June 09, 2010 07:06 PM UTC

Chasm Between McInnis, Reality Remains Vast--Motive?

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

We’ve expressed astonishment in this space a few times recently about the audacious flip-flop–more to the point, the insistence that what is plainly an audacious flip-flop isn’t, seemingly ignorant of over two decades of recorded history on the matter–of GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis on abortion rights. As we’ve said, it’s one thing to simply change your mind on an issue, quite another to assert things about your record that can be proven false in five seconds or less Googling your name.

Not that our astonishment, or the public ridicule McInnis has earned from editorial boards and pundits on both sides of the aisle, has changed McInnis’ script–here he is talking to the Durango Herald editorial board, as reported yesterday:

In 1992, when McInnis ran for Congress, he answered an abortion question by saying, “I am pro-choice.”

Since then, McInnis has voted to ban partial-birth abortion except to save a mother’s life; to fund health providers who don’t provide abortion information; to ban human cloning, including for medical research; to ban family planning funding in U.S. aid abroad; to make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing other crimes; and to bar transporting minors to get an abortion.

On Monday, McInnis said he changed his mind on abortion soon after that campaign…

Got that? We want to make sure people are clear on (the latest version of) McInnis’ story here: McInnis can now say with certainty that it was soon after his original 1992 campaign for Congress that he “changed his mind” on the matter of abortion from pro-choice to pro-life.

Of course, you’ve then got to reconcile that with what the Colorado Independent reports today:

Anti-abortion Republican candidate for governor Scott McInnis says he does not remember serving on the advisory board of Republicans for Choice, a political action committee ostensibly dedicated to supporting pro-choice candidates.

Papers filed with the Federal Election Commission, though, show that McInnis served on the organization’s board from June of 1996 through at least August of 2005. [Pols emphasis] Filings submitted since then do not include the PAC’s letterhead, which lists its advisory board…RFC founder, chairwoman and treasurer Ann E. W. Stone earlier this year told the Center for Public Integrity that she relies on an advisory board to set the agenda for PAC spending. [Pols emphasis]

[Former McInnis chief of staff Stephannie Finley] surmises that he simply forgot he had agreed to be on the board and hence never asked to be removed. She noted, however, that pro-choice Republicans came to be riled by McInnis when he started changing positions. “I’m surprised they kept him on the board,” she said.

Spending by Republicans for Choice has raised eyebrows over the years.

Since Stone founded the group in 1990, RFC has raised well more than $5 million but has spent almost none of that money to support pro-choice Republican candidates. The vast majority of money spent has gone for administrative costs, with the majority of that going either directly to Stone as reimbursement for expenses or to companies controlled by Stone- companies that also share an office with RFC.

That last part about RFC’s spending certainly adds an additional layer to the mystery, but it wouldn’t be the first time funds intended to benefit a political candidate have been spent questionably in the vicinity of Scott McInnis, would it? There’s been a lot of talk lately about the efficacy of many PACs, and whether or not they function more as slush funds for favored political operatives than legitimate vehicles to support candidates. And there’s been a lot of talk about McInnis’ true motivations for allowing this ludicrous gap between his claims and the record to fester.

Now assuming none of you seriously believe that McInnis remained a board member of Republicans for Choice for over a decade by accident–because you are not stupid–perhaps a say in how RFC’s money got spent was what mattered after all? It would certainly explain a lot: for example, why he doesn’t want to talk about it.