Vander Plaats’ pay-for-play scandal: Charged a million bucks for endorsement

By Zack Ford and Igor Volsky
Think Progress LGBT
Friday, December 23, 2011
Submit to reddithttp://www.lgbtqnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/vander-plaats-200x200.jpgSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisPin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on Tumblr+1Share on TwitterShare on Facebook

Bob Vander Plaats’ endorsement of Rick Santorum has produced a backlash among conservatives in Iowa, some of whom are accusing the “Family Leader”president of engaging in “pay for play” schemes and selling his coveted support to the highest bidder.

Bob Vander Plaats

Earlier this week, Santorum admitted that Vander Plaats approached the campaign with an indirect solicitation of money to help promote his support, but now other sources familiar with the talks between Vander Plaats and GOP candidates are characterizing the tactics as “corrupt.”

“Clearly the endorsement was for sale — without a doubt,” one source told ABC News’ Shushannah Walshe and Michael Falcone, stressing that Vander Plaats had tried to receive money for his support in past election cycles:

Though Santorum did not specify the dollar amount he and Vander Plaats discussed, multiple sources said he was soliciting as much as $1 million from Santorum and other candidates.

In an interview with the Des Moines Register this week, Vander Plaats said that it was his “ethical responsibility” to essentially put some money where his mouth is. “You can’t say, ‘We endorsed you. Now see you later,’” Vander Plaats told the Iowa newspaper. “That’s not going to do a lot in the long run.” But one long-time Iowa conservative activist told ABC News, “There is no way he could buy enough ad space in Iowa for a million dollars — couldn’t buy that much advertising in a week and a half in Iowa.”

ABC News has learned that Vander Plaats tried to solicit money for his endorsement during the last presidential cycle too. A former staffer for Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential bid who is currently unaffiliated with a campaign said Vander Plaats came to them seeking money for his backing if he supported the former Massachusetts governor. “He wanted to be paid,” the former staffer said. “He was clearly looking for a paycheck. There was a conversation about him getting a title, but being a paid consultant was much more important.”

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum revealed yesterday that Michele Bachmann was not the only candidate Vander Plaats called to suggest she drop out. Both he and Rick Perry received similar requests:

This seems to also raise speculation about who exactly Vander Plaats actually wanted to endorse. Last month, he indicated that he had narrowed the endorsement down to four candidates: Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and Newt Gingrich.

During the weeks after that announcement, The FAMiLY LEADER’s attention seemed to be focused entirely on raising support for Gingrich, saying “he’s had a life transformation,” accepting that he “asked God’s forgiveness” for his infidelities, and accepting his affirming letter of the group’s “marriage pledge.”

While Santorum may be correct that conservatives like Vander Plaats were just trying to unite social conservatives, it may be that Vander Plaats was building support for Gingrich, the thrice-married former speaker whose complicated marital past raised concerns for certain Evangelical leaders. After all, Gingrich donated $350,000 last year to his campaign against the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality, which is quite the “pay for play.” Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry have the social conservative credentials Vander Plaats would want to endorse without the baggage of Gingrich’s infidelities, but if they had dropped out, he could have endorsed Gingrich without it looking like blatant quid pro quo.

Progress Iowa has launched a petition calling on the Federal Elections Commission to investigate The FAMiLY LEADER for potential illegal campaign coordination. According to Erin Seidler, a spokesperson for the group:

Bob Vander Plaats’ solicitation of funds to promote his endorsement of Rick Santorum raises serious questions about further coordination between a political campaign and an outside group. Considering the possibility of illegal activity so close to Caucus Day, you can take Bob’s word there is no coordination or you can join us in telling the FEC to investigate if any illegal coordination is taking place.

© Think Progress.
This article was published by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Tags: Bob Vander Plaats, Family Leader, Iowa, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Politics, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum

Filed under: National Headlines

Advertisement

Share and Comment:

10 more reader comments:

  1. Just got back from the movies and it made me think about nuclear bomb do those support of the GOP presidential candidates 2012 understand that they are supporting candidates who are incompetent to handle a nuclear crisis.

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 9:46pm
  2. Scoundrels among scoundrels.

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 9:48pm
  3. Please say it isn’t so…..What would Jesus say?

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 10:26pm
  4. @BNS….incompetent to walk up right and chew gum at the same time.

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 10:27pm
  5. Frothy Mix must have scrounged hard for that million. No one is supporting that jackass loser.

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 10:57pm
  6. Ugh…can’t even look at these people, any more. They make me want to vomit.

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 11:07pm
  7. i just can’t wait for someone to post the youtube vid of vander plaat on his knees at the gloryhole in a reststop bathroom

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 11:51pm
  8. If all sexualities were respected equally in this country, our words would change. The biggest issue in lgbt rights is that people use a two part formula to label homosexual people, it is: Gender+Sexuality. If your mother loves a man, no prob, yes? but if your father loves a man, ooooooooh no! Why? the only difference is their gender. Words hold power, homosexual and heterosexual are labels which automatically create a divide based on gender, and that is the trick, it is a gender biased, for if a man may not love a man, but a woman may love a man, then it is the gender being oppressed and held back. I propose new terminology, femmesexual- person who prefers women, hommesexual- person who prefers men and bisexual, person who prefers both. that way, your mum who loves your dad would be a hommesexual and so would the guy down the street married to a man, no difference, no gender being brought up, no more bad math. My name is Inara Tabir and I approve this message! :) PS hommesexual would be pronounced like: ha ma sexual, not like homo sexual.

    Posted on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 11:52pm
  9. Is anyone really surprised by this crap?

    Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 5:52am
  10. what about panromantics, pansexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, aromantics, etc. etc. etc.?

    Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2011 at 10:47am
        News Tips / Contact Us Join our Mailing List
Receive our nightly report of all the day's news.
 
Thank you. Please check your email now to confirm your subscription, and please be sure to add [email protected] to your safe senders list.
 
Thank you! Your message has been sent.