Fundraising Analysis of the 2010 Democratic Congressional Primary Race

But does McDonaldy truly have more money? (0.00 / 0)

:-)

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 16:18:18 PM UTC

not sure what you are asking (0.00 / 0)

not that I would know anyway.

At this point in the race, how many GRPs a candidate has bought becomes the key factor.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 17:48:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because I'm wondering whether the accounting work McDonald is doing is even legal (0.00 / 0)

The only number that really matters right now is cash on hand, which you conveniently left off of your analysis.  Dennis McDonald has $16,000 while Gernant has $24,000.  That's probably because Gernant hasn't paid a California consulting firm $14,000 to make fundraising phone calls for him (at least when I get a call from Gernant's campaign they can spell and pronounce Missoula).  

Or maybe it's because Gernant hasn't gotten $9,500 of in-kind contributions from volunteers and staff members for "campaign services."  Is that even legal?  I hope that isn't RNC-type coding for something else.

I believe that people who are from Montana should be influencing the election, that's why it would be nice to have a candidate who is from Montana.  At least Gernant is from Montana, unlike McDonald.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 21:48:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt I'll convince you, but for everyone else (0.00 / 0)

what matters is TV spots purchased.  If no one has placed any, than cash on hand would matter, but if a candidate or candidate has, than her-his current buy plus how many additional spots s/he can buy is what matters.

As to your second question, yes.

and your third, they are both from Montana.  McDonald has been here longer, been to more cities and towns, and knows more people, so...there's that.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 13:03:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why must a candidate be from Montana? (4.00 / 1)

McDonald has been in the state for quite a while now.  It's not as though he just moved here to run for office.  Anyway, shouldn't we be beyond petty nativism by now?  Shouldn't we choose the best candidate even if he or she was not born in Montana?

---

by: Turner @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 13:28:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, plus doesn't Tyler say in all his speeches that he was raised in ID? (0.00 / 0)

I mean if he's advertising it perhaps he should help his supporters get back on message.

---

by: Kyle42 @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 13:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couldn't agree more, Turner (0.00 / 0)

Hate to say it but some real buttheads have been "born and raised in Montana."  Consider our incumbent congressman ...  

---

by: pete talbot @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 14:55:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Illegal? Quite the opposite. (0.00 / 0)

The law requires candidates to report in-kind donations.  

---

by: Kyle42 @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 19:35:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obviously it's legal (0.00 / 0)

it's in big bold print on both McDonald's and Gernant's itemized receipts.

What's odd is that McDonald is taking $2,400 donations from the very same people who are collecting paychecks from him as staffers of his campaign, which is easily seen on the disbursement side.

I mean - are they volunteers?  Or are the staffers?  If they're staffers, he's sure paying them well for them to be able to donate $2,400 to the campaign. If they're volunteers, then why are they collecting regular disbursements from the campaign?

$9,500 in "In-kind" campaign services is significant, especially coming from paid staff.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 22:50:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's illegal for them NOT to report their donations. (0.00 / 0)

And anyone has the right to donate time, services, or money.  This is America.  

---

by: Kyle42 @ Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:15:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are a couple of other problems with this theory. (0.00 / 0)

You first say they are being paid well to be able to donate $2400, but remember that in-kind donations are not cash.  They can be services, food, time, whatever.

Secondly, staff are allowed to volunteer or donate. It is a frequent fundraising technique to be able to tell prospective donors that you have 100% staff buy-in to the campaign.  It makes donors feel good to know that those asking them for money have already donated.

Hope this clears up the misconception.

---

by: Kyle42 @ Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:24:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Time and services (0.00 / 0)

would be a pretty fine line - if there is one - for a paid employee.  There's labor laws involved, and people working off the clock that draw regular paychecks seems to be blurred.

And as a donor, I think I might have concerns about paying staffers so much that they are able to donate food or office supplies (for example) to an amount of $2,400.  Four of 'em.

That's kinda my conception of things, Kyle42.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:35:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

campaign employees are exempt employees, under the law (0.00 / 0)

but if you'd ever worked for a fundraising operation, this is pretty common.

---

by: Kyle42 @ Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:55:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

so, in your mind, (0.00 / 0)

that makes it OK to not count some of their hours worked and use it as "in-kind", falsely driving up the receipts and contributions?  Hell - why isn't everyone doing that?  

I kinda think that defeats the purpose of exempting them from working "off the clock".

Get it?

As I've heard from several of my attorney friends "It may be legal, but ethically it's a different matter."

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:02:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your post got me interested, MC (0.00 / 0)

So I went to the FEC sight to look at specific donations, and McDonald and Gernant seem to have pretty similar breakdowns.   Lots of medium-size donations from around the state to both.  Some of Gernant's out-of-state money comes from relatives.  I didn't find anything shocking in his report. McDonald's report lists the Schweitzers and Sharla Tester as giving money (no Max?), but again, nothing shocking in his report, either.

I see where you're going with this, MC, but I didn't smell any particularly oderiferous rats in either report.  

Take a look for yourself, folks:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b...

Neither seems to be getting much PAC money.  Rehberg, on the other hand, is raking it in from the usual suspects: the energy industry, particularly coal; Plum Creek; BNSF; the banking industry; Exxon ... and $5000 from the good folks at Budweiser!        

---

by: pete talbot @ Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 18:28:19 PM UTC

Huh, the link I supplied above doesn't work (0.00 / 0)

Sorry.  So, go to this one:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/dis...

Then click on Montana and then the party you're interested in.

---

by: pete talbot @ Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 20:19:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i know this is annoying of me (0.00 / 0)

but could some administrator of this blog kindly get rid of the musty old sidebar poll..." would (sic) {what} kind of likely reform would you support?" with a new one asking who we support in the primary? i think it might be interesting and i really hate that [would] instead of what....

(not to mention that just being reminded about the so-called health care reform bill after wellpointe's recent recission of women with breast cancer makes me want to spit nails)

---

by: problembear @ Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 23:06:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]