for years.

But politically, she says, the decision is really a boost to the GOP. “While it frees up labor as well as corporate dollars,” says Scott, “Republicans will ultimately benefit, and we will need to raise more to compete on the same level.” Unions, she says, simply don’t have the resources to compete dollar-for-dollar with corporate interests.

(A handful of Democrats in Congress are apoplectic about Thursday’s ruling. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) calls it “un-American,” and is pledging to hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.)

Another likely impact—with more TV ads comes more clutter on the airwaves. That’s a potential problem for campaigns already struggling to figure out how to reach fragmented audiences.

“I think it’s going to make it much more difficult for candidates to actually get their message out,” says Tim Kay, director of political strategy at National Cable Communications, an industry group. “That’s going to be especially true in those last few weeks when point levels are so high on television.”

Only time will tell how far reaching the implications of the Court’s decision will be for the political consulting community, but sort-term changes will become clearer as the next campaign cycle builds. One prominent Democratic consultant described the likely impact as a chain reaction of sorts across the consulting industry. “This changes the game for everyone in one way or another,” he says. “But I wouldn’t be so quick to say that it’s good for everyone.”

“It does throw a lot of unknowns on the table in terms of how it impacts business as usual,” says Tom Edmonds. “It’s going to make 2010 a very interesting year that’s for sure.”

Shane D’Aprile is the senior editor of Politics magazine.

This morning the Supreme Court essentially opened the door for corporations and unions to spend freely on political races with its long-awaited ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

We’re reading the Court’s decision now—here it is in PDF—and will post more news and reactions as we get them.

• Jeremy P. Jacobs was at the Supreme Court this morning and writes about the ruling
• Shane D'Aprile talked to some top political consultants about what the decision means for their businesses

The cover story from the January issue of Politics, written by Jeremy P. Jacobs, is an extensive look at the state of campaign finance legislation and what its apparent gutting means for the future of campaigning.

It is a must read for anyone who raises—or spends—money in the political world.

Click here to read The Passion of McCain-Feingold.

Click here for the entire January issue of Politics.

Last night's special election in Massachusetts was a huge win for Scott Brown and Republicans and we have a lot to learn from the election about the way that the winning coalition is shifting and how we can tap into populist sentiment nationwide.
 
While fully understanding what happened and how we can use the lessons from Massachusetts around the country will take time, here are five lessons from Massachusetts in the form of more-or-less famous quotes.
 
1)   "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action."
Since the 2008 election, Republican candidates are three-for-three in major statewide elections and all three came in states that Obama won.
The political winds are clearly blowing our way, but we can improve our chances of winning big in 2010 by understanding what our victories in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts have in common.
 
2)   "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold."
Much has been made of Obama's "top and bottom" 2008 coalition.

• Obama won big with voters with annual household incomes under $50,000 and also took 52% of the vote among those with household incomes over $200,000. But, middle class voters were critical for Obama, as well. He won 51% to 48% among voters with household incomes of $75,000 to $100,000.
• Frustration with a Democratic agenda that seems to favor the very rich and the poor has driven a wedge through the middle of the Obama coalition.
• Handouts to Wall Street and car company executives have fueled middle class anger at Democrats.
• The decision to sacrifice cost control for a focus on access and universal coverage in the health care plan has furthered middle class disenchantment. Republican candidates with a populist message have shown the way to winning back the middle-class vote.
• Bob McDonnell won across the board in Virginia, but his biggest margins came from voters with household incomes of $50,000 to $100,000
• In Massachusetts, election night polling showed Scott Brown winning every income group from $40,000 to $100,000 and winning blue collar strongholds like Lowell and Quincy.

 
3)   The conventional wisdom that 'negative campaigning works' is "true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense."
In the final days of the campaign, Martha Coakley went negative and tried to paint Scott Brown as everything from an arch-conservative to a Wall Street elitist.

• None of these attacks worked. We hear a lot in the campaign world about "driving up opponent negatives" and "inverting their image" but that kind of thinking is too simple and leads to failure.
"White hats versus black hats" is still one of the strongest narratives available to a campaign, but it takes more than just telling voters why the other side is bad.  We have to tell them why our candidates are the "white hats."

• Scott Brown did this effectively by tapping into the populist middle-class sentiment and then branding Coakley and the Democrats as elitist, out of touch, and pursuing dangerous policies.

4)   "Campaigns matter."
Scott Brown and his campaign understood the mood of the electorate, developed a winning narrative, and got their message to voters.  That's how you win campaigns.

• Much has been made of Brown's "everyman" image. What he understood and what we need to understand is that the Republican constituency today is populist, middle class, and "everyman." 

If a well-run campaign with the right narrative, energy, and execution can win in deep-blue Massachusetts then we can win anywhere.  

5)   "Don't pull your arm of socket trying to pat yourself on the back."
Last night was a huge win for Scott Brown and should motivate every Republican around the country to redouble our efforts to win big in November.

But, last night also makes us one-for-five in special elections during this election cycle. Republicans should be confident and emboldened, but we should also learn one from the Coakley campaign and not take anything for granted.

Tyler Harber is vice president and director of the Political Division for Wilson Research Strategies, a leading public opinion research and political consulting firm for Republicans. You can follow Harber at www.w-r-s.com or on @tharber.

Last week the Brookings Institute unveiled a study on how to foster citizen participation through small donors and volunteers to political campaigns, entitled Reform in the Age of Networked Campaigns.  The authors are all well known and rightly respected thinkers on campaign finance reform (Anthony Corrado, Michael Malbin, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein).  The conclusion of the study is that campaign finance reform should encourage small donor participation so that the percentage of small donations increases with the intent to curb potential corruption.  The ideas within the study are sensible.  However, it is worth examining whether the proposed reforms could encourage a new source of coercion.

Timely to this topic is the release of Jaron Lanier’s new book, You Are Not A Gadget.  In his book Mr. Lanier ponders whether the “Web’s structure and ideology are fostering nasty group dynamics and mediocre collaborations” (New York Times, January, 2010).  While Mr. Lanier’s book is largely about retooling the Web through software revisions and other innovations to combat piracy, his point about hive thinking and the online mob mentality is applicable to campaign finance reform in the context of socio-political media.

The Web offers numerous places for the ideological to find a home and self-polarize.  Conservatives tend to take refuge at places like Red State and Free Republic. Liberals tend to congregate at places like Daily Kos and Fire Dog Lake.  These sites offer the opportunity to mix and mingle with those of a similar political persuasion and are also involved in issue advocacy (usually to the benefit of candidates aligned with their stated policy interests).  These types of sites also assist in candidate money bombs, when candidates set a date to raise a specific amount of campaign contributions.  Ultimately, these political ideology sites encourage the type of hive thinking that leads to a mob mentality which, with critical mass, can be very influential in a political campaign contest and upon the direction of a political party.  Due to the large  numbers of people engaged in politics via social media these networks can exhibit a great deal of leverage over a candidate and political party.

The assumption in Reform in the Age of Networked Campaigns is that our current mechanism for funding political campaigns encourages corruption, with a few giving a lot to political candidates.  These few who give so much are therefore in a position to influence legislators after the election has been won.  It is undeniable that giving money in the manner and amount done by corporate political action committees is intended to have influence on legislators.

When asked during the presentation of their report if their proposals could give rise to further polarization of the electoral, the authors flatly rejected the possibility.  The reason for the rejection is that small donors tend not to try lever their small donation (less than $100) with candidates who become legislators.  That may be true in the direct mail fundraising paradigm.  However, when socio-political media donors band together to give to a candidate the percentage of small donations given with a goal in mind increases.  When that increase reaches a critical mass, the band of small donors will have a clear voice that cannot be ignored by candidates, even though those donors may not be constituents.

The overall impact of social media is positive because it increases citizen participation in elections (e.g. President Obama’s 2008 candidacy).  But it also raises the potential danger when combing “hive thinking” with the leverage of aggregate donations by small donors banding together who are activated by the impact they can have on candidates by bundling their contributions via socio-political media.  This in turn could result in the increase of corruption, rather than its restraint which is one objective of the report offered by the authors of the Brookings Institute study.  Candidates will find it is easier to say no to a handful of lobbyists than it will be to say no to large groups of organized small donors with the ability to both vote in a block and voice their demands in unison.  That being said, money is an essential element to every candidacy.  Greater citizen participation in campaign fundraising means more prospective donors and there isn’t a campaign professional who would decline a bigger campaign budget.

Allen Raymond is a former Republican campaign manager and consultant and author of “How To Rig An Election; Confessions of a Republican Operative.” Read more of his blog at www.redelephantgop.blogspot.com.

In case you didn't know, there is a special election today in Massachusetts with a lot riding on it. Republican state Sen. Scott Brown is attempting what will likely go down as the biggest upset in political history by beating Attorney General Martha Coakley in the special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

Even though there is a lot of talk about the national ramifications of the race – healthcare, the Democrats' 60-vote majority, etc. – there hasn't been a lot of discussion on how, exactly, Brown can win tonight. The path to statewide victory for a Republican in Massachusetts is a narrow one. So, here is what to watch for when the polls close tonight.

How Brown Wins
For Brown to win, he has to mimic how other Republicans have won in the Bay State. The most recent example of this is former Gov. Mitt Romney, with whom Brown now shares several advisors. In Romney's 2002 gubernatorial win, he carried Barnstable, Essex and Plymouth Counties by large margins. Brown will need big turnout in those areas.

Another way to look at the map is to follow I-495 in Massachusetts. This can be a Republican corridor. Brown must perform well in towns like Billerica, Marlborough, North Andover and Wrentham, Brown's home base. Another key bellwether for the GOP along I-495 is Chelsmford. Chelsmford is even more important in this race because it is nearly at the opposite end of the state from Wrentham, so it'll provide a good barometer for how well Brown is performing across the state.

How Coakley Wins
Don't buy the argument that this election comes down to independent, or unenrolled, voters. Yes, it is true that they make up half of the electorate in Massachusetts and Brown has targeted them. But this is a special election, which tend to be low turnout affairs. And it is snowing in Massachusetts. Democrats have a three-to-one registration advantage in the state. It is within the Democrats' control to win this race, they just have to get those voters to the polls.

Coakley needs to win big in Middlesex County – the state's most populous and where she was district attorney – and Suffolk County – where Boston is. In 2002, Romney carried Middlesex narrowly. If Coakley is lagging there, she is in big trouble. If Brown carries the county, he is heading to the Senate.

The Democrats also need to drive up the score in Suffolk. Boston is ruled by Mayor Tom Menino, who has probably the most effective political machine on the East Coast. There has been little written about whether Menino has put it into action for Coakley. Coakley also needs big turnout in Brookline, Cambridge and Somerville - big Democratic areas.

Other Places to Watch
Worcester County – Romney carried this county in 2002. (Don't confuse this with Worcester, the city, which is Democratic leaning.)

Fitchburg and Peabody – traditional bellwethers for Massachusetts in statewide elections.

For an in depth breakdown of voting behavior in Massachusetts, definitely check out this Partisan Voting Index of cities and towns on the Blue Mass Group.

A Final Thought…
Brown lives in the Bay State's 3rd Congressional District. If he doesn't win, he could challenge Rep. Jim McGovern (D), one of the most outspoken and liberal members of the congressional delegation, next year.

Before McGovern defeated him, the seat was held by Peter Blute, a Republican, for two terms. 

Jeremy P. Jacobs is the staff writer at Politics. He formerly covered Massachusetts politics for PolitickerMA.com. You can reach him at jjacobs@politicsmagazine.com

A potential showdown over state-level robocall restrictions has stalled after a conservative political action committee withdrew a request for clarification from the Federal Election Commission.

The American Future Fund withdrew an advisory opinion request that asked the commission to override state regulations on political robocalls. The FEC was expected to provide a final ruling on the request by the end of this month and the issue was on the agenda for the commission’s open meeting slated for January 14. But now that AFF has pulled the request, the FEC will not issue a final opinion.

The attorney for the conservative political action committee, Jason Torchinsky, had argued that a Minnesota state statute restricting the calls was pre-empted by federal campaign finance law.

But in draft opinions released by the FEC, the PAC received a mixed response leading Torchinsky to conclude that the FEC’s final ruling on the matter might make it even tougher for PACs and campaigns. Here’s the full statement Torchinsky sent to Politics on the withdrawal of the AOR:

The FEC requested a second extension of time to answer what we thought was a simple, straightforward, and easy legal question according to 30 years of FEC precedent. So far, they have released three draft responses. One of those drafts correctly concludes that the state robocall restrictions are pre-empted by federal law. The other two drafts further confuse the state of the law and the adoption of either one could make it even more difficult for us to exercise our First Amendment rights.

Even if the FEC ruled in our favor, the submitted comments from the state attorneys general suggest we would still be forced to litigate this issue. Given the delay and the likelihood that some state attorneys general would simply disregard a ruling in our favor, we withdrew our request. We intend to continue pursuing this matter in the future, but on a narrower and more selective basis.

The original request resulted in a bevy of responses from anti-robocall advocates and state attorneys general in opposition to AFF’s position. Shaun Dakin, who heads the National Political Do-Not-Contact Registry, and former Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter filed a comment with the FEC in November in response to the AOR. They argued that state regulations on pre-recorded calls shouldn’t be viewed as campaign finance regulations and aren’t subject to regulation under campaign finance law. That was followed by more than half a dozen additional comments, including several from sitting AG’s.

The withdrawal is good news for advocates like Dakin. And in the short term it means tough restrictions like the ones in place in Minnesota, where robocalls must be preceded by a live operator, will remain intact.

Shane D'Aprile is senior editor at Politics magazine. He can be reached at sdaprile@politicsmagazine.com

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) is running for Governor. Since it is now obvious that Honolulu’s Mayor, Mufi Hannemann -- who is virtually omnipresent in the Hawaii media – will challenge Abercrombie for the Democratic nomination, the Congressman realized he needs to be back home, and fast. Thus, Abercrombie announced that he will leave his federal post to fully concentrate on campaigning for Governor.

Immediately dogged by his fellow Democrats for abandoning the House before the healthcare legislation is passed and key bills pertaining to the classification of Hawaii’s native population are dispensed with, Abercrombie immediately backtracked to say he will leave after these bills pass. But, as he told the local media, that time will come soon.

The Democrats have real problems in maintaining their hold on this congressional seat. Of the state’s two districts, the 1st is the most competitive.

A special election will likely be held in one winner-take-all format – and this could favor Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou, the consensus Republican candidate. Djou, in his second term on the Council, is a former state legislator. He has twice defeated Democratic incumbents to obtain his offices. National Republican leaders believe Djou is one of the best candidates throughout the country.

In a winner-take-all election, the Republican could have enough votes to win by solidifying the GOP base. The Democrats will split between former 2nd District Rep. Ed Case, and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa. The two ran against each other before in a 2nd District special election, a race Case won. Once portraying themselves as each being the one to represent rural Hawaii, now they claim to be best for metropolitan Honolulu, too.

If Djou wins the special, he will then be the incumbent going into the 2010 general election. The 1st District can go Republican. It elected Patricia Saiki twice before Abercrombie won the seat when the congresswoman vacated to run for Senate. Republican Gov. Linda Lingle easily carried the district in both of her victorious statewide runs, and even won the region when she lost her 1998 race.

Charles Djou is a budding superstar candidate. Watch for a potential GOP steal in this tropical paradise.

Jim Ellis is a former political advisor to the House Republican majority and currently provides election analysis for clients of the PRIsm Information Network. With Bennet Kelley he has formed Filibanter to provide live presentations and media interviews combining political filibustering and banter.

Recently Mr. James Bopp, accomplished GOP ballot access attorney and Republican National Committeeman from Indiana, unveiled a litmus test for GOP candidates to be voted on by the full committee in January 2010. The litmus test stipulates that any GOP candidate seeking support and assistance from the RNC must meet seven of ten conditions. The conditions of the “Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates (PRRUPSC):

• We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
• We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
• We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
• We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
• We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
• We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
• We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
• We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
• We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
• We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is the RNC’s attempt to refashion a Contract with America (CwA) message for the 2010 elections. The difference is the PPRUPSC actively engages controversial issues where the CwA sought to avoid polarization by focusing on what can be termed as 60% issues; those issues with which 60% of American agree according to survey research. Mr. Bopp has led the GOP into deep and precarious waters by seeking to have the RNC codify what makes and does make a Republican on issues that aren’t salient to a majority of American voters.

The CwA was undeniably successful, helping to deliver a Republican majority to Congress in 1994 by positively and simply defining the GOP in a manner easily understood by the electorate. The PPRUPSC fails in this charge by presenting more as a litmus test than a set of principles due to the fact that the resolution ties support to a candidate's performance on these issues.

The larger problem for the RNC if it passes this resolution is it will be easily manipulated by Democratic candidates to define Republican candidates as intolerant and inflexible. The PPRUPSC directly confronts gay marriage, abortion and gun rights thus choosing to headline issues that are unlikely to be top of mind to the 2010 voter. A recent Gallup survey reported that only 12 percent of Americans think gun laws need to be less strict. Support for same-sex marriage is growing with as many as 42 percent of Americans in support according to CBS News earlier this year. Abortion speaks for itself as a polarizing issue best used in the mailbox and not at the general election ballot box.

With this resolution Mr. Bopp is seeking to fight some legislative battles that have already been determined. Cap and trade is a fact; healthcare reform is soon to be a fact; card check is not broadly a winning issue or relevant to 2010 and; President Obama has already committed more troops to Afghanistan.

The PPRUPSC is bad for the GOP is because it will be used by Democrats to polarize voters against Republican candidates. There is fertile ground on economic issues to give the GOP victories in 2010 and that is where the RNC should craft its resolutions, rather than playing in its preferred sandbox of abortion, guns and gay marriage.  A significant segment of the electorate will be easily persuaded that any litmus test that applies to candidates also applies to voters.

Allen Raymond is a former Republican campaign manager and consultant and author of “How To Rig An Election; Confessions of a Republican Operative.” Read more of his blog at www.redelephantgop.blogspot.com.

Campaigns & Elections' Politics magazine today broadened its reach to all Latin America with the launch of its Spanish-language edition. In January 2010, Politics magazine will be distributed to Spanish-speaking political professionals, candidates, and public affairs executives.

Circulation for the Latin American edition of Politics magazine will be 25,000. “Politics is read in nearly forty countries. We are pleased to have developed a new editorial product that adapts to the conditions on the ground, while maintaining the high standard set by thirty years of publishing,” said Jordan Lieberman, magazine publisher.

The Latin American edition of Politics will borrow from parts of the US version, as well as develop unique content that will be written by Latin American experts. “This project brings together the collective knowledge of leading political professionals in order to expand the concept of the political consultancy in Latin America," commented Israel Navarro, Associate Editor.

The Editorial Advisory Board, in development, currently includes: Christopher Arterton, Jose Luis Sanchis, Ralph Murphine, Aleix Sanmartin, Luis Matos, Manuel Mora y Araujo, Roberto Izurieta, Jaime Duran, Mauricio De Vengoechea, Eduardo Gamarra, Gisela Rubach, Cesar Martinez and Rafael Reyes Arce. Additional founding sponsors include SegarraTeres Group.

Founded in 1980 by Stanley Foster Reed, Campaigns & Elections’ Politics magazine is published 13 times per year and covers the strategies, techniques and personalities of modern politics. It is read by thousands of federal, state and local elected officials, candidates for public office, party activists, issue campaigners, political consultants, campaign staffs, lobbyists, PAC directors, university professors, news reporters and numerous behind-the-scenes opinion makers.

For more information: Israel Navarro (inavarro@politicsmagazine.com)

(Click here to read the announcement in Spanish.)