Wednesday, July 12, 2006
I'm So Embarassed
It seems Nagin didn't raise nearly as much money in Chicago as I, or anyone else, thought:
It's not that I was wrong about the money that embarasses me, it's how wrong I was about Nagin's supporters. Days later, they still hadn't finished counting the 5,950 dollars. Obviously the poor, hard-working, down-trodden people of Chicago were so moved the difficuties that our mayor was facing in finishing the job of leading our city, that they scraped together their pennies and nickels to help the cause. How else could it have taken so long to count the money?
Only a cynic (and certainly not the Picayune) would suggest that the mayor would still be covering his number-fudging during the first campaign because the second, important campaign is just beginning. If you're curious about who the poor, persecuted underdog is in that campaign, just ask the mayor. He'll tell you:
.
If you follow that last link, you'll notice that the mayor's "go-to woman" is the Cynthia who couldn't even be bothered to come up with a plausible excuse.
Finally, the latest reports put to rest a lingering mystery of the campaign: How much money did Nagin raise at a well-publicized May 8 fund-raiser in Chicago? The answer: $5,950, according to the reports.
That's about 1 percent of what organizers told the Chicago Sun-Times that the event netted. In a story about the fund-raiser, the newspaper quoted Nagin's hosts as saying the mayor had brought in $500,000. About 200 people attended, some of whom paid as much as $1,000 each, the story said.
Days after that story was published, Nagin said it was inaccurate and exaggerated the fund-raiser's size, but he declined to say how much he raised. On the day of his inauguration, which featured the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Dorothy Brown of Chicago as speakers, Nagin said the event had brought in about half as much as media reports indicated, or $250,000
It's not that I was wrong about the money that embarasses me, it's how wrong I was about Nagin's supporters. Days later, they still hadn't finished counting the 5,950 dollars. Obviously the poor, hard-working, down-trodden people of Chicago were so moved the difficuties that our mayor was facing in finishing the job of leading our city, that they scraped together their pennies and nickels to help the cause. How else could it have taken so long to count the money?
Only a cynic (and certainly not the Picayune) would suggest that the mayor would still be covering his number-fudging during the first campaign because the second, important campaign is just beginning. If you're curious about who the poor, persecuted underdog is in that campaign, just ask the mayor. He'll tell you:
.
As long as I was doing 100 percent of what was requested, everything was good. As soon as I said 'no,' I was the evil genius."
If you follow that last link, you'll notice that the mayor's "go-to woman" is the Cynthia who couldn't even be bothered to come up with a plausible excuse.
Comments:
<< Home
I was waiting to see what you'd have to say about this.
It obviously stinks to high heaven. Hell, five grand would hardly cover the travel expenses for Nagin's staff to Chicago. How could they submit that number with a straight face? And how could the T-P take it at face value?
It seems ridiculous and impossible that estimates ranging from 250k to 500k were off by so much. We're supposed to believe that a guy who is holding a $2500 per couple fundraiser at the N.O. W-- AFTER he was elected-- raised only 5k at a Chicago fundraiser in the heat a close mayoral race? Seriously, in post Katrina N.O., isn't a campaign fundraiser for a candidate who already won, and isn't in debt... a bit much?
Over all, Nagin spent $3 million and Landrieu spent $3.9. Not a huge disparity, considering Nagin's relentless complaints about all the mysterious "big money" behind Landrieu's effort.
Good grief. I suppose you'll have to do the freelance investigative journalism on this one. No one else seems rarin' to go.
Back in the day, some reporters were trained to "follow the money"-- not take a patently ridiculous numbers (apparently filed to with the campaign eithics office) at face value.
[Fwiw, my suspicion is that Jackson's Rainbow/Push got a good chunk of the Chicago donations. Nagin didn't get money, but he funded people who gave him assurances.]
It obviously stinks to high heaven. Hell, five grand would hardly cover the travel expenses for Nagin's staff to Chicago. How could they submit that number with a straight face? And how could the T-P take it at face value?
It seems ridiculous and impossible that estimates ranging from 250k to 500k were off by so much. We're supposed to believe that a guy who is holding a $2500 per couple fundraiser at the N.O. W-- AFTER he was elected-- raised only 5k at a Chicago fundraiser in the heat a close mayoral race? Seriously, in post Katrina N.O., isn't a campaign fundraiser for a candidate who already won, and isn't in debt... a bit much?
Over all, Nagin spent $3 million and Landrieu spent $3.9. Not a huge disparity, considering Nagin's relentless complaints about all the mysterious "big money" behind Landrieu's effort.
Good grief. I suppose you'll have to do the freelance investigative journalism on this one. No one else seems rarin' to go.
Back in the day, some reporters were trained to "follow the money"-- not take a patently ridiculous numbers (apparently filed to with the campaign eithics office) at face value.
[Fwiw, my suspicion is that Jackson's Rainbow/Push got a good chunk of the Chicago donations. Nagin didn't get money, but he funded people who gave him assurances.]
Didn't really have time to go into it, but that's what I thought exactly. I'd figured part of it was cutting out the middle-man in the common practice where candidates pay political groups for their "printing costs," etc., that came up about Landrieu in a debate. Most of it probably went to fund third-party get out the vote efforts. Problem is: what Landrieu said is somewhat true, but the amount of money involved usually gives you some inkling as to where it stands between being 100% reimbursement and totally bought endorsement. Also, many of those get out the vote groups would have been trying to get out the evacuee vote on principle. I certainly don't blame ACORN and various church groups for the fact that their efforts helped Nagin, but it would be interesting to see the funding.
I suspect that a large chunk went to people used it for their own third party advertising. I didn't see any on TV, but I'm kicking myself on for not having had the sense to listen to a variety of radio stations during the run-off. Of course, I had no way of listening to Houston and Atlanta radio, but I wonder if radio adverting revenues are open to public scrutiny. If so it would be easy for a reporter with an FOIA request to see just how misleading (or accurate) that $2M figure for Nagin is.
Post a Comment
I suspect that a large chunk went to people used it for their own third party advertising. I didn't see any on TV, but I'm kicking myself on for not having had the sense to listen to a variety of radio stations during the run-off. Of course, I had no way of listening to Houston and Atlanta radio, but I wonder if radio adverting revenues are open to public scrutiny. If so it would be easy for a reporter with an FOIA request to see just how misleading (or accurate) that $2M figure for Nagin is.
<< Home
