Real Analysis of the Gernant/McDonald Democratic Primary $
by jhwygirl
Cowgirl took a hoof to my congressional candidate Tyler Gernant today, with a title that misguidedly uses the word “analysis” and a proof-positive that is pretty much pot-kettle-black. {Sigh}
So let’s do some analysis. Not like I hadn’t looked at the numbers – I made mention of that in a comment to a previous post. So I could of written this post up a week ago, but I didn’t really want to go there. But since MtC did, well as any lawyer would say, the door’s been opened.
So let’s look at the last quarter -
Dennis McDonald claims total contributions of $24,262 (link)
Tyler Gernant claims total contributions of $23,566 (link).
BUT, when you take out “In-kind: Campaign Services” donations from Dennis McDonald’s staffers (maximum $2,400 from three of them, and $2,300 from the other) – a total of $9.500 – well, that brings McDonald down to $14,762 in total contributions.
Gernant has some “In-kind” donations himself – $110 in office supplies from his dad, $120 in promotional pencils from someone in Billings, and $163 from Tyler (himself). That’s a total of $393, bringing Gernant down to $23,173.
Gernant $23,173 to McDonald’s $14,762?
Cowgirl’s making hay over the fact that Gernant got $362 more in out-of-state contributions than McDonald? And Gernant has family that now live out-of-state? While McDonald is from San Francisco? That’s the “nearly pot-kettle-black” part I mentioned above.
Let’s look at loans the candidates make to themselves: Gernant has loaned himself a total of $1,800 bucks the whole campaign. McDonald’s loaned himself a total of $10,835, with $9,835 coming just this last quarter.
Wouldn’t you think McDonald would be doing better at raising funds as we drill down to the primary?
Sure seems to me like Gernant has some momentum going….and maybe that’s why she’s going after Gernant instead of going after the other Dennis’ PAC money…something our own b’birder Pete points out in his comment to Cowgirl’s post.
Of course, Dennis Rehberg’s pulled in over $153,000 this quarter, with $53,000 of it coming from PAC’s (Gernant has $0 PAC, McDonald with $100).
Some of Rehberg’s PAC and industry money?
$1,000 from the Sugar Cane League PAC in Louisiana (and another $500 from the American Sugarbeet Grower’s Association in Washington DC).
$1,000 from the BP North America Employee PAC in Illinois.
ConocoPhillips Spirit PAC out of Oklahoma gave $1,000.
Another one out of Oaklahoma – Devon Energy Corporation PAC – gave $1,000.
Employees of Northrop Grumman Corp PAC of California gave $1,000 ($6,000 to date).
Chevron Employees PAC (of California, too) gave $1,000 ($2,000 to date).
EnergySolutions Inc Fund/Effective Govt (tea baggy sounding, no?) out of Washington DC gave $1,000 ($2,000 to date)
Florida Sugar Cane League PAC (of Washington DC) $1,000
Halliburton/Brown & Root PAC (Washington DC, of course) $1,000
The list goes one.
I didn’t know Montana grew sugar cane.
April 25, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Energy Solutions Inc. is a consulting firm dealing with natural gas giving advice on purchasing.
The sugar cane industry is the beneficiary of enormous crop subsidies at the same time it has caused catastrophic damage to the Everglades through water diversions and fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide use.
Just the sort of business Rehberg would love, even if it wasn’t shoveling all that money his way.
The rest of the contributors are energy corporations and builders sucking at the government teat, and denying global warming and its consequences.
Devon is a Texas firm heavily invested in Alberta (including oil sands) and B.C. oil and especially natural gas production, so they would have an interest in facilitation of production equipment shipped through Montana as reflected in another post today.
April 26, 2010 at 7:08 am
This is the worst analysis of political fundraising I’ve seen in some time. Your selective choice of numbers, your lack of understanding of campaign finance laws, and your pure obvious bias make you a complete joke.
I could go on, but you aren’t capable of objective thinking, so whatever…
April 26, 2010 at 8:02 am
Welcome to 4&20, enjoy your stay!
April 26, 2010 at 11:04 am
Instead of just throwing bricks, how about you back up your spittle with some facts and rebuttal?
April 26, 2010 at 11:38 am
Fact: This post looks only at the last quarter, not the campaign as a whole.
Fact: This poster doesn’t understand campaign finance law, as evidenced by her lack of understanding that in-kind donations are required to be reported.
Fact: Does anyone care how many office supplies these candidates are buying?
Fact: What is the meaningless “a proof-positive that is pretty much pot-kettle-black” lack of understanding of grammar and metaphor? poor language skills, unbacked up attacks or all of the above.
April 26, 2010 at 11:46 am
You’re just engaging in ad hominem attacks here. Must be because you don’t have a clue about what you’re ranting about, or are too lazy to look up any information yourself and say something intelligent.
April 26, 2010 at 1:14 pm
I think what Kevin is trying to say is that the analysis above leaves out the big picture, and that the law says in-kind contributions must be reported.
April 26, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Do you know what an ad hominem attack is? It sure isn’t anything like you describe.
You may be trying to reframe the analysis, which you’re more than welcome to do. But Kevin is attacking jhwygirl without saying anything like what you suggest.
April 26, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Just offering my two cents, for what it’s worth.
April 26, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I didn’t say “In-kind” contributions were illegal – hell, anyone’s that clicked on the link can tell that pretty much isn’t what I’m arguing since the words “In-kind” are printed in bold on every “In-kind” donation.
The point is that McDonald is taking $2,400 donations from his paid staffers. So are they paid staffers (oddly well-paid congressional primary campaign staffers, I might add) or are they volunteers?
This stuff isn’t hard to see – and it sticks out like a sore thumb. On the disbursement side you have these people with multiple disbursements (paychecks) and on the receipts side, you have their “In-kind” donations there in bold.
That “In-kind” amount of $9,500 makes a significant difference in the last quarter fundraising totals for McDonald.
Then when you factor money on hand – Gernant has a bit more – it’s fair to say (at the very very least) that some steam appears to be seeping from the McDonald campaign.
IMNSHO, I guess.
April 27, 2010 at 3:16 am
Gernants sheets also show him taking major donations from paid staffers. Individuals listed as Berringer, Kosted, and others fit this description. The sheets also have Gernant accepting multiple donations from himself, including a personal loan he financed through the campaign account. He also paid himself rent from the campaign account for a property that he actually owns. So, J-girl both parties have been fudging their fundraising numbers.
April 27, 2010 at 7:26 am
Now that’s stupid. Most candidates don’t even recoop their own travel costs. Pay himself rent for space he owns??? Wow. This kid has no chance.
April 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Kosted did NOT “In-kind” donate…and doesn’t look like he’s much of a staffer, considering he’s only collected 4 paychecks over 4 reporting quarters…far different than the disbursement/receipt matches on McDonald’s side.
Berringer, far as I know, would have a pretty hard time being a staffer since he isn’t even in Montana…and Gernant has an office in downtown Missoula, under his name…so he kinda HAS TO “In-kind” that, otherwise he’d be breaking the law.
So – let me repeat – taking “In-kind” donations from staffers is the issue I’m saying looks funky. I stand by my comments here and Left in the West
April 28, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Jgirl, the rent was paid for his home address it s listed in the july report. Not for a downtown location. And not in-kinded, as you suggested.
Him giving himself an $1800 loan from the campaign account is a separate issue, but is in that report from july.
it is in the fec.gov website
April 28, 2010 at 6:09 pm
How
Skin
ny
can
we
get?
Good
post
jhwy
girl.
April 28, 2010 at 6:51 pm
You are impossibly dense. Either it is intentional, or…well, let me just say that it brings into picture the fact that our education system apparently failed you.
Did you miss the part in my post where I go over who loaned how much to their campaigns?
You call yourself a sheet looker? You can’t even read.
Under “Loans“, there is a loan – and if you actually read it, there is a loan (which reads “Source:Tyler Gernant Personal funds”. This means – that the “source” was Tyler Gernant, which means he loaned his campaign, not the other way.)
I reported this above.
Gernant has loaned a total of $1,814 to his campaign, back in July – while McDonald has loaned his campaign much more significantly – as I state above.
McDonald has loaned himself, in 4 separate loans in just the last reporting quarter, $9,835, plus another $1,000, which is dated 1/1/09.
So, once again, I stand by my post and my comments here and at LitW.
April 29, 2010 at 6:05 am
Jgirl, no need for name calling, and I might say the same thing to you.
You’re not reading very well yourself; we agree on the loan. You may have misread what I wrote.
I just thought is was a little green to loan his campaign money, and then just pay it back to himself in rent for his home address–not the downtown address as you ‘reported.’
Jgirl, im noticing you do a good job of going overboard with an incorrect point, and then skirting over it by name calling or changing the issue
here you have done both
May 30, 2010 at 11:25 am
Hey, replying to you here because the string got so skinny downthread that there isn’t even a reply button.
Nathan Kosted was actually Tyler’s campaign director in the very beginning, up until about last June, and Daren Berringer is a political consultant of his.
So Sheet Looker is absolutely correct.
April 26, 2010 at 7:09 am
Momentum? that’s a good one. you people crack me up.
April 26, 2010 at 7:15 am
Wow, I really was hoping someone would write about how many paperclips each candidate had on hand. Great work you!
Aren’t you embarrassed to take these pathetic supposed “gotcha” point directly from the Gernant campaign and post them as “analysis”?
You seem to miss the point entirely that CG made about TV spots.
April 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
That’s rich Corey, in a moronic kind of way.
Yeah, funny how she missed that considering jhwygirl’s post was made on Sunday afternoon, and MT Cowgirl’s ‘point’ about TV was left at 7:03 this morning … less than 15 minutes before you left your bullshit comment here, in fact. Coincidence? I think not. The one who should be embarrassed, Corey, is you.
April 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm
According to hoofgirl, winning elections is all about the tv spots.
Now – I sure hope not, because that’s a hell of a way to pick a candidate.
But I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
April 27, 2010 at 7:21 am
I was referring to her earlier point about TV left the day before;
At this point in the race, how many GRPs a candidate has bought becomes the key factor.
by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:48:30 PM CDT
GRPs = TV spots viewed
April 26, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Before the Democratic circular firing squad gets the order to fire, it might be a good idea to read this.
April 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
This is not the Change you’re looking for [/Obi-Wan]
LULZ
April 26, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“I didn’t know Montana grew sugar cane”-
Proof positive that j-girl thinks Montana disappears outside of Missoula.
April 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Just as your comment is proof that you’re an idiot. Montana doesn’t grow sugar cane, anywhere. The sugar beets we grow here (often heavily subsidized) compete for market share with sugars grown elsewhere through cane (also subsidized) and corn. So perhaps it would behoove you to enlighten us all how Montana benefits from Rehberg getting funding from the “Florida Sugar Cane League PAC”?
April 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Cynic, perhaps you’re confusing sugar beets with sugar cane. Yes, Montana grows tons of sugar beets. No cane, though, which I think is jhwygirl’s point. Whoops, looks like Wulfgar! beat me to the punch on this one.
April 26, 2010 at 5:31 pm
At least she actually blogs IN Montana.
April 26, 2010 at 5:48 pm
And why does that matter, plagiarist?
April 26, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Um…as opposed to blogging from Pennsylvania?
April 26, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Stop the presses. I think Rusty just handed jhwygirl a compliment.
April 26, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Cogent analysis of the campaign finance system, I must say, with candidates from both parties accepting bribes and each sniping at the other about how some of them are better than others.
Sugar money is green, people. It buys ad time. The candidate with the best ads will win.
That’s American politics 101.
April 26, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Still don’t rate my own comments.
April 27, 2010 at 6:03 am
Mark, isn’t there a age limit here?
59 and younger?
April 27, 2010 at 9:34 am
Yeah… and nice picture! You should have kept it up. Pajamas and all.
April 28, 2010 at 11:22 am
I didn’t want to ruin the illusion of my Internet persona.
April 27, 2010 at 12:27 pm
zzzzzzzzz snort snortzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….
April 28, 2010 at 11:21 am
If you are saying that I am boring, like you, thou cuttest deeply.
Good insult, man.!