Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Recount: Burner Actually Raised More Than Reichert in the Third Quarter


My poor silver fox!

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 16, 2007 8:32 AM

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.

Posted by lee ann wong | October 16, 2007 8:51 AM

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.

Posted by Daniel K | October 16, 2007 10:12 AM

it sounds like they are shuffling the money around to make it work legally. this is often done when candidates/parties share the donations.

Posted by infrequent | October 16, 2007 10:24 AM

@2 - you're right. Reichert should resign.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 10:56 AM

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.

Posted by Daniel K | October 16, 2007 11:03 AM

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?

Posted by Gomez | October 16, 2007 11:06 AM

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).

Posted by Daniel K | October 16, 2007 11:09 AM

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.


Posted by Kip | October 16, 2007 11:09 AM

Kip, what's your take on Reichert's speaking style. Here's a sampling for you:

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.

Posted by Daniel K | October 16, 2007 11:23 AM

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.


Posted by Kip | October 16, 2007 11:39 AM

what's up daniel? why such a jerk @6?

Posted by infrequent | October 16, 2007 1:39 PM

The Sheriff? He almost bankrupted the county.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 3:34 PM

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.

Posted by Daniel K | October 16, 2007 3:55 PM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! tbxkivmqwueivm

Posted by scgrtcktoi | October 22, 2007 12:00 PM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! nisoajgfhkjdg

Posted by vcmxuzuzpq | October 22, 2007 12:00 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).