Last week, I reported that local media firm Media Plus was lining up TV ad time on credit for its stable of Republican clients—Rep. Dave Reichert, Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, and Douglas Sutherland.
The arrangement, in which Media Plus secured hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of TV time for its GOP clients before the candidates cut any checks (or even had the money in their accounts to pay for the ads), ticked off the Democrats who cried, “illegal loan!”
Both the Washington state Democrats and Darcy Burner’s campaign against Rep. Reichert filed complaints— the Democrats with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission; Burner with the Federal Elections Commission. The complaints accused Media Plus of lending money to its clients, which translates into a contribution.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, the dollar figure for such expensive TV buys exceeds contribution limits.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, it isn’t likely that either the FEC or the PDC will get to either complaint before election.
This means illegal fundraising may affect the outcome of this year’s elections.
The Media Plus deal is particularly disturbing in Reichert’s case where the $1.7 million ad buy exceeded Reichert’s budget by nearly $600,000.
On the morning he was drafting the complaint, Burner’s attorney complained : “Media Plus probably doesn’t extend credit to any of their [other] clients in an amount greater than the amount the client earned all of the previous quarter.” (Reichert raised $524,000 in the most recent quarter.)
Aside from the issue of whether or not it’s an illegal contribution…
Vendors of goods and services to political campaigns know that only a winning candidate can hope to pay them back, a losing candidate might take years to pay them back, if ever. It’s a simple fact that incumbents have a greater fund-raising ability than do Democrats.
I’m guessing that they felt that if they gave a big enough ad buy to Reichart, it would make it more likely that their bill would be paid.
But it’s also possible that somebody has guaranteed the payment of the bill, something which would make the ad agency feel more secure in advancing that ad time. Of course, a guarantee of the bill would be considered a contribution in and of itself, raising another aspect to this issue.
That is a great point, Josh. Can we consider politicians who lied and cheated to attain their position as legitimate representatives of the people?
I don’t think so. Unless it’s crooks they are representing.
Ah, yes! I can hear the righties saying in their pea-nut heads, but Acorn hirlings registered Mickie Mouse. They all do it.
They Let This State Join The Union?! Dep’t
According to a Boston University poll 23% of Texans think Obama is a Muslim.
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I think we should call them “Texicans.”
Obama’s TV Show: Many Watched
The Nielsen organization says 33.6 million people watched Barack Obama’s 30-minute TV special last night, 50% more than the 22.7 million who watched Ross Perot’s 1992 infomercial. Competing with Obama for viewers was ABC’s “Pushing Daisies,” which got 6.6 million viewers compared to its seaon average of 5.9 million.
(Source: Associated Press)
They let campaigns buy ad time on credit? 56 years ago, KING-TV made sure they had the check in hand when they were going to let Senator McCarthy do a speech supporting the sitting Washington Senator in a tough fight against Henry M. Jackson. The 15 minutes cost them $300(a lot of money back then), but that $300 was not a license to put libel on the air. KING actually read the script in advance, and were ready to have the cameraman pull the plug if the libelous statements they had censored out of the script were put on. The speech was not made, because McCarthy would not do it without being able to smear Jackson, a committed anti-communist that though McCarthy went too far, as a Communist. Also, at that time, a rebuttal was needed, and Senator Magnusson was standing by to deliver it, and McCarthy tried to get him to defend him against the KING Staff, which included a good lawyer. The good old days of campaign speeches.
What part of Net-180 billing do you people not understand?
There are no consequences for breaking the campaign laws. At most they get hit with a minor fine many months after the election. These pols see it as just part of the cost of doing business. The BIAW will cover it for them if need be.
I just listened to the 16-1/2 minute tape of the Darcy Burner interview on Komo with Schram/Carlson.
It was hysterical.
Burner clearly said in a prior taped interview that she loved economics so much she got a degree in it.
It meaning economics.
Then they go round-and-round-and-round…….
Then Burner says Harvard doesn’t give degrees ….
what double speak.
Burner has been her worst enemy on this.
If she had only said “I wasn’t clear…here is how it works at Harvard”..but she didn’t.
Instead she was absolutely defiant and sounded like an arrogant pinhead!
This is a classic case where “deny, deny, deny” was the absolute WRONG strategy. She has spent over a week on this sideshow.
What a fool she is.
Just to add to what Mr. Cynical just wrote,
I tried to listen to 30 seconds of what she had to say, just to understand her position regarding her embellished CV.
I just couldn’t do it. It was far worse than nails on a chalkboard or the brake whine on a 93 Camry. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Anyone that can listen to 16 1/2 minutes of that is a saint.
@9 “Then they go round-and-round-and-round…….”
Actually, that’s what you’re doing. Round and round, never getting it, never letting go of it. Pathetic.
Ditzy, I mean Marcy Darcy fumbles, crashes and burns. Goldy continues to pull his pud and Ditzy receives the Shrammie award. I may tip The Darcy when she loses again and brings me a refill of coffee. And thanks to Ken Schramm and John Carlson for exposing this lying, unqualified bitch for what she is. Bye Ditzy! ‘B-deep, b-deep, that’s all folks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnhybrxEEVw
Mark1@12: Priceless!
No doubt about it!
zapporo–
Burner did sound like a whining bitch for 16-1/2 minutes. She is schooled in the Leftist “deny, deny, deny” no matter how stoopid you sound.
That interview ought to cook her goose in this election and all future lessons.
Darcy Burner==> SERIAL LIAR!
Ist it was her Microsoft “Fake-Executive” position, then it was her “Ames Lake Community Club” involvement …actually lack thereof and now she is involved in a semantic debate over what the definition of IT is!!
Too funny.
She is truly a LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWN poster GAL!!
Even Lefty Ken Schram is trying to help Darcy Moonbat! and she fails miserably.
Semantical game; misrepresented the basis; that isn’t what you said; trapped in a verbal twilight zone. – Ken Schram
P R I C E L E S S!
Hey Ken, give her The Daily Double… Two Schrammys in two days.
Cut the Schramster some slack. When a bully climbs into the bully pulpit, the going gets weird and the weird get going.
Way stranger, about five weeks ago, was John Carlson cheerily chirping that the market works. Shares of WaMu, he said, had pumped from $2 to $4 in a day. Capitalists with balls (e.g. Roger and Cynical) could have doubled their money.
But then, in a week, shares of WaMu went from $4 to $0. Sort of a metaphor for the GOP.
Even Republicans complain about Media + when the firm pulls the same stunts in a primary. This has been going on for years and years. It stinks. Nobody ever does anything about it.
Darcy Burner loves communications so much she got a degree in it.
This is rich! McDermott does something illegal and it’s ‘freedom of speech’. A republican does something that’s not even illegal and they’re guilty just because of the accusation.
This shit is getting pretty old. You can tell because not even are the fuckin whackos on this board donating money to it. How long you been stuck at 1893 there goldy?
It depends on what the meaning of it is.
Beautiful.
Yep. That’s the way it is: McDermott’s a freedom fighter doing freedom of speech. Sarah Palin is a despot doing “unlawful” abuse of power.
And Burner is a victim of the half-vast right-wing Blethen conspiracy.