Slog - Comments on Postman's Asking the Wrong Question About Reichert

Comment by tea leaves

tea leaves — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:03:27 -0800

While a strong showing for Burner, I'm still skeptical she can take out the Sheriff because, well, you've met Darcy, right? That said, of her donations, how many are bona fide 8th district voters? And, after subtracting the money she raised during Bush's visit, what is that total?

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:23:52 -0800

tea leaves, I think you need to stop using MJ or coca to make your tea with.

Just sayin.

Comment by tea leaves

tea leaves — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:32:23 -0800

@2 - Right, wouldn't want to question a candidate/campaign that lost in the best Democratic year in over a decade to an underwhelming incumbent.

Comment by Just asking

Just asking — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:58:39 -0800

Josh, Postman might be willing to consider you as an assistant, but aren't you already working for Darcy?

Comment by N in Seattle

N in Seattle — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:23:24 -0800

Josh, I don't think you've got it right either.

If the money contributed for the Bush fundraiser had been handled according to FEC regulations, all of the Sheriff's proceeds from the event would have come via a transfer from the Reichert Washington Victory Committee (RWVC). That's the way "joint fundraisers" are supposed to be operated. The RWVC reported taking in about $135K (see p.3 of the FEC report shown in the above link) and transferring around $62K to other political entities (p.4). The division of that $62K is detailed on the last page of the RWVC's report -- $36K to Friends of Dave Reichert (FoDR, Reichert's regular political organization), $26K to the WSRP. The $36K precisely matches what was reported in Q3 by FoDR as a transfer from another committee.

If the accounting was done correctly, that should should be everything that came out of the Bush fundraiser. None of the non-transferred money reported by FoDR should have been as a result of the fundraiser.

Therefore, if we are to believe the two Q3 reports, Reichert actually did raise a decent -- but significantly smaller than Burner -- amount of money from contributions unrelated to Dubya. But he got next to nothing (and much, much less than Darcy did through her netroots fundraiser) out of sucking up to the Prez.

Maybe Mike Shields is confusing this year's dismal failure of a Bush event with last year's profitable soiree. The 2006 Dubya visit brought in a total of $723K, of which $240K went to FoDR and $361K to the WSRP.

Comment by Daniel K

Daniel K — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:21:30 -0800

N in Seattle is correct. The numbers you're reporting Josh are confusing as hell, and I'm very familiar with them. The Reichert campaign is still not being forthright with us. Here are the questions they need to answer:

1) How much of their reported itemized contributions should have been reported with the Reichert Washington Victory Committee?

2) How much of the refunds were for receipts that should have been reported with the Reichert Washington Victory Committee?

3) How much money should they have received as a disbursement from the Reichert Washington Victory Committee? If not $35,000 then how much?

If we know the answers to these questions we can establish how much money the campaign actually raised outside the Bush fundraiser. One calculation has that at only $4,000 in itemized contributions based on what they've been saying.

But enough of what Mike Shields is saying, let's see the new reports and numbers for both Friends of Reichert and the Reichert Washington Victory Committee. Only then will we know the answers, without the filter of a campaign spokesperson.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:18:52 -0800

I think we should create a charitable organization to study this and then report on it in every newspaper in a statewide campaign ....

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:11:32 -0800

This whole fundraising contest is just a complicated and confusing way to see which candidate has more support. Wouldn't it be easier to put it up for a vote?

Comment by Stacy Peterson

Stacy Peterson — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:50:14 -0800

You realize everytime you criticize the big-kid papers like this it only sounds like you're saying, "I can do your job better than you."