McGavick Campaign to Stranger: We Screwed Up
The McGavick campaign acknowledged to me late this afternoon (after adamantly denying they had done anything wrong) that the campaign finance reports they filed with the FEC last month were likely incorrect.
Incorrect to the tune of at $120,000 and counting.
The story is coming out online this afternoon (and in The Stranger tomorrow). After reviewing both McGavick’s first-quarter campaign finance report and TV station advertising contracts, I discovered that the McGavick campaign did not accurately report how much money it spent on a TV blitz in the first quarter of 2006.
More startling to me is that in reporting this story, I learned McGavick’s campaign bought its TV ads on credit. This raises red flags for everyone I talked to—both GOP and Dem media buyers in the political ad business.
TV stations shy away from selling political ad time on credit—and traditionally abide by a “pay-7-days-in-advance rule”—because political campaigns are risky. How does a TV station know a campaign is going to meet its fundraising goals? Obviously, some candidates are richer than others and are good for it—but giving rich candidates the privilege of paying later diminishes the integrity of the public airwaves.
Additionally, when a campaign gets credit, it raises questions about in-kind contributions from the TV station to the campaign.
I'm waiting for all the comments from the people here who were so quick to attack Darcy Burner (erroneously) for "not having a professional campaign staff" to jump on this one.
Oh, wait, they only attack Democrats. Right. Never mind.