Countdown

Home > Interviews > Michael Vachon

Michael Vachon

Michael Vachon is the director of communications at Soros Fund Management, is a spokesman for George Soros, and oversees Soros’ political contributions. Prior, he was the director of communications for the Open Society Institute (a foundation chaired by Soros) and for The Commonwealth Fund.

[Disclosure: For several years, through 2004, the Center for Public Integrity received funding from the Open Society Institute.]

Sara Fritz interviewed Vachon on September 27, 2007.

First, can you explain to me what your role is in Mr. Soros’ life?

I work as a senior adviser to George Soros. I help him manage his political contributions and do work on a number of issues.

Is your background in business or in politics?

My background is, at this point, in George Soros. I have worked for six years at Soros Fund Management as director of communications. I work for George, personally, at this point. Prior to that, I was at the Commonwealth Fund. Prior to that, I was at the Open Society Institute. Prior to that, I was a financial journalist.

Well, it sounds like you have an exciting job. Obviously, a lot has been written about Mr. Soros’ contributions in the 2004 cycle. But he was a contributor prior to that, was he not?

Prior to 2004, he had made contributions — and these are a matter of public record — to the Democratic Party and to various candidates. But he was not a major Democratic contributor. First of all, you have to remember that in the previous election cycle, McCain-Feingold hadn’t taken hold yet. So you had people like Haim Saban contributing $10 million to build the DNC building down in D.C. That’s something you’ll have to look up. But these things are all a matter of public record. So I don’t remember the exact numbers, and they certainly were generous contributions. Again, you can look them up.

But they were in the realm of what he did in 2004?

Nowhere near in the realm. I don’t know if there was a concept of maxing out before McCain-Feingold. But no, he was not, either in hard money or in other kinds of efforts, a major contributor before 2004. I think he, at one point, gave $100,000 to the DNC. You are really going to have to check that.

I will. In fact, I do have the figures.

OK, so the point is this: prior to 2004, he wasn’t a major contributor. I think he gave [California Democratic Congressman] Tom Lantos some money and a couple of other candidates. He was really not involved. He, in 2004, looked out at the world and said to himself that he felt that the continued presidency of George W. Bush presented a danger both to the United States and to the world. And he felt that it was very important, not for partisan political reasons.

George, in a lot of ways, probably despite what you read in the papers, is probably more like a Rockefeller Republican on a lot of his views of fiscal policy. He is not the sort of crazed, left-wing millionaire that many in the right-wing, particularly press, make him out to be. But he felt very profoundly that this was a moment in history where it was really important that there be some change in the White House. He wrote a book called The Bubble of American Supremacy. In the spring of 2004, and in the fall, he was going around the country speaking out against the war.

Prior to that, in the summer of 2003, he decided that he would make a major contribution to a group called America Coming Together [ACT], which is a voter registration and mobilization effort. He committed $20 million to that effort. Then he committed $2.5 million to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to match small contributions of under $10,000, and most of them were well under $10,000. I believe it was a one-to-one matching fund. I would have to look back in my notes. Then, in addition to that, he probably made about $4 million in additional contributions to other kinds of 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations for these areas.

He has been portrayed as the inspiration for the coming together of a number of wealthy people, and many of them his friends. Was he the inspiration, or somebody else?

I think George was a catalyst for the formation of America Coming Together. Here is what happened: In 2003, when he started to recognize the danger that the Bush administration posed to the world, he asked himself if there was any way for him to play a role in the election. He had never been involved in those kinds of efforts. So we went out and hired two different sets of consultants to analyze the situation for us, and what happened is that they more or less came up with the same answer. There was a conversation amongst the leaders of progressive organizations getting to identify what would need to happen for a Democrat to win the White House. And as it turns out, what needed to happen was a massive voter-base turnout program.

That’s what America Coming Together was. It was an [effort] to elect Democrats up and down the ticket. That’s sort of the gist of it. That notion was presented to George and to a number of other people who he had gathered together. And he found it compelling. You also have to remember, the mood in the summer of 2003 was very depressed. The mood amongst Democrats was very low. People were very gloomy, in a very gloomy mood. I think that Mr. Soros felt that his contribution would play a couple of roles. One, it would help form this organization. But it would also inspire other donors. And it would catalyze the effort. That was the case.

In Matt Bai’s book [The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics], he suggests that these people were inspired by the idea of creating some kind of mechanism, something that would match the conservative.

I think you are confused here about two things. The formation of America Coming Together is a separate and distinct effort from the effort to mobilize funders to give. America Coming Together was a different undertaking.

Oh, yes. That really preceded the other.

It did precede the other. The Democracy Alliance that Matt describes in his book is something that really arose in the reaction to the defeat in 2004.

I see. I did misread it. So after putting $27 million or whatever it was into the 2004 election, George [W.] Bush remained in the White House. How did Mr. Soros feel about it? Did he feel like he had wasted his money or what?

Absolutely not. I think he was, and to this day remains, proud of what he did. He felt that he needed to take action. And he did. And the organization was successful in meeting its goals. But the fact of it is, the other side was better organized and turned out more voters. By the other side, I mean the entire spectrum, from the Republican National Committee, to the campaign of George W. Bush, to the independent movement organizations that turn out and inspire those who vote Republican. It was a superior organization. And they found more voters and turned them out. But America Coming Together met its goals in terms of voter turnout. It was very successful, and no, absolutely no regret.

Well, of course now, ACT is out of business and was fined $775,000 by the FEC. I don’t mean to pile it on here, but then they were accused of sort of potentially violating the law.

I think you need to read the decision very carefully, and I think you need to look at the press release that ACT put out. I am not, and nor was George ever, an operating partner. We were donors to the organization.

I may have overstated the case.

You need to look at that judgment, and you need to look at the response very carefully. Because it’s not disingenuous, as some of the press has suggested, to say that ACT was cleared of most of the charges that were alleged against it and was fined on the basis of a fairly technical matter. And also, if you’re fair about it, the decision was a political decision.

My own belief — and this is my own belief, not Mr. Soros’ belief — is that it was wrong to settle. I believe that ACT should have litigated the affair. Particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, I think it would very likely have prevailed. I think if that case should go on to the Supreme Court, it would very likely have prevailed. I think it was a mistake to settle. I think the case was politically motivated to begin with, and I think it was a bad decision on ACT’s part.

Was it always the intention to shut it down? Or did that come as a result of these charges?

Of what charges?

The FEC.

No, the FEC case had absolutely nothing to do with the way that ACT played out. It was completely irrelevant. You have to understand this: America Coming Together was like a campaign in the minds of the donors who funded it. It was not ever intended to be a permanent effort. I think the donors believed that the effort to elect Democrats needs to be united under the banner of the Democratic Party. The fact is the Democratic Party in 2004 did not have the means or the money to do base voter turnout, so ACT took that job upon itself. But John Kerry lost the election, all right, not ACT.

That’s a pretty good point.

This is an important point to make. Look, in an election there is the candidate. That is the most important thing. There is the party. Then there is the movement on both sides, both on the Republican and the Democratic side. They are the organizations that talk to their members and constituents about important issues and encourage them to vote. That’s what ACT is. They can talk to folks about issues and encourage them to participate in the system.

Well, for Mr. Soros, was this a daunting experience? Or does he intend to plow right in again in the 2008 cycle?

Right now, I think it’s unlikely that George will make a similar commitment in 2008. I think the landscape is very different now. I think, again, as I said, what motivated him in 2004 was the feeling that this was an important moment in history. I think in a lot ways, depressingly so, he and many people feel like the damage has been done already.

But I want to get back to one point about ACT. America Coming Together was — in the minds of the donors — an effort to turn out voters. It was a voter mobilization and registration effort. It was not an attempt to create an organization. It’s been characterized as the donors cut off funding or ended it. But I think some of the organizers, some of the people who created ACT, felt that it would be a good idea to have such an organization permanently. But that’s never what the donors had signed up for. So it’s not like we ended funding.

Were those lists, or whatever you had from that, passed on to the DNC? Or has some other group inherited them?

I am not exactly sure what you are talking about.

Well, if you identify voters, you end up with material that’s valuable to other candidates.

Voter IDs, you mean? You would have to contact ACT to find out the disposition of those.

I actually talked to Ellen Malcolm the other day, and I forgot to ask her about that.

Yeah, I would ask her about that.

But there is not an obvious successor organization at this point to ACT?

No, but I would say the organizations on the progressive side are sort of better organized.

What about Catalist, which is Harold Ickes’ organization?

I don’t think Catalist is Harold Ickes’ organization. I think he is doing a lot of the fundraising for it. The woman who runs it is named Laura Quinn. Catalist is helping progressive organizations use data in a more sophisticated manner.

And it didn’t inherit anything from ACT?

As I say, you would have to talk to ACT. I just don’t know the answer.

I am not suggesting, as I have seen other people suggest, that Mr. Soros, since he was in favor of campaign finance, didn’t have some kind of right to participate in the process. But now that he has been there and been involved in this 527 phenomenon, I am wondering what he thinks about it now.

Well, I can’t really make a lot of representations about specifically what he thinks. Let me suggest the following to you. The Open Society Institute and George Soros, personally, were involved with significant efforts to figure out the campaign finance issue along with Pew and others. There is nothing contradictory about trying to figure out those problems and come up with some solution to what’s [wrong].

Yeah, I am not suggesting there is anything contradictory.

I think everybody realizes that it’s not a good idea for federal elected officials to have to spend 60 percent or 70 percent of their time raising money. That just doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s not good for the commonwealth. That said, George plays by the rules 100 percent. What was your question again?

Well, the campaign finance law really created the opportunity for things like ACT to be funded.

Well, that’s actually not true.

Because 527s existed a long time ago?

527s existed for a long time. I forget who said this, but in politics, money is like water.

It will flow wherever it goes. You are right. But it did lead to this situation.

It did. But had it not been 527s, it would have been 526s.

There would have been something else.

So it’s not like the new campaign finance law drove more money into politics. It just was spent in a different way.

What I am really trying to get to is if he has any opinion about whether the current situation is an improvement over the old situation, or whether it’s not.

I think George would say we need two things: increase public financing and potentially free air time, and greater transparency. One of the things I think is a hallmark of his contributions is that he announced them on the front pages of the newspapers of the country before he made them, not because he wanted to get credit, but because he knew and recognized that participating at that level brought with it a responsibility to be open and transparent about what you were doing and what your motives were. And he always was. Even beyond the sort of disclosure requirements, he was always very, very open.

So you don’t know his opinion of what the new law has created?

As I say, I think he thinks that the situation is still unsatisfactory.

One of the reasons you say that Soros got involved in this was that the Democratic Party just didn’t have the wherewithal to do what needed to be done to get out voters. I am wondering what you all think about the current situation at the Democratic National Committee, whether it’s in any way improved.

I think it probably is improved. That’s my opinion. But I don’t work inside the Democratic Party. I think the test will be in 2008.

Does Mr. Soros have a relationship with Howard Dean of any kind?

Like what do you mean? They know each other, sure. And we give money to the DNC.

What about Harold Ickes?

I think Harold, Dean, and George Soros — George [was] an early supporter of Howard Dean and his run for president.

MoveOn.org has obviously had a lot of publicity lately. Do you all have an opinion about whether they have transgressed the boundaries of propriety?

I can give you my opinion, but this isn’t George’s opinion. First of all, as I said, despite what you may read in the paper, Soros gave $2.5 million to MoveOn Voter Fund in 2004. Since then, MoveOn has raised tens of millions of dollars from 3.4 million members. So the characterization of it as a Soros organization is completely misleading. We have no operational role whatsoever.

They certainly aren’t beholden to him at this point, I suppose, because they have raised so much on their own.

They were never beholden to him, but the fantasy of the right-wing. Again, this is my view; it’s not Mr. Soros’ view. I haven’t actually spoken to him about it, but I think the MoveOn [New York Times] ad was legitimate. I think General [David] Petraeus clearly was acting as a spokesperson for the White House, and that it’s perfectly legitimate to call him on it and call the administration on that. Could you quibble with the language of the headline? Yeah. I think I might have worded it “General Petraeus, Don’t Betray Us.” But I think the Republicans were happy to divert attention from the failing war in Iraq to creating a controversy over the propriety of an ad.

What about the larger role of the bloggers and the Internet folks in the Democratic Party? Do you have an opinion about that?

No, I think the more people who participate and make their voices heard in the political system the better. So the more the merrier.

From what you say, Soros really got into this not because he agreed with the Democrats so much as because he disagreed with George Bush.

Yeah, the way you put it is exactly correct. George is not a partisan figure. He is not a sort of Democratic booster or a Republican detractor. He is focused. His involvement arose out of concern over the policies of the United States government. And the group implementing those policies was the Bush administration. He felt they were leading the country in a very dangerous direction, and I think history has confirmed that he was right on that count.

I forgot to ask you the most obvious question. Does he have a candidate in 2008?

He will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. That is clear. In the primary he has supported Barack Obama. And that is not out of any dislike for Hillary Clinton, for whom he also has a great deal of respect and admiration.

And he would support her if she got the nomination?

Absolutely. But I think that his feeling is that the world is in such a perilous situation right now, and that Barack Obama has the potential to be a transformational leader. By that I mean he could inspire more people who haven’t been involved in civic life to get involved. That’s really what we need. We need some kind of a cultural transformation to address all of the issues we face now, from climate change to the resolution of the war in Iraq.