I document the Barr 2008 Presidential campaign's use -- perhaps I should say mis-use - of its donor's funds in ways that seem less than effective at reaching the American public. by George Phillies
(libertarian)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
I kid you not. In September, 2008, the Barr 2008 Presidential Campaign reported spending $18,691 on "Limo Services". That's what Barr's 2008 FEC reports say.
$18,691 is more than $600 a day.
Divide that by Barr's total September fundraising, and you find that was 7% of all funds raised.
Through the end of September, the Barr campaign had raised $1,106,681, including the $252,383 raised in September. That monthly total is about even with the $224,350 raised in August and the $259,041 raised in July. Keep those numbers in mind as we head for the end of the campaigning season. The past does not guarantee the future, but anyone who expected that the Barr campaign would raise $40 million knew their expectations were doomed. By comparison, the Harry Browne 2000 campaign raised a total of 2.4 million dollars. We are eight years later, eight years of inflation trimming the value of the dollar, and Barr was able to raise barely 40% as much as Harry Browne did.
The Limo Spending?
In alphabetical order, the $18,691 went to First Choice Limo. Alternative Business Enterprises, Crystal Limousine, Inc., Executive Three Enterprises, International Limousines, Lavdas Limousines, Luxury Limo, M&M Limousine
Service, Royal Legacy Limousine, and Town Car Executive.
Many of these firms have web pages. You can confirm that they provide quality automotive services with professional drivers at quality prices.
There was also some effort at presenting the campaign to the public, namely Charleston Gazette $1,001...Advertising
There is an interesting match here. $1001 was 0.4% of the campaign budget, spent on real advertising. That 0.4% is the same as the 0.4% of the vote that Barr was to receive in November.
Now, no one who knows the record will say that I am a Harry Browne apologist. I am happy to say that by comparison with Barr 2008 the Browne 2000 campaign was a model of thrift and efficiency in advertising the Libertarian message. Browne showed what might be done, Michael Badnarik continued in the same vein, and Barr 2008 failed to stand up to the bar. To quote from my book 'Funding Liberty', on Browne's 2000 video advertising, all done before YouTube:
"The list of vendors shows where Browne 2000 put its actual effort for the campaigning year. This was a video-based campaign, one of the first such in our Party's history, with $150,000 going to Polaris Productions for TV ads, $104,000 to Copy Right for video tape copying...and $127,000 through The Firm Multimedia for air time and related support...The Libertarian National Committee independently spent more than $209,000 on ad time for the Browne Campaign."
So where did the rest of Barr's money go?
A big chunk of change went to consultants.
For fundraising consulting, Robert Stuber received $12,000. The Badnarik 2008 campaign raised almost as much money as Barr did, and paid far less for it.
Then there were the political consultants. Shane Cory $12000 Doug Bandow $10000 Steve Sinton $8000 Russ Verney $5485 PrimeOne Political Consulting 2500
Finally, there was money kept in the family. $11,000 went to Barr's own firm, Liberty Strategies, for Contract Services.
That's over $60,000 for consultants and contract services, sixty times as much as went to traditional media for advertising.
Liberty Strategies is based in Atlanta. According to its web pages at www.libertystrategies.org Bob Barr is the Principal player at Liberty Strategies. The Libertarian Party of Oregon newsletter identified Prime One Consulting as the consulting firm of long-time LPO Executive Director Richard Burke. Burke has since been reported to be doing western-states organizing for Barr 2008.
Shane Cory is the former Libertarian Party Executive Director, who was thanked on-stage by Bob Barr for his help with the Barr Campaign. Barr did this in the moments after taking the nomination, so reference can only have been made to Cory's work in helping Barr earn the nomination. It remains to be learned what Cory did to be thanked.
The Wikipedia wrote of Bandow "Douglas (Doug) Bandow is a former columnist with Copley News Service and former senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He resigned in 2005 due a scandal involving payments for columns from lobbyist Jack Abramoff and wrote about it in the Los Angeles Times. He served as a Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a Senior Policy Analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign. He is also a columnist for Antiwar.com." Bandow is now a former columnist at AntiWar.com, or so I am assured. As a hire for a Presidential political advisor, "a scandal involving payments for columns from lobbyist Jack Abramoff" is hardly a gold-standard recommendation.
A web search indicates that until January 2008 Robert Stuber was the Spotsylvania County Republican chairman. Steve Sinton is according to the web a professional voice. A Steve Sinton at approximately the address found in the FEC report ran for Congress in 2006.
Field Consultants were paid considerably less than other consultants: Stephen Gordon ... $2500 Mike Ferguson ... $2500 Ashley Petty ... $3350 Jason Pye ... $1164
Stephen Gordon was one of the people on-stage behind Barr in his acceptance event. Third Party Watch claims Gordon was the eCampaign Manager for Barr 2008. Mike Ferguson was Barr's National Field Director. (source: mikefergusononline.com) Ashley Petty's LinkedIn page identified her as a Communications Assistant, etc." The Barr 2008 Flickr site said Jason Pye was "our Campaign Blogger".
All told, that's closing on $70,000 -- more than 27% of monthly income -- for people. The Browne 2000 campaign, which has been widely criticized for its inefficiency, actually paid associates only 17% of income, a far lower amount, while its television advertising was 20% of September income. As seen above, Barr spent almost nothing on advertising.
The Staff had to be located someplace. For the month Barr 2008 spent $15,789 in Rent and $ 7,077 for Office Equipment and Furniture. That's on top of all the furniture they paid for in past months. You can see the Bob Barr furniture at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26574201@N07/page6/ . We are not talking war surplus furniture here.
The office used supplies and telecoms. Note in particular $2,580 for Office Supplies, $410 for Cell Phones, $351 for Cable, and $1696 for Telephone.
The campaign paid for printed and web outreach, including $6500 for Book Publishing to Equipity, $6302 to Thru Tech and Rack Space for Information Technology, and $2900 to Campaigner Pro for Software. There is an interesting aside here. Someplace in all the computers and information technology is a list of Bob Barr's donors. In the history of our party, every Presidential candidate except one has shared that list of donors with the party. Some did it at campaign's end. One took a few months afterward. I had planned to do it on a weekly basis with our state parties.
Barr is the one. Barr has refused to share his name lists with the Libertarian Party. That's an entire Presidential Campaign cycle down the drain for growing our Libertarian Party.
Direct mail was an important part of the Barr campaign. Richard Viguerie led the way in demonstrating that direct mail actually has two uses. First and less important, it raises money. Second and far more important,readers of direct mail have their political thinking framed by their direct mail letters. Direct mail expenses of the Barr campaign during September came to $41,962, with payments including Press Well Services $16,264, Gillis Express Mailing $14,183, Schlesman Enterprises $9,428, AKA Printing $2,086, and Hudson Phillips, $450 for Graphic Design.
Basic Media, Inc and Diener Consultants rented mailing lists to the campaign, for a total cost of $4400. These firms both appear to be right wing and Ron Paul list suppliers. The Washington Times (www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/19/20060719-114206-4187r/) wrote "Diener Consulting Inc., whose president is Phil Sheldon, son of the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition. Diener serves as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps public-relations arm, as it did for Mr. Keyes in his unsuccessful 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns and failed U.S. Senate races in Maryland and Illinois." Agence Global http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=1006 reports that Diener Consultants is "one of the largest fundraising and political-strategy operations on the right". Barr's PAC has had prior ties to the far right Minuteman group. Alan Keyes is as far to the right in American politics as you can get, at least and be a marginally credible Republican politician. http://thisnovember5th.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/breakthematrixcom-take-back-the-media/ asserts that Basic Media, Inc. is apparently loosely associated with BreakTheMatrix.com, an anti-Federal-Reserve-Ron Paul-Constitutionalist video site.
Many libertarians wish our party had an opening to the left. If you wanted a libertarian opening to the left, try again in four years.
To its credit, the campaign did have a ballot access and legal defense effort. Legal Fees for $14,582 were paid to Orrin Grover, Matthew Sawyer, Drew Shirley, and Samuel Stretton. Mike Ferguson and Jake Witmer were paid $5021 for Ballot Access, that number including $200 to Witmer for legal fees. Compliance Consulting went for $1750, while $978 was spent on Court Transcripts.
The Barr campaign did produce signs and bumperstickers. For September, expenses included $16,348 to Signs by Tomorrow, $4,956 to Bumpersticker.com, and $3,008 to Promotions Direct. As a possible part of the distribution effort, note $4418 to All Points Packaging & Distribution for order fulfillment, as well as $6414 for Postage and $988 to Fedex.
Last and hardly least, those Limos had associated travel costs. Payments to various airlines and hotels came to $27,696. There were $1687 in meeting expenses.
In summary, Barr's FEC reports for September 2009 show a campaign that had gone badly astray from the orthodox political objective of putting your candidate and his opinions in front of the public.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Phillies only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Phillies is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-06-14 10:54:34
As I remember, you were one of those "many" who were highly critical of the Browne campaign that you now laud. In fact, if memory serves, you engaged in the same kind of Monday morning quarterbacking as you are engaging in now with Barr.
I liked Browne a lot. I don't trust Barr as far as I can throw him. In neither case do I think that the amount of money paid for consultants deserves the kind of attention you're giving them. You're focusing on the wrong question. The relevant question is: how effective were the consultants in doing their jobs? The pay level hardly matters by comparison.
Consider the following scenarios.
Scenario A: Consultant John gets hired by a campaign and gets paid a million dollars. His effort in helping the campaign acquire votes is highly successful, setting records for the party.
Scenario B: Consultant Bill gets hired by a different campaign, and gets paid $1,000. His efforts produce no noticeable affect at all.
Should we therefore conclude that paying John a million dollars was a waste of money? Clearly not.
Should we conclude that paying Bill a thousand dollars was a waste of money? The answer here is also no. Asking for a significant, measurable contribution for a $1,000 fee is ludicrous.
So what's the point in emphasizing the money? I can't see one. If the Barr campaign failed because his consultants didn't accomplish anything useful, what Barr paid them is irrelevant. The relevant point is that they didn't do their job. Bringing money into the question merely muddies the waters.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2009-06-14 15:41:26
Walt,
Your argument on consultants presupposes that you have found out how much they were paid.
Let me give a different version. You County Road Commission has spent its budget for the year. On investigation, you find spending for consultants, for offices, but no money for concrete, asphalt, paving blocks, bricks, bridge parts, road maintenance, or paving contractors. Is there perhaps an issue here?
I take a slightly different approach than you, namely *follow the money*. If you want to see what is going on, money is the lifeblood of politics, and shoeleather is the other lifeblood.
Mind you, money reveals other things. If you are a family of six on a predictable budget of $50,000 a year, and the top spending item is a $37,000 bill for a three week vacation for two in Abu Dubai, you can become suspicious of the spending controls, no matter how fabulous the vacation was.
In this case, you might ask -- Where is the campaign?
Let me suggest that my suggestion that Barr made the Browne campaigns look like a model of efficiency was *not* praise for Browne 2000.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2009-06-14 15:43:26
Also, I used to edit a magazine, Let Freedom Ring! It did this sort of analysis on a regular basis for past campaigns. It stopped publishing in 2006, so we missed Barr.
The series total was Where Your Money Went. We did poll readers. Where Your Money Went was way at the top in reader popularity.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-06-14 17:04:54
So, you're equating a voluntarily financed presidential campaign with a taxpayer financed highway project. Great analogy.
"Follow the money" is for situations where someone suggests that fraud, theft, corruption, or some other criminal activity has taken place. You seem to have different ideas about its purpose; unless you're prepared to accuse Barr of engaging in fraud, theft, or some other criminal activity.
It makes me wonder what your real motivation is. I suspect you have a thinly veiled agenda. The question coming from you as to how Barr's campaign spent its fundraising smells of sour grapes, considering Barr defeated you for the LP nomination. You've learned that you can get a rise out of some people by questioning how money is spent. So, you make an issue out of it, even if there's really no issue.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2009-06-14 17:54:42
No, Walt, "follow the money" does not care who owned the money. The money, after all, cannot tell whether it was being spent by a government bureau or a private company. The issue for the road people is "You spent all this money. We see where you spent it. Now, where are the roads?"
Incidentally, why shouldn't effective spending by a Road Commission and a political campaign both be responsive to the same question "How did you spnd the money?" That's why 'follow the money' is so effective as a journalistic analysis tool for investigtive journalism.
The question, Walt, is "Where is the campaign?"
And I am treating Barr precisely the same way I treated Browne and Badnarik. Actually, I am treating Barr better than I treated Badnarik, because for Badnarik I actually went through his book, read his readings of the Constitution, and did some comparisons of his claims and the real world, while for Barr I have not discussed his stands on the issues, such as his position on having the neopagans purged from the Army. On the other hand, for Badnarik I showed that his money was being spent reasonably well and effectively and contributed to the outcome that post-nomination Badnarik raised more money that Browne did.
And, yes, I have noticed that many libertarian donors were not pleased by how some of their money was spent, once they find out.
Posted By: Geno Canto del Halcon
Date: 2009-06-15 12:53:40
Great comments, George.
Walt, why the hostility?
The Barr campaign was an enormous failure, considering that he received wide-spread media coverage, had more name recognition than ANY previous LP Presidential nominee, going all the way back to John Hospers in 1972.
What the Barr campaign proves is that becoming GOP 2.0 does not serve the interests of Libertarians. We should be promoting liberty and libertarian ideals, not simply trying to win popularity contests.
While searching for a wedding limousine New York company I found http://www.astretchout.com I have been so satisfied with their service every time I used them. They are always very friendly and always on time. Check out their website to see their fleet and awesome prices.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
