Topic: Bob Barr
Barr 2008 in early October I continue my examination of the Barr 2008 Presidential campaign, whose spending followed a novel approach to doing politics.by George Phillies
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Barr 2008 ... Spending for the first half of October.
One of the contrary voices on NolanChart started going on about my talking about old news, saying that it is "Time to Move On". You may recognize that line. It is a very traditional line. You may remember the Democratic and Republican parties using it on a regular basis. "Time to Move on" is a wonderful screen. If any of you run for office, keep it in mind. You can throw out there when you want to change the topic, because the current topic is shining the bright light of truth in a place you wish the sun did not shine. It's a clever political trick, and one that Americans should learn to recognize, because after translation from political American to honest American, it has a different meaning. It means: There's something interesting here, something that someone wants you not to notice.
And now we reach the last month before the election. We have reached the one time every four years when most Americans do pay at least a little attention to politics. This is the moment at which advertising outreach is most likely to be noticed, even though there will be large numbers of competing voices. You may wonder about the time period I have chosen. That was actually determined by the FEC. We have been seeing monthly reports, and now we will see the first half of October, a month period centered on election day, and the rest of the year.
For the first 15 day of October, Barr 2008 spent almost $79,000, after raising $128,459. It ended the reporting period with cash on hand to the tune of $77,022. At the end of the reporting period, October 15, the Barr campaign had absolutely no debt except the $1000 loan from the candidate. Keep that number in mind as the campaign rumbles to its natural end.
And where did that $79,000 go? More than 50% of it, over $44,000, went to staffers and the "contract services" provided by Barr's family firm.
That's a record of sorts. I quote from my book "Funding Liberty", speaking of the 2000 Presidential campaign: "In early and mid-October 2000 the Browne Campaign received slightly more than $167,000 in donations and spent roughly $163,000". "Of that $31,300 was paid to staffers, and $9,695 was paid to firms of those associates...The regular monthly rent for the headquarters was $1800." That's under 25% to campaign staffers and their firms.
Who were those people that Barr paid? Shane Cory received $12,000 for "Campaign Strategy". Steve Sinton and Robert Stuber each received $4,000 for Field Consulting and Fundraising Consulting, respectively. Field consultants were paid rather less: Andrew MacPherson received $3,000, Ashley Petty received $1,970, and Mike Ferguson received $1,250. In addition, the Barr-linked firm Liberty Strategies was paid $13,000 for "Contract Labor". There were no expenses for health insurance, unemployment, social security or income tax withholding for any of these people: They were being paid as independent contractors.
The Barr campaign paid its rent at the end of the prior month, so the only substantial rent payment in this period was $2160 to Liza Franzman of Kailua, Hawaii. In the prior month, though, the campaign had spent more than $15,000 in rent, not to mention more than $7,000 for office furniture and equipment. In this month, offices did receive $3,584 for Office Equipment, and $203 for Office Supplies.
You can pick out expenses for information technology, a total of $7,038, including $2,054 to Rackspace, another $3,769 for Software, $1,039 for Telephone, and $175 for Cell Phone.
The campaign did mail things. Postage, shipping, and fulfillment ('Packaging and Shipping) came to almost $19,936. Transaction Fees -- credit cards and the like -- came to $2361.
Note $1078 to El Monte RV; the candidate traveled someplace in style, though without paying in this period any bills for hotels or air fare.
Oh, yes, doing politics:
No expenditure was identified as being for advertising.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 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.
I responded to Mr. Cymberknopf's article, which criticized your series, saying that he was being uncharitable about your motives. Fairness requires that I do the same when it's vice versa.
Mr. Cymberknopf wrote that his article was prompted by a desire to see Libertarians focus on present issues rather than continue to fight battles from past (of which he found your series an example). You have not a word of that in your response; instead, you tell us he was using "a clever political trick," which in actuality "means: There's something interesting here, something that someone wants you not to notice."
If you'd insinuated that about someone who'd worked for the Barr campaign, there would be a reason to take that charge seriously. Had you written it about someone who'd campaigned for Barr through the election, there'd be still some though less reason to do so. But when you write it about someone who was actively campaigning against Barr through the period covered by your article, it comes across only as a cheap ad hominem.
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.
