Tuesday, February 12th, 2008...6:51 am
Tim May Have Been Valedictorian at Emily Gray, but His Campaign Can’t Earn a “Bee” in Math
Anyone remember when Tim Bee announced that Meg Econ, one of his campaign staffers, had assured folks that the campaign had already raised over $300,000?
Now that we can actually see the reports, it seems that Bee’s campaign has only raised $285,694. Which, for you fiscal conservatives out there, is not “well over $300,000.”
(An aside here: is it just me, or does Meg Econ’s name sound like an abreviation of one of those 500 level classes you’d take over at the Eller School? I’d have to ask Kralmajales about that one.)
The State Democratic Party has been sending out press releases saying that Bee hasn’t been at the legislature for crucial budget negotiations. If this is the way he and his friends crunch numbers, I’d rather he stay the heck away.
16 Comments
February 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
To add, Bee had about $161K on hand, did not even catch up (Giffords raised more in both reporting periods of last year), and she now has over $1.3 Million. Not only did they not meet the expectations they raised, but this is a very little amount for early in a campaign when the big donors max out.
There are indeed some neato 500 level econ classes that are MegaEcon…to say the least. Ask X4mer about that one!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“Well over” $300K? They’re full of wind as a corn eatin’ horse. They know Bee’s got the same shot as a gnat in a hailstorm. ‘Cause something is happening but you just don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
You left out the other half. They spent a big chunk of what they raised, and on what?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I guess we don’t have to vote. We just see who can raise the most money and declare them the winner.
Gabby doesn’t have to raise money. The last three colored campaign mailers she sent out to voters had the disclaimer paid for at TAXPAYERS expense. She has spent ten’s of thousands of taxpayer dollars in shameless self promotion and not a squeak of complaint from any of you.
The Democrats are yelling for change but it’s just a facade as Gabby Giffords is proving by “just doing business as usual”.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:11 am
oh but let’s DO vote! so we can sink some teeth into Arizona’s constitutional clause that requires candidates to resign their state office if they are not in the last year of their term.
“i don’t know if i’m running” wink, wink
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold. ~Aristotle
February 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Pshaw Walt!
That argument is reserved for the struggling campaign…and…we all know that money isn’t the only thing, but it is crucial to a candidate facing an incumbent.
They have to overcome name recognition, the casework a legislator does for the district, positive media attention, fundraising advantage, a better organized campaign, legions of volunteers…and well…the franking privilege you note.
We can all whine about it but it doesn’t change facts. On average, only 5% of incumbents get turned out of office. To be one of the 5%, you need a big wind blowing at your back (wind is blowing in the other direction Senator Bee), an incredible campaign, money, a lot of name recognition….and time to campaign.
I question his ability on most all of those factors, although I will grant that he as more name rec. than Randy Graf or Huffman did, a district that is more favorable than most, but everything else spells super doom.
His campaign is likely in crisis mode about now. With pleas for money, media attention, and with long long breaks away from the very crucial budget negotiations going on now.
I have said this all along, but most people don’t even remember those who took on Kolbe and lost (no offense to those who did…but true). Most never had another real chance in politics…am I wrong?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Kral,
You make a great argument for why people like Giffords should never be voted into office in the first place. It is getting close to impossible to get rid of an incumbent for some of the reasons you mention that have absolutely nothing to do with qualifications. People with better qualifications are consistently shut out of political office by well organized fund raisers.
A mediocre incumbent who is not under indictment will get more votes than a challenger with less money. In fact, mediocrity is a plus, because someone who stands for something could be controversial.
And, one thing the Democrats do have is a seemingly endless train of mediocre individuals who have found their way into Congress via tire sales or property management or whatever.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Walt S,
I am one who did complain about the Giffords mailers. I called her office about it and requested to be removed from the mailing list.
Imagine the impact if thousands of people did just that. It would send a message to the little tire lady now wouldn’t it?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Its the system we have. Liza is right about one thing, if it is broken to us, then we should fix it. If the rules of the game don’t change, we have to play the game better. Sometimes changing the rules is necessary as I think should be the case with funding, but I am of the belief that it says a lot about support if you can attract donations.
Look at Barack Obama for instance. I am sure he might favor public financing of campaigns, but faced with the system we have, he round a way to get countless individuals who have never voted or donated to a candidate before to do so. Given the rules that we have, he played the game better than those who are established and did so with small donors.
I think if you look closely at Giffords donations, you will find a lot of big donors (like Barack’s…) but you will also find lots and lots of small donors who wished to challenge the assumption that the GOP has more money and raises funds better.
I completely agree with you about mailers. The Franking privilege will not go away unless the voters chime in and say it isn’t valuable to them. I assume some value it or most dont care.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Yeah, Kral, the money being spent on the Democratic presidential primary is unbelievable. We are elated that Obama has become a real alternative to the Clinton “inevitability” campaign, but the financial cost of the whole thing going on for so long is unprecedented. And, what does this say about 2012? Unless you can raise over $100,000,000 for the primary, give it up. John Edwards had to run a pauper’s campaign at a mere $45,000,000. And we still have the general election. Wow, it is scary.
I’m really concerned that this is just going to be more and more about the money, and people who are qualified for public office will always be shut out by those who have little to offer except for having mastered the art of campaign fundraising. That is the direction we are going.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Yeah…I think we went there a long long time ago, unfortunately. Its always been part of our process, but with the advent of, and need of television, the whole ballgame changed.
One hope that we can have is this. Technology changes institutions and changes how people interact with them. Imagine a free internet, 99% of the voting public using it and attuned to it, and sites like Youtube, that could drive all info on campaigns. Its free, now at least. Maybe we will not need tv ads at least.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
We have the technology, but I think we are a very long way and many years from 99% of voters having access to it. By contrast, almost everyone has a TV. But down the road at some point, it will happen.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
How much am I coughing up for “Franking” mailers each year? I would be shocked if it totaled five bucks. I’m happy to pay that to hear what MY Congressman is doing in D.C. But keep hating on Gabs — she’s only going to hold that seat (which is in a Republican district I might add) FOREVER.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Just out of curiousity, Adam, what is it about the representation that you are getting in the House that you like so well?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:01 am
“Permanent checkpoints” is the wrong answer, isn’t it?
February 14th, 2008 at 8:45 am
No, not if that issue is important to you and you got what you wanted.
Leave a Reply