Liar Liar, Pants on Fire!!
OK, so I’m just a guy who never went to journalism school, I don’t work for a “reputable” media company, and I’m typing in a sweatshirt and swim trunks (yeah, yeah, I live in Phoenix, eat your heart out). I’m the kind of guy who starts rumors and doesn’t have a clue how to do research. Oh, and I don’t have an “Editor”. I do run all my stuff by Franz Prince of Dogness, but I doubt that Keith Olberfool would consider him a real editor. Of course, Franz & I don’t consider the Olberfool a real commentator either, but that’s food for another day.
Anyway, today in the hallowed halls of the Washington Post, they’ve pulled the curtain back on campaign funding and why the Republicans picked up 60+ seats in the House. After all, it WAS all that foreign money, ya know. And, as the Post RealReporter™ reports, the Democrats are going to do something about in in 2012.
Major Democratic strategists, still reeling from a barrage of midterm spending by conservative groups, are planning a similarly well-funded campaign by liberal organizations aimed at reelecting President Obama in 2012.
But many chastened Democrats now say they must fight fire with fire by encouraging the formation of counterweights to the GOP-leaning independent groups that dominated the airwaves this fall. One of the leaders, American Crossroads, says it plans to continue running ads against the Democratic agenda for the next two years.
The change in Democratic strategy illustrates the extent of the fundraising earthquake that has shaken the U.S. political world this year. A series of court decisions effectively wiped away decades of campaign-finance restrictions, helping groups operating outside the political parties spend an estimated $500 million on attack ads and other election-related activities, most of it favoring Republicans.
OK, so you’ve got that right? Republican leaning groups raised and spent a bazillion dollars to overwhelm poor honest Democrats who just refuse to take money from unknown, unreported and foreign sources. I’m not going to get into the 2008 election and the way the Obama team raised money from tens of thousands of unknown sources with prepaid debit cards. I am, however, going to call out Eggen & Farnam, the dupes at the WaPo who wrote the linked piece of crap. Hey guys…
You guys are simply pathetic. What’d you do, have somebody at the DNC write the story for you? Because you certainly didn’t use Mr. Google to check what you represent as facts. Either of the first two hits will help you. And if that isn’t enough, even Politico was on top of the facts for this story three weeks ago.
The data, and the conclusions, of the Campaign Finance Institute contradict your conclusion. Their data also contradicts what you present as “facts”. Guys, you can have your own opinions – although I doubt the opinions passed off as facts in the WaPo article are yours. The probable copy job you’ve done with DNC talking points don’t pass the smell test and Franz has an exceptional sniffer. Obviously much better than yours.
Oh, and before I forget, while I’d not previously heard of the CFI and I don’t know most of their staff or trustees, they note on their website that they’ve been around looking at campaign finance since 1999 and their staff and trustees are overwhelmingly from academia or “public service” so I think it’s safe to say that they are not an offshoot of any tea party group. I do know two trustees – not personally – Betsey Bayless and Vic Fazio. Bayless was a Republican Secretary of State in Arizona and Vic Fazio was a Democratic member of the House and chair of the DCCC.
So, on to the meat of the matter. Here’s the headline from their study…
NON-PARTY SPENDING DOUBLED IN 2010 BUT
DID NOT DICTATE THE RESULTS
Winning Candidates Raised Less than Losers in the Competitive Races, and There Was Rough Equality in Spending by Others
That’s pretty straight forward. So, let’s look at the numbers. For Eggen & Farnam, those number thingys are called “facts” in the real world. While I didn’t go to J-School, I am a graduate engineer from a top tier engineering school and they did an excellent job of teaching me to read, to think and to recognize a “fact” and understand how they differ from “opinion”.
The bottom line is simple. Yes, independent support favored Republicans. However, if you look at the spending in total, Democrats out-spent Republicans by a wide margin and lost anyway. In total, in the featured races, Democrats outspent Republicans $11.1MM to $9.1MM, about 20%. And, did I mention they lost anyway? Overwhelmingly. The bottom line is that Democrats out-raised and outspent Republicans in 2010 and as CFI notes, it wasn’t money that made the difference for Republicans. I wonder what it could have been?
And, as a side note, if Michael Steele’s coffin needed another nail the good folks at CFI just provided it. Michael, for all your self-adoration, where the hell was the money? Oh, and if Jesse Kelly and Ruth McClung had been able to get some real cash from you we’d have two additional Republicans in the next Congress.