Search Results for: Dave Reichert

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.

When I first reported about the “GOP on Borrowed Time” controversy—the story that Rep. Dave Reichert’s media consultant, Media Plus, was securing the candidate’s TV time on credit (a potentially illegal campaign loan)—Media Plus told me the ad time didn’t constitute a loan. Media Plus president Kathy Neukirchen told me Reichert pays for the booked time on a running basis, paying for the ad placement the day after the ad runs. In essence, the explanation for the advance is: He’s good for it.

It’s not the standard way TV stations deal with campaigns because political campaigns, which survive on fundraising, aren’t the most trusty debtors. Traditionally, ad time for political campaigns must be paid for in advance.

I’ll let the FEC sort through Reichert’s deal with Media Plus— Darcy Burner’s campaign has filed a complaint about the cash advances.

But the latest campaign finance data shows Reichert is not good for it. The numbers indicate he does not have the cash to pay for the media time that Media Plus has secured for him for the final week of the campaign.

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 is a 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.

UPDATE: Burner’s campaign has filed a complaint with the FEC (you can download it here), arguing that Rep. Dave Reichert does not have enough cash on hand to cover all the TV time he’s booked. The Burner campaign says the ad buy puts Reichert about $580,000 in the red and that his media buyer, Media Plus—by securing the time for him—is making an illegal campaign contribution. The Reichert campaign does not return my calls (and can you blame them, Goldy’s such a potty mouth), but Reichert spokeswoman Amanda Halligan did talk to the Seattle Times. The Seattle Times reports: 

Reichert campaign spokeswoman Amanda Halligan said Media Plus+ pays for the ads and then sends the campaign a bill. They pay it, she said, “like any other business.” 

“There’s no loan associated with it,” she said.  

ORIGINAL POST:

Yesterday’s post on Media Plus’ $530,000 loan to the Rep. Reichert’s campagin for Reichert’s ad blitz on KIRO, KOMO, and KING (the number is actually $777,000 when you add in KING, which I didn’t have at the time), included an interview with the FEC that laid out a possible loophole for Reichert. Otherwise, the loan/contribution would be in violation of election law.  

The loophole is this: Even though corporations can’t directly loan money to candidates, Media Plus’ arrangement with Reichert—getting his ad time on credit—is part of Media Plus’ established practice with stations and clients. So, when Reichert ends the quarter all paid up, the FEC may  simply see the whole arrangement as a “service” provided by Media Plus, not a contribution.

That raises a question, though: Is it Media Plus’ established practice to advance credit at such a high risk?

Darcy Burner’s lawyer, Perkins Coie attorney Ryan McBrayer, puts it this way: 

“Media Plus probably doesn’t extend credit to any of their clients in an amount greater than the amount the client earned all of the previous quarter.” 

That’s a good point. Reichert raised $524,000 in the last quarter. He’s already on the hook for nearly $800,000 in TV time for this quarter?

McBrayer adds: 

Media Plus looks to have bought airtime for the Reichert campaign that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the Reichert campaign raised all of last quarter. If so, Media Plus is really making an illegal corporate contribution because the Federal Election Campaign Act bans the extension of credit in such disproportionate and unreasonable amounts.

Yesterday, I reported that KOMO had given $180,000 worth in TV ad time to Rep. Dave Reichert on credit, an oddity in political advertising.

This morning, Kathy Neukirchen, head of Meida Plus, Rep. Reichert’s media buyer, confirmed for me that KOMO had given Reichert the time on credit, explaining the arrangement to me like this: Her firm gets its TV time for all its clients, political and commercial, on credit. Media Plus is a big local buyer and has an established relationship with the stations. She pays for the time at the end of the month (the practice is called “Net 30”). Her political clients are treated no differently, she says, than her commercial clients.

Neukirchen says Reichert pays her back daily as the ads run, and that Reichert has already paid her for yesterday’s ads and will pay her today for that portion of the rest of the week’s buy. 

Burner’s camp says they’ve confirmed that KIRO has  also agreed to run Reichert’s ads on credit. The total loaned time between KOMO and KIRO would amount to about $530,000. 

KING reportedly turned down Media Plus’s “Net 30” request for the Reichert ad buys. Neukirchen would only say she doesn’t know what the stations have said, but all her contracts are done on credit. [UPDATE: I just talked to Jim Rose, Director of Sales & Marketing at KING, and he says, in fact, KING is extending credit to Neukirchen for the Reichert buys.]

The Burner campaign tells me their lawyers are “exploring legal options” on the matter.  Neukirchen’s daily payback arrangement with Reichert, they say, amounts to a loan, and FEC rules do not allow corporations to loan money to candidates. (Nor are they allowed to donate unless it’s through a Political Action Committee. Corporate PAC limits are $10,000 per election cycle.) 

FEC spokesman Bob Biersack would not offer any judgement on this particular case, telling me only that the Burner camp was free to file a complaint with the FEC. He did tell me that firms can “loan” money (and he put it in quotes) to campaigns if it’s “part of the general course of business.”

He explained: “If a company is providing services to a campaign and in the normal course it incurs charges and then gets paid in its established billing cycle, that’s the general course of business.” 

Neukirchen’s political clients are lucky to benefit from her good standing with local TV. Political campaigns are not typically extended credit: It can create the appearance of favoritism from the media, and more practically speaking (from the stations’ point of view), fast-moving campaigns, which rely on donations, aren’t particularly stable debtors. (Also, given that not every campaign has access to high-end media firms like Media Plus, it’s not fair allow some campaigns to get ads on credit while others don’t have that opportunity.)

When I wrote a similar article during the 2006 election cycle on Mike McGavick’s special credit arrangement with KOMO (which led to a violation at the FEC because McGavick failed to report an in-kind contribution of $120,000 for loaned TV time), longtime GOP media buyer Brad Mott with Ad Ventures, told me, “Almost all political advertising is done on a ‘pay-seven-days-in-advance’ rule. Credit is a problem because if the bill doesn’t get paid, at what point does it become an illegal corporate contribution?”

Reichert’s quickie-loan arrangement with Neukirchen isn’t likely to be captured by FEC reporting. According Biersack at the FEC, any ad time that Reichert arranged after October 15 won’t be reported until 30 days after the election. At that point, according to Neukirchen’s arrangement, Reichert will have paid his obligations. Or at least, the public, which relies on FEC campaign reports to know how campaigns pay their bills, will have to trust that he eventually paid his obligation.

I am waiting to hear back from the Reichert campaign. 

If they don’t speak up, I’ll guess we’ll just have to rely on Goldy’s take on the whole thing.

US Rep. Dave Reichert’s spin on Democratic challenger Darcy Burner is that her campaign fund is bolstered by out-of-staters—those carpetbagging netroots folks. 

And the Seattle Times ran with that angle earlier this month:

The outpouring reveals an aspect of Burner’s rematch against U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert that is under the radar for many 8th Congressional District voters: While her campaign talks up her blue-collar roots and family life, online activists from all over the country see her as one of their own.

Her immense popularity among the netroots — an informal, progressive group of bloggers — has boosted her campaign and helped her raise more than $2.3 million, topping Reichert, the Republican incumbent.

But Burner’s critics, including the Reichert campaign, are using those ties against her. They argue that she can’t represent the interests of the 8th District when some of her biggest supporters are liberal bloggers who never have set foot in Seattle’s eastern suburbs.

“Darcy Burner is pretty open about the fact that she wants to go to Congress to represent the netroots,” said Reichert’s campaign manager, Mike Shields. “That is her constituency, and that is who she’s raised money from, and so that’s who she’ll do the bidding of.” 

The Seattle Times‘ sensationalized spin about carpetbagging left out some important context that shows Burner isn’t a puppet of funders from out of state. If you compare Burner’s and Reichert’s donations, you see that Burner has more in-district donors and more in-state donors than Reichert. 

According to analysis of Federal Elections Commission records of individual donors at $200 or above (the level at which biographical info is available) done by Dan Kirkdorffer, a Burner supporter from the 8th District, Burner has 581 in-district donors compared to Reichert’s 446 in-district donors. Burner has 1,311 in-state donors compared to Reichert’s 922 in-state donors.

Burner’s dollar totals from in the district and in the state are also higher than Reichert’s: $685,000 to $635,000 in-district and $1.3 million to $1.1 million in-state, respectively.  

Reichert’s rejoinder could be that a higher percentage of his donations come from in the state and in the district. And that’s true. But Burner has more local donors total, which is a far more significant statistic when making claims about hometown support. For example, she has 42 percent more in-state donors, and 30 percent more in-district donors, than Reichert.

According to Act Blue, the netroots fundraising site, Burner has raised $544,837 from their online donors.  She’s raised about $3.1 million overall, which means netroots donors account for only 16 percent of her money. 

Certainly, Burner has a large number of Act Blue donors, over 15,000 according to Act Blue. Some of these donors are captured in the analysis of FEC reports—others are not because many Act Blue donors fall below the $200 level. While those donors would certainly bump up the number of Burner’s out-of-state contributors, they’d also bump up her in-state donor tally, increasing her lead over Reichert on that score.  

Another important part of the fundraising story to consider is donations from PACs. Those donations are not figured into the in-state vs. out-of-state equation. 

PACs, political committees that represent corporations and unions, made up 31 percent of Rep. Reichert’s total campaign fund according to the latest online data at the FEC (which doesn’t yet include the most recent fundraising reports.) PAC giving makes up only 13 percent of Burner’s haul.

PAC donations can certainly come from local interests, like Boeing ($10,000 to Reichert) and Microsoft ($3000 to Reichert), but here’s the FEC list of Reichert’s PAC donations. With everything from General Electric to Goldman Sachs to Lockheed Martin to Pfizer Inc., it is hardly dominated by local interests.  

I have a call into Reichert’s campaign to ask them to address their claim that Burner’s financial support—which is deeper at that local level than Reichert’s—isn’t local enough.  

Meanwhile, here is what Mike Shields, Reichert’s campaign manager, said on October 3, in the comments thread on the popular local conservative politics blog, Sound Politics: 

There is a bigger issue at stake in this election that local SP readers should consider if they are not yet engaged in this race: if burner wins, she will prove that even a candidate with no experience, no real connection to her community, who is to the left of the local voters, can raise enough money from national activists that they can elect someone in YOUR local district. This will embolden them to futher this model nationally. Those activists may not have succeeded in winning any policy debates, but if they start overpowering local voters with money they can begin installing members who think like them who WILL win their policy debates for them. This is the movement they are openly trying to create and they will absolutely be emoldened if burner wins. She may not seem like she is conecting here, but she’s a national netroots celebrity. You can help stop them and disprove the paradigm by helping us at reichert’s campaign:www.davereichertforcongress.com.

Note: The possibility exists that this comment wasn’t actually left by the same Mike Shields who’s running Reichert’s campaign, but if that’s true, Shields has had nearly two weeks to correct the record.

Here is Kirkdorffer’s analysis. (These numbers include local Bush fundraisers for Reichert, which may artificially inflate Reichert’s local donor numbers. Also, Burner’s number of “In-District Maxed Out” Donors, 54, should be in bold, not Reichert’s lower number of 49.) :

An interesting moment at yesterday’s debate between Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8) and his Democratic challenger, Darcy Burner, came when panelist C.R. Douglas, reflecting on the projected $500 billion federal deficit (not including the $700 billion Wall Street bailout), asked both candidates what they would cut. 

Sounding like Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi (and just about every other Republican I’ve ever heard when asked a similar question), Burner did not specify what she would cut. Instead, she sounded a stern note about fiscal responsibility and “economic discipline.” She talked about “performance audits” and “pay-as-you-go” rules.

“If you increase the amount you’re spending,” she said, “you have to identify where you’re going to find the money. I you decrease the amount you’re bringing in, you have to identify what you’re going to cut.” 

And she ended with this line: “I demand that our Congress live up to the basic standards that every household in this country has to.”

Certainly, the fact that Burner sounds like she’s reading from the Republican playbook has a lot to do with the failed Bush years.  “Fiscal conservative” George Bush has actually saddled the country with the largest debt in U.S. history, between $500 and $600 billion.    

For his part, Reichert sounded more like a traditional Democrat. First, like Democrats always do when hit with vague GOP economic tough talk, he criticized Burner for skimping on specifics. 

He began: “I think what you didn’t hear from my opponent is what she would cut…”  

But then, rather than answering the question himself—and saying what he would cut—he started sounding like Barack Obama (or Al Gore).

“When you talk about what we need to do and what we might cut,” he said (without talking about what we might cut), “what we really need to do is infuse money into new energy. We need to excite our economy by investing money into the newest technology to provide us with the future of energy source that will fuel our economy…” 

As his time ran out, he did start drifting back to more traditional GOP talking points, saying sternly that we needed to look at how we were going to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Another issue where Burner sounded like a Republican was on gun control. Audience member (and former Kirkland GOP state Rep.) Toby Nixon asked the candidates if they agreed with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller . Heller upheld the 2nd Amendment.

Burner was emphatic. “I had a stalker when I was in college who threatened to kill me,” she said. She then told the story of how when she went to the police to get a restraining order, they encouraged her to get a gun and “learn how to use it” because “they wouldn’t be able to protect me.”

She concluded: “People who face real threats have the right to defend ourselves. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us that right to defend ourselves, and I agree with the S.C. decision as it applies even in Washington, DC.” 

Her last caveat, “even as it applies in Washington, DC” separated her even further from the Democratic line. Many Democrats recognize that gun control in general is a losing issue, but stick to advocating targeted gun control in urban areas. 

Reichert, who answered the question first, said simply: “Yes.”

At the debate between U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert and Darcy Burner in Bellevue on Wednesday, both candidates were asked: “Are enemy combatants confined at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the rights described in the Geneva Convention?”

Reichert said, “To me that’s an easy question. The answer: ‘Yes.'” 

Apparently it wasn’t a very easy vote for Rep. Reichert, though. 

Reichert voted against the Intelligence Authorization bill in December 2007, which  included an amendment that made U.S. intelligence agencies abide by prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture, like waterboarding.  

The bill passed the House and Senate, though, and Bush vetoed it. Reichert voted against overriding Bush’s veto, preventing Congress from getting the two thirds majority it needed to make the anti-torture bill law.

Reichert’s votes contradicted what he told the Bellevue crowd. Talking about his career as sheriff, he said: “When you talk about torture … when you talk about bullying people into confessions. That’s something I never had to do. I know that all people need to be respected, must be respected. They’re all human beings inhabiting this earth together.”

Burner said the rights guaranteed in the Geneva Conventions, “are guaranteed to all people. Our government should be treating people fairly, even when it’s inconvenient. This is a country that was founded on the idea that every individual has fundamental rights that no government is entitled to abridge. So, do I think the people at Guantanamo have the right to basic protections of the Geneva Convention? Yes.”