Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Flipping Out Locally Since 1991


Fix your link on the SPD story.

Posted by DOUG. | January 23, 2008 4:47 PM
Posted by Anon | January 23, 2008 4:51 PM

fixed it.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 23, 2008 4:53 PM

Underwood is suing Hartman for a million bucks? What an ass. As ECB points out, "lists" are nebulous...the info is on the internet for anyone to get and use. The usual suspects give to all the same candidates. Fundraising is not rocket science, it's discipline and attitude. Colby's clients are paying him for internet research and scheduled call-time and he's overcharging. The bloom is off the rose.

Posted by what the? | January 23, 2008 4:58 PM

ECB=Lame & Boring!

Posted by blah | January 23, 2008 5:31 PM

Interesting. One wonders why Underwood didn't consider driving duties to be critical for a very short candidate with low BMI when she drank, though.

Campaigns aren't just about your strengths, they're about your weaknesses, as the Prop 1 RTID/ST2 people learned when we whooped their asses soundly.

(I love ECB articles, blah)

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 23, 2008 5:35 PM

you should assume that colby had cross tabbed all his lists and made a huge relational database and of course the ex employee didn't wipe it from her computer. it is valuable info not easily found on the internet. so why should the ex employee get to make money off that info, violating her contract with colby?

and yes the whole system sucks that that is how they raise money in politics today because our politicians won't let us have public financing of campaigns.

Posted by vesuvius | January 23, 2008 5:39 PM

On that Sound Transit bill:

The Sound Transit press spokesperson said today there's "nothing" to suggest the proposed legislation would endanger the $750 million federal grant.

Seattle P-I, Jan. 23, 2008, page B3.

Posted by Cleve | January 23, 2008 6:36 PM
If Sound Transit morphs into a roads and transit agency, the feds will throw up their hands—and that money is gone.

Josh the bull of this has been pointed out to you since you first posted it. This makes you sound as lame as W.

The problem with the money is that it might not be enough and the Feds could call them on inadequate financing. Nothing to do with who is on the board. Or maybe you think that Conlin being nominated might also cause the money to be lost.

Called Patty on this?

Posted by whatever | January 23, 2008 6:52 PM

That Mark Hays thing scares the crap out of me because I know that cops will pretty much do whatever they want and just clean up the paperwork later.

I once had a cop completely lose it and escalate a jay-walking situation. It didn't get physical, but it easily could have. I think the only thing that saved me was that I answered my cell phone. I learned then and there that when a cop is freaking, call anyone, even your voicemail. It has a real soothing effect on the officer when he thinks that there might be a recording of the incident. It has worked a few times since.

Posted by Clint | January 23, 2008 6:56 PM

ECB - must be another slow news day for you...ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by yawn | January 23, 2008 7:38 PM

@7 - It sounds, from the article, that Underwood's old employee agrees that use of any kind of confidential value-added database is not allowed. He's not claiming that she did that - he's saying that she isn't allowed to be in the same business as him. His lawsuit sounds like plain old intimidation of the competition to me.

Posted by Huh? | January 23, 2008 8:37 PM

The story you cite to back your statements actually says the opposite of what you say it says.

You say "he's saying that she isn't allowed to be in the same business as him" but the ECB story says specifically he is not asking for an order that she not be in business.

It says he doesn't want her using his client list, trade secrets, or donor lists. You say "it sounds like" she agrees but there's nothing in the story saying that nor is her attorney quoted as agreeing to that.

Posted by vesuvius | January 23, 2008 9:16 PM

You only read half the article, #13. She agrees to follow the confidentiality agreement ("She's not going to violate the terms of that agreement."). But what Underwood finds objectionable is that she "attempted to set up her own fundraising shop." And for him, that seems to be the sin.

If Underwood thinks she's actually stolen the kind of stuff you are describing, then he should say so, plainly and without hints or innuendo, and then be able to prove it. But so far, it looks like bluster to me.

Posted by Huh? | January 23, 2008 9:41 PM

What I "assume" is that Vesuvius must be Colby. Lame. You don't need his "cross tabbed relational hot as shit database" to be an effective fund raiser. You need to give good customer service and do the work you're hired to do. Leave the girl alone.

Posted by what the? | January 23, 2008 10:24 PM

Sounds like Underwood is just trying to institute a monopoly on the fundraising market by litigating his competition out of existence - if he's any good at what he does, then he shouldn't be scared of a little competition.

Guess we now know what Underwood thinks of his own ability...

Posted by Willis | January 23, 2008 11:13 PM

Fact of the matter is, the injunction was won in court, so all of this armchair discussion about what is really going on here means nothing. A court of law agreed with Underwood. Leave it up to the experts.

Posted by Corliss | January 24, 2008 9:32 AM

You guys all sound like insiders. It's pretty clear that one side of this arguement got all their friends to post comments in their favor. This won't be fought out in the press by unsophisticated, underdog loving Stranger readers. And if fundraising was so simple and mindless, then why aren't there 50 of them running around Seattle, all as successful as Underwood? That's because they haven't put in the work it takes to create a successful business at it. Which is why it's worth protecting, even if by a lawsuit.

Posted by Sidebar | January 24, 2008 9:36 AM

Monopoly? What about the work of Tracy Newman, Laura Ruderman, Linda Mitchell, Barbara Chadwick, and Carol Albert? Are they chopped liver? These are rude, overstated and uninformed assumptions that Underwood is the only game in town that does any fundraising of consequence.

Posted by Another Insider's Input | January 24, 2008 10:28 AM

I don't think that Colby IS successful. His clients and employees are Another points out (and ECB didn't), there ARE other fundraisers in town who are successful, they just do it differently.

Posted by unsophisticated | January 24, 2008 11:51 AM

@ 20: "I don't think that Colby IS successful."

I don't think you THINK at all. Get your facts straight.

Posted by Hmmm? | January 24, 2008 12:10 PM

@ do you figure? ECB states herself that Underwood is in high demand and is quite successful for a number of candidates. Businesses have internal issues. Employees get disgruntled. Clients come and go.

You are clearly a former employee who is passing off your own bias opinions as fact.

The smear campaign is a little tired and childish, dontcha think?

Posted by Sidebar | January 24, 2008 12:21 PM

And as I have heard, employees did not leave, he fired them for insubordination

Posted by TP | January 24, 2008 12:39 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).