2008 Recount: Burner Actually Raised More Than Reichert in the Third Quarter
posted by on October 16 at 8:21 AM
Over at On the Road to 2008, blogger Daniel Kirkdorffer completely busts Rep. Dave Reichert’s initial and deceptive spin on his third quarter fundraising.
Kirkdorffer reports that Reichert counted $47,100 in his grand total that he shouldn’t have. While Reicert did initially receive the $47,100 in question, he ultimately had to return it to donors who had made excess contributions.
This is significant because initial reports put Reichert’s third quarter fund raising at $340,800 while Democratic challenger Darcy Burner had raised a little over $300,000.
Subtract the nearly $50K from Reichert’s totals, and he really raised $295,538.74—compared to Burner’s $306,783.
Here’s Kirkdorffer’s report, including a screen shot of the relevant FEC records, and this good news for Burner:
More impressively, 89% of Burner’s contributions this election cycle came from individuals, while Reichert’s contributions from individuals made up only 57% of his totals, the rest, over $340,000, coming from PACs and campaign committees. Just about half of Burner’s contributions are unitemized, i.e. less than $200 a donation. Only 7% of Reichert’s contributions from individuals are categorized as unitemized. As much as anything that tells so much of the story regarding the breadth of Burner’s support and how much Reichert is having to rely on wealthier donors.
UPDATE:
According to Postman, the AP talked to Reichert’s folks about the supposed discrepancy in the initial spin on the numbers and Reichert Chief of Staff Mike Shields says the $47,100 is part of Reichert’s total. Explanation:
Those refunds had to be issued because of mistakes in dividing the Bush money between Reichert’s re-election campaign and the state Republican Party, which shared the more than $500,000 raised by the president. The refunded contributions will be repaid, so Reichert is counting those contributions toward his third quarter total, Shields said.
My poor silver fox!
I live in Bellevue at present. I am already bored with this replay campaign. Can you spare us every last detail for now, and get on the story 90 days from the election?
The trivia is too much for over a year.
I like Darcy, but she needs immediate speech lessons.
I live in Redmond and the 8th, and I make it my business to be educated about my congressman, and his finances, and all the candidates that seek to represent me.
Sometimes it is boring and tedious, but I'm not going to sit back and rely on someone else to do this.
Meanwhile, the Reichert campaign spin on the refunds makes no sense. Thos donors listed getting refunds CANNOT make further contributions to the campaign, so how exactly are they going to repay the refund, or are we all reading that wrong, and if so what exactly does "the refunded contributions will be repaid" mean?
Josh, please inquire further.
it sounds like they are shuffling the money around to make it work legally. this is often done when candidates/parties share the donations.
@2 - you're right. Reichert should resign.
infrequent - You think? Donor A's contribution this period, refund this period, will be "repaid" in a future period, and re-listed as a contribution in that future period, resulting in double reporting. The totals will be correct, receipts minus disbursements, but the receipts will not accurately reflect contributions, instead bloating them so they look good, again and again.
Dollar totals are honestly irrelevant unless there's a chasmic gap between candidates. I really wish you and Eli would stop reporting Burner's fundraising totals like they're news, because it's not. Ever.
What are her stances on the issues? Or is she still a sock puppet candidate? Or is she not bothering to take a stand on anything other than slamming Dan Reichert, like before?
Gomez - obviously you're not paying attention.
BTW, last reporting period I brought in $500,000 in receipts beating both candidates numbers. My FEC reports will show that (although they will also show I had to refund it all).
Last election cycle, when it all come down to it, money was not the problem for either candidate.
All the money talk can distract from the pure organizing needs of the district to win.
Above, #2 mentioned Darcy's luke warm speaking style. Then, she lost in north Pierce, which means better field work.
The impression is being given by her campaign hacks that out funding Richert at this early stage means something - yes, something - but she better correct the mistakes from last time as well.
Keep her kid out of the commercials. I resent kiddie ads.
Etc.
Kip, what's your take on Reichert's speaking style. Here's a sampling for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tTYlnlG7s
If you were at that event you will have seen just how this video fails to completely show how poorly Reichert did, and how well Burner did.
Can she improve. Sure she can, and she will. Can Reichert improve? I suspect that is possible, but after 35 years you'd think he'd have already done so. Apparently not.
Daniel, I like Darcy.
She has the burden to prove herself, he is THE Sheriff.
As the campaign starts in six months, the national and state wide races will be underway. And in truth, Bruner vs. Reichert may take a lower profile.
But, best of luck. Will send ck later.
Kip
what's up daniel? why such a jerk @6?
The Sheriff? He almost bankrupted the county.
infrequent @ 12 - how so?
The FEC rules state that an event that is fundraising for both a campaign and a party requires that the money all flow through a single joint account. From there it can be disbursed, or shuffled around, as you say. However, these refunds are being made against individual contributions which by the rules should not have been associated to the Bush fundraiser. The money he received from the Bush fundraiser is actually on line number 12 of the summary report and amounts to only $35,754.80 from a disbursement from the Reichert Washington Victory Committee, a far cry from the $500,000 the campaign said the event brought in (and the committee's report only shows receipts of $135,000, with expenses over $65,000).
So if we accept this is all legal, and it sure looks like the admitted mistakes have resulted in money going to the campaign that never should have, it is 1) far less money than they claimed the event brought in, and 2) exceptionally sloppy accounting. Not just a matter of shuffling money around.
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! tbxkivmqwueivm
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! nisoajgfhkjdg
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).