While everyone is wondering how Gov. Chris Gregoire beat Dino Rossi (I mean damn, with that powerful Seattle Times endorsement for Rossi, she sure had it tough), I’m more interested in why Darcy Burner didn’t beat incumbent Republican Rep. Dave Reichert in Washington’s 8th Congressional district.
Part of what helped Reichert fend off Burner’s challenge was the $300,000 TV ad blitz he did in the final week of the campaign, lampooning Burner for saying she had an economics degree from Harvard. In fact, she had a B.A. from Harvard with a concentration in computer science and a specialization in economics. The Seattle Times made a big deal out of the difference (they put it on the front-page), which lent legitimacy to Reichert’s mudslinging ads.
I wasn’t as exorcised about the issue as Goldy, but I must admit, saying you have an economics degree from Harvard (Harvard!) when it’s actually a minor, is hardly a front-page offense.
Nonetheless, Reichert’s ads were devastating. When I first saw them, I thought, “This campaign is over.” Burner was beating Reichert handily in the polling heading into the final week. It looks like Reichert’s last-minute ad blitz reversed the trend.
The real loser isn’t Burner, though. The real loser is campaign finance law. According to Reichert’s campaign finance reports, he did not have the cash on hand to pay for those ads. That means he got a loan (illegal) from either his media buyer, Media Plus, or from the TV stations. On October 31, I reported:
Totaling up his fundraising for October, Reichert had about $1.4 million to spend. However, his ad buys for the month total about $1.7 million. That puts him about $300,000 in the red, which is how much ad time he has booked during the last week of the campaign. That means his closing ad blitz isa gimme from the TV stations and Media Plus. (As I’ve reported, local TV stations have a long standing deal with Media Plus allowing the firm to secure ad time on credit.)
Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik quips, “These ads shouldn’t say, ‘This message approved by Dave Reichert.’ They should say, ‘Paid for by Media Plus.’”
I’m waiting to hear back from the Reichert campaign for their explanation of the deficit spending.
I looked at the latest numbers available at the Federal Elections Commission to see if Reichert raised that $300,000 before November 4. If he had—setting aside the question of whether or not it’s fair that his campaign could get an advance on TV time—it would at least show that his campaign ultimately had the financial support to run the campaign it ran.
If he didn’t bring in the $300,000 before Nov. 4, it means he circumvented election law. And worse, his violation—getting an illegal loan for TV time—may have been directly responsible for handing him the election.
According to the FEC, in the last week of the campaign, Reichert raised $132,600. That’s $167,400 shy of what he owed the TV stations.
Given that the Seattle Times’ rap on Burner was that she relied on out-of-state money (which I debunked here), it’s also worth noting that over 50 percent of Reichert’s last week total, $70,800, came from out of sate. And $45,500, or 34 percent, came from PACs.
A few noteworthy local donors: Linda Nordstrom gave $1,000. Amazon’s PAC gave $1,000.
Kathy Neukirchen, the president of Reichert’s media buyer, Media Plus, is listed as having donated $1,000. Her donation should actually be listed as $167,400, the difference between the $300,000 ad buy and the $132,600 Reichert was able to raise in the final week of the campaign.
I have tried several times to contact Reichert’s campaign about this issue, and they have not responded.
No one will ever take campaign finance laws seriously while the penalties are limited to slap-on-the-wrist fines. But it will be argued that forfeiting the office thwarts the will of the voters. How about the dunking stool? We can set it up on the banks of the Green River … hmmm … that might be considered bad taste …
How about if we consider it the equivilent of an illegal proceedure penalty in football? The candidate forfeits the down (any monies illegally obtained), and the play is repeated (the election is held over again) – except this time, at the expense of the candidate who benefited form the illegal conduct.
Let’s support the First Amendment and repeal campaign finance laws.
It’s ironic that even as Reichert was running once again on former his law enforcement experience and supposed integrity, his campaign relied on the usual old damn lies, illegal loans, and franked mail.
re 3: If giving people money is free speech, that means prostitutes are merely engaging in 1st amendment protected free speech.
That means you are in favor of prostitution.
I’m sorry… who are prostitutes giving money to and what are they saying?
It might be time for the blue pill, Lucy.
I think the issue here is whether or not it’s okay to cheat to get elected. Over the past 8 years, at least, the answer is a resounding “YES!”
Is it public knowledge what $$$ the campaign was charged for the airtime? Or are you making an assumption as to cost.
@5
I thought you were against the government telling a woman what she can do with her body?
So you are for overturning Roe v Wade?
@7,
Public record at the TV stations.
@9
thanks
Josh – so rather complaining about Rossi or Gregoire and their finances after the election which seems to be pointless; why not look at how the national campaigns obtained their financing.
Let’s see: In one of the most closely fought elections in Washington state – one candidate somehow got money they did not have on hand to pay for attack ads.
If the ads were an in-kind contribution that was not reported – that would be illegal. If the ads were not an in-kind contirbution – then how did Reichert get the money?
Either way, this is very fishy and probably illegal. A sheriff should know better – looks like Sheriff Breaklaw will be in real trouble in two years.
Its only news if the media reports it… by all rights it should be a major scandal but who want to bet that the Times even mentions the story?
Josh,
Isn’t there a post general filing due 12/4 that covers the dates of 10/16-11/24?
Until then isn’t this all just pure speculation?
Will the last honest Republican left standing please bury the stinking, festering corpses of your comrades?
In other news….
Ex-Congressman Mark Foley (R-FLA/Pervert) is apparantly trying to resurrect his career. He kept quite until after the election, no doubt because Party leaders told him to in no uncertain terms. But today, barely a week after the 2008 election, he’s doing media interviews and trying to simultaniously “take responsibility” for his actions, and yet argue he did nothing wrong. Some excerpts:
I’m not surprised that the FBI and the Florida authorities didn’t bring charges against Foley, although the Electronics Communication Act DOES seem to apply here. Any Democractic congressman who brought sent similar messages to someone under the age of 18, especially if they had authority over them, would have been arrested forthwith.
But the politicization of the Dept. of Justice and the F.B.I. by the Bush administration became clear in 2007 with the U.S. Attorney firings. And in Florida, an investigation into Ann Coulter’s fraudulent voter registration (using her real estate agent’s address as her own) was brought to an abrupt halt by an F.B.I. agent flashing a badge and informing state authorities she was under “federal protection”, although the nature or legal status of such protection was never made clear.
So this is one more reminder of how the Republicans view “taking responsibility”. It means blaming the victims, and accepting only such general theoretical responsiblity as the head of a company might have, although without any consequences (loss of job, civil liability, criminal liability, etc.).
Commissioners Raise Port Taxes By 11%
While every other government entity is squeezing their budget in the teeth of an inflationary recession, the Seattle Port Commission — led by the redoubtable Pat Davis — voted to increase port taxes levied on homeowners by 11% next year.
Seattle is the only major west coast port that needs tax subsidies to operate — a surefire indicator of poor management.
The port commissioners are worse than useless; they cost us big bucks every year at tax time. The legislature should disband the port district, put the port under state control, and direct the governor to hire a professional management team to run it.
@16
The way he talks he should be the national spokesman for NAMBLA.
““The work I was doing was involving young children … You know, you hear the term ‘pedophile.’ That is prepubescent,” Foley said, noting a “huge difference” from lurid chats with teens on the brink of adulthood.”
What a complete, utter, & total disgrace.
He seems to think that he is some kind of victim.
RHP
C’mon now, it’s the same on both sides…
Barney Frank?
I think we both agree there should be no circumstance where Foley’s conduct DOESN’T land him in jail. Instead of being “above” the law, as lawmakers seem to be, they should be held to a higher standard and possibly stronger punishment.
@16 “This is one more reminder of how the Republicans view ‘taking responsibility’ … blaming the victims, and accepting only … theoretical responsiblity … without any consequences ….”
Yep and America’s voters demonstrated last week what they think of the Party of Irresponsibility.
16 – Good news for the R party. They deserve Foley.
@12 “looks like Sheriff Breaklaw will be in real trouble in two years”
I’m not optimistic. Dave Ross ran against him and got 48.5%. Darcy Burner ran against him twice and got 48.5% each time. If you ran George Washington, the Bellevue Dittoheads would still vote for him. It’ll take gerrymandering to get him out of there.
Amazon is a Reichert backer?
I know how to make the Times front page! Raise the inheritance tax on newspaper publishers! That’ll get Frank’s attention. Also, the IRS should make sure he doesn’t take accelerated depreciation on his $150 million Bothell printing plant just because printing presses are obsolete. The rest of us don’t get writeoffs on our bad investments, so why should he?
To my knowledge, Barney Frank didn’t break the Electronic Communications Act by communicating sexual messages with minors.
Foley admits he sent sexual messages to minors, but argues that it wasn’t REALLY against the law because… well, they WERE minors, but they weren’t REALLY minors, because they WERE within a year or two of NOT being minors….
In other words, Frank thinks the rules should apply to everyone else, but shouldn’t apply to him. I’m wondering if Reichart feels the same way about election financing laws.
This is an illegal campaign contribution, plain and simple.
Part of the 8th is in Pierce County, but don’t look for the News Tribune to pull their heads out of their asses and report on this any time soon. In the TNT’s book anything that might upset the statuesque is a bad thing and anything that can be swept under the carpet by labeling it “politically motivated” will be labeled and swept.
I should note that my understanding is that some states allow for a teenager under the age of 18 to give consent to sexual activity (the age varies from state-to-state), as long as it doesn’t violate other laws (prostitution, solicitation, etc.).
However, the Electronics Communication Act overrides those laws and makes illegal electronic communications of a sexual nature between an adult and a minor (defined as anyone under the age of 18). So if a 19 year-old sailor picks up a 17-year-old girl at the mall and later engages in sex, and this age range is allowed by the state “age of consent” laws, then he has not broken the law. But if the same sailor sends a text message to the same girl for the purpose of engaging in purient conversations, or for arranging a sexual liason, then he’s broken the law.
Yep, it might be confusing. But then, Foley was supposed to be an “expert” on the subject, having participated in drafting legislation on the subject.
The shame about the Reichart election in the 8th is that he still won’t do anything in Congress, except that now he’ll have an excuse (Democrats control Presidency and both houses of Congress). Of course, it’s not like you could tell the difference between now and when he was a member of the majority in Congress.
Hey, Reichart, how’s that “Suburban Gang Initiative” going? That was supposed to be a hallmark of your 2006 campaign! Did you drop it because of opposition to the bill, or was it simply too embarrasing to bring it up due to the hooting and laughter which accompanied it? I can’t imagine why – you wanted to allocate a few million dollars to pay for a task force to create a “most wanted” list of gangs and then require the justice department to prosecute them, without giving the justice department itself any resources to do so.
Of course, I could come up with the same list simply by chatting with a few police officers, espeically those on the gang beat, and they would not only tell me which gangs were operating, but also break it down by territory and local flavor. Give me 10K, and I’ll have the list within a week. And if it was such a good idea, why didn’t “the Sheriff” employ this tactics when he was a head of the King County Sheriff’s Dept?
Of course, it was just an election-year stunt. As soon as he won the election, the whole idea was dropped like a lead balloon.
re 6: The issue Luigi was referring to was the fact that the supreme court has declared ‘corporate political contributions’ to be constitutionally protected free speech.
Obviously, corporations have a lot more money than individuals, yet the supreme court views an individual such as your own snide self to be on the same playing field, monetarily speaking, in the political free speech arena.
So, shut up, asshole.
Building Houses In Flood Plains Dep’t
Hey kiddies, it’s time for the annual news stories about homes and towns getting flooded out by raging rivers doing the same thing they’ve done every winter since the glaciers melted 16,000 years ago! Don’t miss the spectacular video footage of salmon swimming across roads into farm fields!
If you stupid humans had the brains of, say, a rabbit you would quit building in flood plains and give those fields back to the salmon. Then you’d have hundreds of millions of salmon like the Indians had before you stupid white men showed up! So many salmon that farmers used them for fertilizer! Enough salmon to feed everyone! (In case you didn’t know, most of the historical salmon spawning occurred in the lowlands that flood every winter.)
But no, stupid Republican farmers and developers cleared the rivers, diked and drained the fields, and now you have no salmon and plenty of houses under water.
Even us dumb bunnies can do better than that.
@29
Pierce County gets slammed left right and center for its building policies in regards to flood plains, but come flood season most of the houses getting washed away aren’t in Pierce County.
RR @ 29: Not to mention that the flood plains of river systems are valuable farmland PRECISELY because floods deposited new layers of rich sediments across them on a regular basis. But now we build levees to keep the rivers within their banks, drill for oil, and the farmers have to buy petroleum-based fertilizers to do the job the river used to do on it’s own, at no charge.
Other things which used to be free (or almost free), but now you have to pay for it:
Water – by keeping taxes too low, cities can’t invest in better treatment facilities, making the water taste bad, and the companies then sell us bottled water instead.
Television – conversion to digital signals is the final nail in the coffin of the “public airwaves”. Local monopolies (cable TV companies) now control over 95% of the the TV sets, for a significant price.
There are other examples, but I just don’t have that much time to list them all right now.
I hear Begich is ahead of Stevens in AK.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....244142.php
Wow!
http://www.adn.com/elections/story/586989.html
@33 Wow, indeed. Three votes up. I didn’t think it would happen. It looks like Palin might not make it to the senate after all.
And we thought that the count was going slow in Washington State!!!! But I guess we don’t have to send the ballots in by sled dog…..
Of course, an election this close will result in an automatic recount. We may not know who won until mid-December, barring any court challenges over the vote count by either side.
Actually – there’s no automatic recount unless there is an exact tie in Alaska (you read that right). Of course it’s almost automatic, if the vote difference is less than 0.5% pretty much anyone can request a recount and the state will pay. If it’s larger, you have to pay.
Remember there’s another 10,000 votes to county today and probably another 40,000 votes still left – most from “Begich friendly rural counties” (that’s where he did the best, as well as the big city centers). Given how Begich erased a 3,000 point deficit in a single day’s worth of counting, less than half the outstanding ballots – I predict Begich will end up up by almost as much as he was down before today – 3,000 votes. That’s around 1% of the total. Might be outside the realm of automatic/state-paid-for recount.
And I can’t imagine most Alaskan’s supporting Senator Tubes paying for the recount and dragging this on further. Stranger things have happened.
BTW – Franken will win his recount, barring some snafu where a massive batch in a Coleman leaning county wasn’t entered in at all.
2 more seats for us, none for them. C’mon Martin! Make it the trifecta!
Go Cindy!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....43272.html
It’s not like that old man you’re married to never had his dalliances.
(Yeah I know, it’s the Enquirer. Still it’s a lot of fun.)
I like the title of this post. Paraphrasing:
“Whatever doesn’t kill the wingnuts only make them crazier.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....43398.html
So you tards are equally concerned about the
200 million that Obama hasn’t accounted for?
I’ll be waiting for you scathing headline.
39 – Aren’t you the shithead who called 40 states for McSame?
@39
I Googled Obama missing $200 million, here’s the only relevant hit I got.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@39
Yeah I’m worried. I’m worried that some idiot is going to believe some of the crap the far right is slinging and he will blow something up or shoot someone.
Democrat Pulls Ahead In Alaska Senate Race
According to news reports, Anchorage mayor Mark Begich now leads Ted Stevens (R-Convict) by 3 votes.
@40 I remember Mark being a shithead, but I don’t remember him calling 40 states for McSame.
@41 Too crazy to respond to. The kool-aid drinkers are still here. I hoped they’d be raptured up by now.
Yup! No one will take campaign laws seriously as long as Obama totally violated them by taking illegal foreign money and by having many folks on the roles who donated much more than allowed and what about all those $200 or less voters that he won’t disclose (doesn’t have to, but word on the street is that they are probably from large donors disguising themselves by donating many times in small amounts). McCain’s having an audit on his campaign financing but Obama refuses to submit to one. Just one more fact he’s hiding like his birth certificate, records from the Universities, health records etc. Anyone with nothing to hide is happy to be forthcoming with such proofs that there has been no wrongdoing.
@38 That guy nailed it:
“Arguing against this crap is like explaining to a meth tweaker that the shadow people aren’t real.”
Either I’m going to be very busy for the next 4 years, or I won’t have anything to do. We’ll have to wait and see how crazy our trolls get.
Question. We haven’t heard from Mark the Welsher recently. Did his head explode or is he job hunting in South America?
@46
Speaking of Kool-aide drinkers and meth tweakers.
@46 See #47. Then come back after you (a) grow up, and (b) get your facts straight.
Re 46 (continued): Could any rational person believe that if there was anything to these rightwing allegations of Obama campaign finance violations, the Bush-appointed FEC wouldn’t be all over it? No. The government is still run by highly partisan Republicans, you know. But reality has never been known to slow down production at the Wingnut Fantasy Factory.
McCain Cuckolded?
The National Enquirer has published a story alleging Cindy McCain is having an affair. Well, that’s only the National Enquirer being the National Enquirer. The National Enquirer said the same thing about John Edwards.
@51
Roger, you’re an idiot.
The FEC is a bipartisan commission, no more than 3 from any party by law. Which means partisan votes end up in ties and nothing gets done.
It’s unfortunate that Obama will not face scrutiny for having turned off the Address Verification System (AVS) for his on-line donations. (Too many right wing pundits tested the system with fake names and addresses to declare it a myth, so don’t bother.)
But in 2012, do you honestly believe that either party will go forward with public financing of their campaign. Obama murdered campaign finance reform. Stone dead.
Roger Rabbit @ 17
The legislature should disband the port district, put the port under state control, and direct the governor to hire a professional management team to run it.
Amen to that! Beats the hell out of you-know-who putting his name on the ballot as a protest candidacy!
Apparently straightforwardness is not a hallmark of the nutroots.
Blame everyone but Darcy if it makes you feel better. The fact that she couldn’t win in TWO elections when the Republican brand was at its lowest is a testament to her inadequacy as a candidate and her lack of appeal to voters.
She lost, stop your sniveling and get over it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
over
old news
who cares but the sore
move on.losers
It seems to me that your discussion is missing a quite serious element. Aren’t you, in these numbers, assuming that Reichart spent $0 on other things. Evidently he didn’t need to pay for campaign telephones, leasing the campaign office, printing fliers, gasoline, signs, etc … 100% of all his money (on hand and raised), according to your calculation, seems to be dedicated against the advertising. Doesn’t this suggest that his ‘loan’ for these ads is even larger than your post implies?
re 46: McCain took money from Halliburton. They are headquartered in Bahrain.
AVS has nothing to do with it. AVS only protects merchants from shipping out valuable merchandise based upon a stolen credit card number. Most non-profits receiving donations keep their AVS trimmed on a very low level of security, to keep from excluding contributions from people who make honest mistakes in data entry. If you really need to confirm a donar’s identity, the credit card number can be traced back to the owner.
Of course, this complaint about the “under $200” donations to the Obama campaign is just another Republican attempt to claim that the election of Obama wasn’t legitimate, that he really didn’t have tens of millions of donars giving small amounts to his campaign.
You know that the Republicans are going to put everything they’ve got into the Georgia run-off, the Michigan re-count, and (probably) contesting the Alaska results. We’ve seen their tactics time and time again over the past eight years. Now is not the time to be satisfied with our gains to date. The Republicans aren’t going to be spread thin by Dean’s 50-state strategy, they can focus on three races.
So, I’m wondering: does Obama have any money left over? If so, can he give a big chunck of it to those three races? You know the Republicans are going to be hitting up their donars nation-wide for money for those races. That’s the whole point of the phony political claims that “the Dem’s are stealing the Michigan election for Frankin!!!!! It’s not to enfluence that election, it’s to raise money on a national basis – just like they used the 2004 Washington gubenatorial race nationally to raise money.
@60
RHP you have to admit one thing. Doesn’t it seem suspicious that President Elect Obama refuses to list his under $200 donations list?
McCain did. Why won’t Obama?
It’s not an attempt to undo the election, that’s over. He’s in. Obama is the person who can settle this matter. There are questions becuase there is potential for wrong doing, and he could settle the matter just like McCain did.
@61 Both sides are lawyering up… BOTH sides.
@58
Ah, Houston Texas.
@62: No and the republican trolls can whine all they want but the facts are:
Obama does not legally have to list contributions under $200.
There are too many of them
They are so small they will have no influence on policy, unlike the huge 527 contributions from corporations and special interests that supported the McCain campaign (that McCan refused to disavow).
The whining by republicans that Obama had so much more small contributions is just that – whining. that is democracy in action – compared to the big corporate contributiona nd the attack ads by the Chambers of Commerce.
Obama is not legally required to have his campaign audited – McCain is. McCain took out illegal loans in the primary and then disavowed public financing – he cheated his own systems rules.
Love how the republicans are suddenly interested in campaign finance reform :)
@64
“McCain took out illegal loans in the primary and then disavowed public financing – he cheated his own systems rules.”
McCain took public financing, which requires the audit as part of the deal.
It was P.E Obama who lied and promised to use public financing then didn’t.
My opinion? A new “loophole” that has been expoited this campaign cycle is going to be the norm moving forward>
Both sides received large donations and 527 support. Too say that McCain received them and not P.E Obama is silly.
Rightstuff?
First, Mr. Obama did not promise to use public financing. Granted that he promised “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.“, but that isn’t quite the same thing.
Now, complain that the relatively low level discussion between lawyers from both campaigns hardly consitutes “aggressive” pursuit, and you could even find a few liberals agreeing with you.
Essentially, he may not have broken a promise, but it does look like he weaseled out of it. I would have been much happier if he would have just said “yes, I let everyone think I would take public financing, and at the time, I believed that would be the best for both the country and my campaign, but after seeing so many individuals wanting to give something to help this campaign, I’ve reconsidered that position.”
Of course, there is something of a difference between changing an opinion (or even weaseling out of a strongly implied obligation) and actually violating the public financing laws.
Which, when you think about it, would have also made a stong argument for Mr. Obama to change his position on taking public financing.
“My oponent has already violated the public financing laws that he helped to write, so I am unwilling to trust that we could work out an agreement that we could believe would be fully carried out by my opponent” would have made a far stronger argument, in my opinion.