Kerry To Donate Much of Leftover Campaign Funds

by Chris Bowers, Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 04:15:17 PM EST

This is welcome news, even if it is a promise and hasn't actually happened yet: WASHINGTON - Under friendly fire, Sen. John Kerry likely will donate a substantial portion of his excess presidential campaign cash to help elect Democratic candidates in 2005 and 2006, advisers said Thursday.

Party leaders, including some of Kerry's top campaign aides, said this week they were surprised and angry to learn that he had more than $15 million in accounts from the Democratic primaries. They demanded to know why the money wasn't spent to help Kerry defeat President Bush or to aid congressional candidates.(...)

While some officials pointed fingers at campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, others said Kerry himself knew there was a big surplus in his primary campaign account. They said he wanted to save it in the event of a recount, legal challenges or other unforeseen bills. In the end, they said, Kerry's nest egg will be less than $10 million.

It still pisses me off that he had $16M leftover at all. We lost fourteen of the closest twenty-one House races, and most of the closest Senate races. Oh yeah, we lost the Presidency too. Combine this with our failure on Meetups, and I can't help but wonder what would have been had we used every weapon at our disposal.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

  • 23 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

23 Comments

Shadow_head_small
yeah
if he had like a million or two stuck back for recounts and lawyers, that's one thing. But 10-16 million could have done A LOT of good for A LOT of people, including Kerry himself.

I really liked Kerry, especially towards the end (debates and after), but stuff like this just shows how messed up things were in that campaign.

Not that I'm conceding this election...but that's another story for another thread

by crowbar317 2004-11-18 04:25PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
"Under friendly fire"
Exactly, commenters give us shit for pointing out what needs to be done, and holding politicians accountable. "Kerry's nest egg."  Give us a break.
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-11-18 04:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Thank You
You guys are telling the truth. Keep up the good work!
by NCdemocrat 2004-11-18 05:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wait a minute...
Just what would everyone be saying now if Kerry had to make some major court battles and had NO money left?   You say one or two million is one thing but 10-16 is too much, just how far will one million go in court battles that may have started in many polling locals, cities and states?  Now for anyone out there who does not live in a swing state (I am in one) do you know how many ads we were subjected to in this campaign?   every other ad on every channel was a campaign ad.   A few more would have not made any difference at all!  
All I can say is good for him.   Stash some money away if you need to.  THis is a nest egg so that Bush would have to worry about court battles and the possibilty of well funded investigations into why all voter irregularities just happen to benefit him. He should not give this money for future races, instead Kerry should put ALL of it into investigation of THIS election, the reason the money was given in the first place is for THIS election.  Use the money to make the fraud or "irregularities" of this election the exception and not the norm.    
Yes, Kerry screwed some stuff up, but not this!
by Njal 2004-11-18 05:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Wait a minute...
I agree he should be using the money to investigate the fraud and irregularites. He SHOULD be. But fact is he is not, and has no plans to.

And the reason I say a couple million would be a reasonable number is because all the guy that made the Ohio recount happen (Cobb I think is his name) was like $150,000.

As far as being in a swing state, some of that money may not have helped the presedential election, but I think the point was he could have allocated that money to some very tight Congressional races. I'm sure Erskine Bowles could have used a few hundred thousand here in NC.

But, if he does as you say he should, spend this money on this election...then kudos. I support that wholeheartedly. But so far he has sat silent while we are all still fighting that battle. If he uses that money to get involved in this process, I retract all criticism and will formally apologoze. But it ain't looking like that's gonna happen...

by crowbar317 2004-11-18 05:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Uh, what?
Lawyers let you pay your bills on a payment plan. Clinton carried millions of dollars for years. If Kerry had thrown that last $15 million into some key races, allowing us to capture some crucial ones, and on that basis then made an appeal for the online community to contribute to his legal fund there is exactly no reason to believe we would not have responded.

Look, I was a good soldier, I put $500 or $750 (I don't remember which) into the Kerry campaign, I put on my happy face, I even grew to like and admire the guy. But he wasn't my first choice, he was my third choice. And he lost.

So I am not going to sit here and think "great, he has a jump on early fund-raising for next time" I am going to say "hey I rallied behind you even though your anti-war stance was late and weak, now Show Me the Benjamins".

by Bruce Webb 2004-11-19 02:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Naive q regarding federal funding
But what about federal funding restrictions?  Should he have spent the money before the convention, or could/should he have given it to congressional races...AND would it have made the difference?

Not so sure about all of those points, although some of my own hard earned $$ is in that nest egg...

by twomblyk 2004-11-18 05:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Who says he's not planning on using it in '04
Although publicly, he says he's done, maybe he's not.

Maybe he knew the election would be stolen and wanted $10 million to fight with after the election.

The election is not over until Jan. 6.

He still has almost two months to put that money to good work - investigating (he is a prosecutor), and challenging.

Maybe he's just waiting until he has all the evidence to pursue his case.

Here's hoping.

by davidscott 2004-11-18 05:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Who says he's not planning on using it in '04
I truly hope you are right.

But isn't it actually over after the states certify? Are there grounds for disputes/recounts after that, which is in like the next two weeks?

Either way, I kind of disagree with that thinking. With this short timetable...even if Jan 6 is the deadline...you gotta come out quickly don't ya?

And  now that they are saying the money is going towards 2006, it seems even more unlikely that he plans any challenges this year.

But again, I truly hope you are right.

by crowbar317 2004-11-18 06:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wait
I agree with the general sentiment -- If that much money was left over, what the h?  

But what do we know about this?

Too many questions; too few answers.

by Bean 2004-11-18 06:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
figures
I recall reading on the eve of the election that they had socked away something like $24M in the GELAC, which (if that is correct) must be different from this money. If this is from his primary campaign, he could have turned it over the party -- or he could have spent it himself.

By OCtober, no one was following any campaign finance restrictions with respect to "coordination."

A campaign should never not finish in the red. I remember people being very upset when Abrams finished his losing Senate race in 92 with a few hundred thousand to spend.

I know Gore had about $6m left over but I think that was from the recount.

But $15M. In this race, as close as it was?

by desmoulins 2004-11-18 06:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: figures
Agreed.

And a point I probably should have made in an earlier response..can you not raise additional money in the case of recounts, lawsuits, etc? Like Cobb is currently doing in Ohio?

by crowbar317 2004-11-18 06:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yes, way too many questions.
We should hold our fire until the last possible time to file lawsuits arrives.  
by hawkseye 2004-11-18 06:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
oh yeah...
...way too many questions.  Why are dems so quick to form the circular firing squad?  

Can anyone imagine Republicans going after Bush if he had lost [fingers still crossed] and had a lot of money left over?  Really?

Give the guy a break, fercryin-out-loud!  The campaign didn't go as well as we'd all have liked, he lost, and nobody knows that better than John Kerry (except maybe John Edwards).  I can only imagine the woulda-coulda-shouldas that are going through his mind as well as the rest of his campaign.  

Let's lay off and see what happens next before we're so quick to judge.

Thanks.      

by maryschoyc 2004-11-18 07:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: oh yeah...
Amen to your post.

The circular firing squad thing--geez, give it a rest.  That is the biggest problem about the Democrats; in times when they need to pull together they tend to devour themselves.  Everyone needs to pull back and take a deeeep breath, work hard for the next campaign, and watch how this shakes out.

Meanwhile, to go totally off this topic, did you hear Clinton's sort of grovel to the Bushes today.  And if no one remembers, take away Perot and there would never have been a Clinton presidency, so before everyone's knickers get too twisted, remember the Dems got a hell of a lot more support this go round.

by mady 2004-11-18 07:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: oh yeah...
So now we're a "firing squad?"

Constructive criticism of a campaign is far from blaming shooting the candidate. We ARE pulling together to try and find out what happened. And we cannot find out what went wrong, fraud or otherwise, without talking about and investigating it.

The fact that we are not ready to step back and take a breath says a lot about our party. When have so many of us been ready and willing to fight tooth and nail like this.

The Democratic party is stronger than ever. We just need our leaders to fight with the same fervor.

I, for one, am not willing to "see how it shakes out." Our job is to shake it out.

Take away Perot..geez....that's like saying in 2000..take away Nader....there are no takeaways...

The evidence is showing that this one was stolen like the last one was...we can all pull together..but we cannot do it by pulling back and taking deep breaths..whether we inhale or not..

by crowbar317 2004-11-18 07:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Constant Vigilence
You said it perfectly, we cannot wait for it to shake out.   Without us, who is going to shake anything?   THe State voting apparatus?   The Congress? White House?   Only the grassroots will do the fighting and we must all as you say "fight tooth and nail" constantly.   We cannot give up on any position.  The Reps sure will not, so we must do the same.   My main point from my last post was that Kerry needs that money he kept, but HE MUST USE IT.   He can not give it away unless there is nothing at all to spend it on that would either one change this election or two, bring fraud, irregularites or glitches to the surface.   If there were, and I believe there were, cases of fraud in this election, it is the most important thing to expose them.   This is more important that any one election cycle.   Spend the money, bring the fraud to the mainstream "News" and get the system changed.  
But if Kerry sits on the money and does nothing, then he is far more stupid that the chimp we have in the white house.    
by Njal 2004-11-18 08:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Saving Money
lemme join the circular firing squad.

I clipped and kept a NY Times story
(with two maps) that shows the
TV markets where Dems and Rethugs
were airing their ads (and how many)
as of July.

For example, the Albuquerque stations
were near saturation.

But wait!
Las Cruces, the second largest city
in New Mexico, gets its TV from towers
atop a mountain in nearby El Paso,
Texas. The map shows NO ads  
running in El Paso.

Now, I'll admit, that would have been
 "inefficient" -- almost extravagant.
El Paso has a population of 800,000
or so, Las Cruces less than 100,000 --
let's double that for the neighboring
towns and farms. It would have been
truly "inefficient" when you are only
aiming at 200,000 in New Mexico
to pay for ads reaching 1,000,000.
Yeah, right.

I wonder if any Democratic campaign
decision maker knew what the hell is
on TV in southern New Mexico.

Our candidates didn't appear in
El Paso.

Of course, we gave up on the South --
especially Texas. And no one
saw any value in having a major
campaign rally in the most Democratic,
most Hispanic city in Texas.

Recall the impact of those pictures of
the big rally in Portland? You could get
scenes like that in El Paso, thousands
of Mexican-American Democrats
massed to see Kerry. Such a rally  
would have received tons of free
media, seen and read all across
southern N.M. Some might have
been seen in Nevada, Arizona,
and Colorado, too.

But no, we gave up and conserved
time and money by not making ANY
effort in Texas. We didn't think for a
minute that some people in New Mexico
get their news and TV from El Paso.

BUT then we LOST New Mexico
by about 5,500 votes, according to
the latest count.

Now, with 20/20 hindsight, we can
ponder how much it cost to lose
New Mexico -- after saving money
by not running ads in El Paso. Damn,
THAT was "inefficient."

A big part of the man-date claim is
that Bush carried more states than
last time -- he took two Gore states,
N.M. and Iowa. Ouch.

And as for Iowa, that same map
shows a big patch of white in the
western part of that state, which
was otherwise saturated with TV ads.
That part of Iowa gets its TV from
Omaha stations. Imagine how
"inefficient" it would have been to
buy ads in Omaha, getting viewers
across half of Nebraska, and even
parts of Kansas and Missouri.

But then, we seem to have lost
Iowa by about 20,000 votes.
How much did THAT cost?

I'm not saying that TV ads aired
over the western edge of Iowa would
have tipped the count. But I'm sorry
that, in a billion-dollar election, we
didn't spend more money there.

So we lost two Gore states, but we
saved money on TV spending and
ended the election with millions
of dollars in cash on hand.
damn. damn. damn.

Keep looking at that TV ad map and
it could frustrate a Democrat.

No ads out of Memphis? That's how
a big chunk of eastern Arkansas went uncovered.
ooh!

Think how inefficient that TV buy would
have been. Memphis signals cover
almost one third of Tennessee's
population (the most Dem-leaning part),
reach up to the southeast-most corner
of Missouri and spill over one
Congressional district of northern
Mississippi.

Of course, if you have GIVEN UP on
the South -- characteristic of the
Mondale-Dukakis-Gore-Kerry
campaigns -- there's no point in
advertising in Memphis. Ever.

and BTW I suspect these decisions
are made below the candidate level
by the usual consultants and, er,
experienced, professionals who
run our campaigns. (Hold your fire:
Did anyone ask Kerry, how about
we go dark over part of N.M., Iowa,
Missouri, and Arkansas?

So the campaign saved a lot
by staying dark in Memphis. It's a big,
expensive media market.

But if you give up, you lose. Guaranteed.
time after time you lose. lose. lose.

How much did it cost to give up on
Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri,
and Arkansas this time?

But at least the Democratic campaign
saved a lot of money. We can use it
to lose next time if we keep it up.

One last point in this rant before I
run out of steam.

The Kerry campaign bragged that
careful buying gave us like a 17,000
to 12,000 lead in TV ad (impressions
or somethings) over Bush in the closing
days in Ohio.

Good, I guess, until you think about it.
Have you ever heard of the law of
diminishing returns? One ad has
an impact. Two ads have more impact,
but not twice the impact of the first.
Three ads ... and so on ... to 17,000?

I spent the last 10 days canvassing
in North Carolina. Every night on the
tube Bowles, Burr, Easley and other
campaign ads came one after another
until any same person learned to block
them ALL out. All of them. Every one,
whether repeated twice or 200 times.
Mute. Get the remote. Mute. Go to the
bathroom, go to the kitchen, because
the politcal ads are on TV. You memorize
them, repeated endlessly as they are,
and you learn to hate them, even those
for the candidates you support.

So I ask, does anyone have any studies
of the actual value of 17,000 TV ad
impressions (or somethings) in
a market where viewers are SICK of 'em
vs the impact of a few in markets where
few or no other campaign ads are running?

I'm beginning to think that next time
we should run some ads on national
networks, and let them be seen at least
a few times in Texas and Nebraska and
Mississippi and even in Las Cruces,
New Mexico.

by Woody 2004-11-19 06:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Kerry's failure
Re-elected Jim Bunning
by OldDemocrat 2004-11-19 04:29AM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: Kerry's failure
Barbara Boxer too, if you read RollCall, ouch!  She forced the DSCC to give her $3M in Sept, when she didn't even need the money.
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-11-19 05:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Dem's failure
Damn. $3 million to Barbara Boxer?
Say it ain't so.

Leave Bunning out if it. Who knew in
Sept that he'd even contend.

Let's think "sisterhood", Senator.

A million for Nancy Farmer in Missouri,
who clearly had fundraising problems.

Another mil split tween Ms Castor in
Florida and Ms. Tennenbaum in S.C.

Then what would $1 million have done
for the campaign of that black woman --
what was her name, Denise Majette? --
in Georgia? Did she ever get on TV?

Nah, I don't think it would have elected
Ms Majette. But it would have put her --
and the Democratic candidates, whoever
they might be -- in a stronger position
in our next campaign and the next.

So $3 mil went to greedy California.
Meanwhile we lost five (5) Senate races
in the South, three (3) in the Border
states, and four (4) of those had
women candidates.

Those damn Southerners, right? They
are all guns, gays, and -- got ripped off.

Here's why some of us NEVER donate
to the national Dem party or the Senate
campaign committee. With ActBlue,
MyDD, and dkos leading the way, we
can direct our money AWAY from
greedy California to where it is needed

by Woody 2004-11-19 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
They gave BOXER three million?
She won by TWENTY points.  Her opponent didn't run any TV ads!!!!!!  Not a single one.  ARGHFGKRDKJLKJLHDDKFUCK!!!!!

I am a member of no organzied party-I'm a Democrat.

:-(

by Geotpf 2004-11-19 10:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
All better now?
Since Kerry has now reported where all that money went and the plans for the remaining $10 million, are we all better now?

Great.

by maryschoyc 2004-11-19 05:21PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------