Tribune bends definition of self funding


Paul Giblin of the East Valley Tribune has a new threshold for when a campaign is “largely self-funded.” If you raise over $400,000 from outside sources or you contribute under 40% of your own funds you meet Giblin’s definition of “largely self-funded.”

He goes on to compare David Schweikert to Developer Jim Pederson. He left out the fact that David has won several elections and served in both the legislature and as Maricopa County Treasurer. Pederson was a developer all his life and then tried to go straight to the U.S. Senate against a long time incumbent. Slight difference there. Pederson also kept funding his race himself up to the end. David loaned money to his campaign in the 4th quarter of 2007 and has done well raising outside funds since then.

I guess Giblin doesn’t want to talk about who’s donating to Mitchell. All the PAC money and tribal donations don’t rate in a story slanted to make Republicans look bad.


Comments

  1. SA,

    Pederson’s political philosphy aside, you make this:

    “Pederson was a developer all his life and then tried to go straight to the U.S. Senate against a long time incumbent. Slight difference there.”

    sounds like it’s something worth of derision. For a person to go into politics, do they have to spend years in government before they can ascend to higher offices.

    I mean, if so, welcome to the party, comrade.

  2. FreeAdvice says:

    Pederson was not running in a primary. Plenty of R’s will pour money in when there’s an R candidate running against a D. Right now, the primary candidates are just spending their current dollars, no matter the source, trying to beat each other.

    True, Pederson was the state D chairman, so it’s not like he came out of nowhere as far as being involved in his party. But it is somewhat unnatural to run for US Senate without at least some history of non-partisan, public service.

    That’s what made Pederson’s self-fundedness odd: he had access, contacts, knowledge, and he was the only candidate, and he still could not get much money from other D’s.

  3. “But it is somewhat unnatural to run for US Senate without at least some history of non-partisan, public service.”

    And while *I’d* agree with that, the conservative noise machine is constantly screeching at us that government’s not the solution, that government contributes to the problem, and wouldn’t it be better if we ran the Republic like a business.

    If this is true, then the percieved slight against someone not being a lifelong politican before trying to get a chair in the big leagues seems… off, at least from this side of the aisle.

    “That’s what made Pederson’s self-fundedness odd: he had access, contacts, knowledge, and he was the only candidate, and he still could not get much money from other D’s.”

    But wasn’t that his schtick? “Nobody’s Senator But Ours”? Was he trying to get funds or was he playing the hand he dealt himself?

  4. FreeAdvice says:

    Well, if I had to defend everything coming from people calling themselves conservatives I’d go nuts. Actually the paradox inadvertently called out in the Trib story is that even remotely self-funded candidates still take money from other people. It’s just a Catch-22.

    Politics is a bloody sport. Where people got their campaign money is insider stuff. The only thing that matters is your strategy and the money to pay for it.

    The problem I have is with the word “largely” when they say Schweikert is “largely self-funded” because that’s just not true.

    Pederson reminded me of a guy who slips on a banana peel and when he gets up and looks around he proudly tells the people around him “I meant to do that.”

  5. No one should be surprised by Giblin and his comments. Putting this guy in charge of a political blog only exposes his weaknesses. Unfortunately for him, he is so far in bed with Mitchell, it’s funny. Every little townhall, meeting, etc..that Mitchell puts out a press release for, Giblin makes sure he covers it. In the case of this story, Giblin exposes his real weakness – he doesn’t know a whole heckuva a lot about politics.

  6. If the ratio of 40% of self-funding is correct (as you said, it’s inside baseball), I would also disagree with the term “largely self-funded”.

    Having said that, 40% ain’t chump change. But it’s not quite the silver spoon Pederson/Romney/Perot types.

  7. FreeAdvice says:

    Giblin wrote:

    “Former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert raised $681,000 for his campaign by March 31, according to figures compiled by The Center for Responsive Politics. However, Schweikert contributed $272,000 of that total.”

    According to my Texas Instruments TI-1795SV, that’s 39.94%.

  8. Oh wow, the media is in the bag for the Democrat? I suppose its sad that this is such non-news. Its why half the Valley doesn’t read the newspapers anymore, but don’t expect the left to give up their iron grip on their party newsletters anytime soon.

  9. I love that Giblin cites Center for Responsive Politics instead of the FEC. Just one more example of how he views the info.

Trackbacks

  1. Car says:

    Hey there…

    Wasn’t what I was looking for, but good website. Thanks….

Speak Your Mind

*