Topic: Bob Barr
The Barr Campaign? I discuss what Barr's campaign spending shows about the Barr Campaign, namely that it was in large part an illusion.by George Phillies
(libertarian)
Monday, August 24, 2009
Before Summer vacation, I gave you a series on the Barr campaign and how it spent its money. After all, that money was largely raised from good libertarians, people who were hoping for a Libertarian Presidential campaign that would put our party on the map. We had had a golden opportunity to put our party on a higher level.
Generosity to Barr was unprecedented. In his general election campaign, Bob Barr raised close to one and a half million dollars. That's 50% more than Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne raised after getting the nomination. The only close comparison was the 1980 campaign, in which media opportunities and costs were totally different. That one and a half million dollars includes ten thousand dollars that Barr 2008 claims to have received from the Libertarian National Committee, $10,000 that the LNC denies having given Barr. (These statements are both based on the FEC reports and various persons contacting the two groups; I do not have a resolution of the difference yet.)
Barr had another near-unique opportunity: The other on-ballot third party opponents were an uninspiring lot. Our 1980 campaign had one challenge: third party press coverage was grabbed by John Anderson. Our 1996 campaign had a different challenge: Ross Perot. Our 2000 campaign was eclipsed by Ralph Nader. This time, Libertarians looking for press attention were competing with a Green and a Constitutionalist, nice people hardly able to eclipse our candidate.
Unfortunately, we nominated Bob Barr, and in my opinion he gave us an illusion, not a campaign. I base my opinion on the Barr 2008 campaign's FEC reports.
The Barr campaign spent barely 1% of its money on actual press advertising, including newspaper ads, Google Ads, and the very-far-right Newsmax web distribution. For classic public outreach, the campaign spent perhaps 4% of its income. That includes $12,619 to its publisher for Barr's book.
The campaign spent ten times as much to rent real estate and office equipment as on classic outreach.
The campaign spent (including debts to Terra Eclipse) ten times as much on its web page as on classic outreach.
The campaign spent considerably more on limousines and town cars than on classic outreach.
Where did Barr's money go, in more detail?
His campaign spent a hundred Gs to rent real estate and 30 Gs more to rent and buy furniture and office equipment. He spent money on direct mail, about a part in seven of funds raised, something around $200,000. He spent around a third of a million dollars paying his staff. That does not count another $100,000 to pay consultants, field consultants, and the like.
He also gave a demonstration of Republican conservative money management, the frugality that Bush showed so well: his campaign ended owing various people and groups nearly $200,000.
Only 4% for public outreach and advertising? Can that be right? Here's a list, taken from the Barr 2008 FEC filings, of everything that appears to be public outreach: Signs by Tomorrow Signs $17,338 Bumper stickers and promotional items $9984 NewsMax $6250 Commercial Signs $2994 Dr Don's Buttons $1262 Zazzle.com T-Shirts $1195 Charleston Gazette $1001 Google Ads $797 B&P Promotions $657 Equipity.com Book Publishing $12,619
This list is being generous. $12,000 to a book publisher to print a vanity press book gets you little traction. Bumper stickers and campaign literature that didn't mention the party name gets the party no push upwards. I am assured that the lawn signs were in fair part sold to supporters.
Campaign travel is useful if it draws press. Travel and events cost a quarter of a million dollars. Barr did go to New Hampshire; the statewide Libertairan candidates were not told where he was going.
For purposes of comparison, note that the Boston Tea Party presidential campaign spent $328, almost half as much. for Google ads, but they only needed to cover fewer states. $328 was a much larger percentage of their campaign budget.
Barr also paid people. The people at the top end were Liberty Strategies Contract Services $62,500 (Bob Barr's firm), Doug Bandow $52,644, Shane Cory $42,000, James Bovard (authoring) $30,000, Robert Stuber Fundraising consultant $24,000, Steve Sinton Field Consulting $20,000, Andrew MacPherson $16,074, Russ Verney (campaign manager) $14,388, Mike Ferguson $13,812 (Ferguson has now become a Republican), Stephen Gordon Field Consulting $12,858, and Ashley Petty (field consulting) $11,475. Those numbers do not include the $47,000 James Bovard is still owed for authoring.
The Real Estate Rent had as lead items The Paces Foundation, Inc Rent and Utilities $55,769, Post Corporate Apartments $33302, and Lisa Franzman $13757. The large electronic items were Terra Eclipse (IT and Transaction Fees) $68,645, Thru Tech (IT and office equipment) $36,486, Campaigner Pro software $14,243, and RackSpace IT $6370.
Fundraising from lists gives you lists of donors and supporters for later use. Where did Barr look for support? Libertarian lists? Not quite. Instead, Barr went as his three top rentals to Basic Media, Inc. $2000 < Ron Paul right wing list, Deiner Consultants $2400
In my opinion, one is led toward the conclusion that the Barr campaign was effectively a scheme to transfer money from Libertarian donors to Barr's Republican cronies and a few libertarian hangers-on.
Oh, yes. Historically, every past Libertarian Presidential campaign except perhaps Ron Paul's has done one positive thing for the party: They have shared their donor and volunteer lists with the national party and the state parties. Not Bob Barr. His campaign refuses even to give that limited support to the national party that entrusted him with their nomination.
As I said at the start of the article, we had had a golden opportunity to take our party to a higher level. Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party establishment that gave him our nomination threw that opportunity away.
Is this what you wanted for a Presidential campaign? When the Libertarian Party establishment gave Barr the nomination, they gave you, the Libertarian activist and donor, a sham of a campaign. The gift starts with LNC Chair William Redpath, who boasted of recruiting Barr as our nominee. All those LNC members are up for re-election next year, and you might consider that there will be alternatives.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 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.
"Is this what you wanted for a Presidential campaign? When the Libertarian Party establishment gave Barr the nomination, they gave you, the Libertarian activist and donor, a sham of a campaign. The gift starts with LNC Chair William Redpath, who boasted of recruiting Barr as our nominee. All those LNC members are up for re-election next year, and you might consider that there will be alternatives."
Or we could postulate this as a sign that the factionalism in the LP is so deeply entrenched that it's time to throw it all out and start over. This time, we can create a new brand that will actually accept moderates and purists, while rejecting the radicals whose aim is to cripple the party and be the king of the hill of nothing.
The LP Reformers were given a shot last year for some amazing returns. The Radicals, so pissed off that they didn't get to run the show once more, basically sabotaged their own ticket, and basically ensured a co-opted LNC in the process.
I always make sure to make a distinction between the libertarians who are purists in ideology, and the radicals who wish to kill all progress that might compromise their dogmatic views. They, and the exodized Republicans have ruined any shred of opportunity the party had.
But the good news is- there's still enough momentum to tap into a new movement - with or without a new party.
In my opinion the problem is with the nominating process. When one candidate loses he typically throws his support behind another candidate which gives that candidate the win. That cost Arron Russo the nomination in 2004 and it cost Mary Ruwart the win in 2008. Maybe you need to get candidates to pledge not to throw their support to another candidate. Another approach might be to use an instant runoff system.
Keep in mind that Barr also refused to be in any of the third-party debates with Baldwin, Nader, etc. Barr was an infiltrator and a saboteur. Anyone who supported him should be embarrassed.
The LP National Convention had the lowest turnout I've ever seen. Instead of growing in strength, it is shrinking in every area. The Ventura County LP in CA had monthly meetings of over 30 a few years back, now we're lucky if 4 people show up, and they're on the BOARD!
As much as this group LOVES Ron Paul, instead of throwing his support to Libertarian minded candidates,he took his $$ and supporters and formed a totally new organization, and many former Libertarians followed.
There was HUGE decent at the LP convention between Barr and Ruwart, who is seen as more of an anarchist than a Libertarian. Every party has its outer fringe, the ultra-conservatives are doing a great job destroying the Republican Party as well.
Success leads to success, and failure leads to failure.
1980 Ed Clark's Presidential race could have been the beginning of getting at least a few LP candidates elected to national office, instead the constant failures of not having even ONE LP elected at a federal level has made it obvious that whatever they have been doing just isn't working, especially when we keep losing candidates and supporters to the Republican and Constitutional party.
The Libertarian Party might claim to be the Party of Principle, but until we have strong leaders with PRINCIPLES, it won't be around much longer.
Good point here, Raven. I can't wait for this day soon enough. Many liberty-minded individuals are scattered around the proverbial map, with a large concentration holed up in the LP.
What Libertarians fail to realize is exactly what Hayek preached about government in the Road to Serfdom. They pretend as if the LP is a somehow immune entity to the laws of voluntarism and choice. As if governments, corporations that are too big to fail should, but the LP can't.
I've said this time and time again, but the radicals fire back with senseless retorts that it is not they that are blocking reform, when this is exactly what they do. They have already conceded themselves to an extraordinarily blind world view that once the socialist Democrats and Republicans overextend themselves, *poof* we'll all be libertarians.
Radicals, can't you realize that this is a law of Marxist diamat that you should be naturally opposed to? Revolutions are not made by small, quantitative struggles, but large, gradual movements. Do not make the mistake of pinning this on the reformers; just as corporatists is not the same as capitalists, the Republican infiltrators are NOT synonymous with the failure of this party this year.
The only chance this movement has is for a complete rebirth- an utter demolishing of the LP.
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.
