Was it all a heist?
A candidate who had persistent financial problems pulls off a surprise upset in the primary, and the conservative grassroots open their wallets wide and often in order to help ensure the campaign’s competitiveness — only to see the candidate end the campaign with nearly $1 million in unspent funds.
Is this how Christine O’Donnell wanted it?
Politico reported, “O’Donnell reported having $924,800 in the bank after the election was over, according to her post-general election campaign fundraising report, filed Thursday.”
The explanation from O’Donnell spokesman Matthew Moran is that O’Donnell was advised by her attorney to reserve “several hundred thousand dollars” for after Election Day to use for legal challenges resulting from her campaign — such as a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission by the state GOP during the primary and a criminal complaint filed with the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
When was O’Donnell advised this? The state GOP complaint was filed before the primary, and the CREW complaint was filed September 20. Clearly, almost all of her donors were unaware that the candidate was going to require a cushion of “several hundred thousand dollars” for potential legal costs before their donations could be spent on actually trying to win the race.
Follow the time-line here. As late as June 30, 2010, O’Donnell’s cash-strapped campaign had less than $70,000 cash on hand. On September 14, she won the primary, and conservative grassroots contributed to her campaign on a scale rarely seen: $850,000 in the first 24 hours; by September 25, she had raised $2.5 million.
Despite this almost unprecedented influx of funds, the O’Donnell campaign aired no television ads for three weeks after the primary. During that time, the Chris Coons campaign and the DSCC each aired two ads; also, O’Donnell became a national figure — and frequent punchline — thanks to Bill Maher, Jay Leno, etc. According to the O’Donnell campaign, the slow roll-out of television ads stemmed from a desire to work with Fred Davis, creator of “Demonsheep”, the McCain ad implicitly comparing Obama to Paris Hilton, and many other memorable ads.
At the time, some of us pointed out the danger in this approach. On October 4, less than one month before Election Day, O’Donnell’s first ad debuted, with the memorable opening line, “I’m not a witch.” By October 21, she was declaring on Good Morning America that the ad had not worked or accomplished its goal, to put the witch talk behind her.
Then again, perhaps O’Donnell’s campaign spending was moot, and there was no point in spending this $924,000 or so. O’Donnell ultimately spent $6.1 million, a record for Delaware and almost twice what Coons spent, $3.2 million. During the brief general-election campaign, she never closed the margin to less than 10 points and lost, 56.6 percent to 40 percent.
Presuming that the $924,000 isn’t eaten by legal costs, what happens to the money? Well, O’Donnell can return it to donors, contribute to other candidates . . . or use it in another run for office. If O’Donnell does run for office, then on paper, O’Donnell can collect a portion of this money as a salary. Under FEC law, “House and Senate candidates are permitted, under certain conditions, to receive a salary from their campaign committee (up to either the candidate’s earnings in the previous year or the salary of the office, whichever is lower).” Of course, O’Donnell reported a 2009 income of $5,800. Then again, in 2011, the “previous year” will have been 2010, and her income in the past year may be quite different — including a book deal.
Well, weren't some folks curious about what she did for a living? :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe above is just additional proof that Charles Krauthammer nailed it way back when: The endorsements of O'Donnell over Castle were "destructive, capricious, and irresponsible."
Even worse, thanks to those endorsements, O'Donnell not only cost the GOP a sure Senate seat, she still has almost $1 million with which she'll (1) undoubtedly remain on the political scene for years to come; and (2) undoubtedly remain a political liability for the GOP for an equal amount of time. Heckuva job, indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody ever questioned that she was a fiscal conservative.
Ladies and gentleman, the worst GOP nominee of the 2010 cycle! Come on down Ms. O'Donnell!
But hey! Those GOP establishmentarians really got a message sent huh!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat was a very interesting article. What does she plan to do with the money? A great followup article that I would enjoy reading is what response you get from O'Donnell and more interesting would be an overview of more candidates past and present and what they do with the money they get in campaign funds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for covering this.
Book deal? What does she have to say that can't be covered in five pages?
In Washington State, we had a similar candidate, who's sole public service was being elected President of the Ames Lakes Homeowner's Assoc. People in the association said she didn't do any work but used it as her sole source of public experience for her credentials.
She also claimed a degree she didn't have and a managerial position at Microsoft she didn't have.
Even in Democrat heydays and in a slightly leaning R-Dave Reichert district, she came within a couple points of winning. Darcy Burner was also a Kos star.
She had three star Democratic retired general Paul Eaton putting out antiwar ads for her.
It was disgusting to me in my State for a D like Darcy to get traction and it disgusts me now when a similar R got traction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo surprise here given her history of using campaign money to pay herself a salary and her housing costs while stiffing her vendors (which was well-known before the primary election). I predict she will not return one dime of it. I only hope she continues to use it to pay herself a salary rather than for a fourth run for office. Thanks Sarah Palin for endorsing her and then never showing up in Delaware. But it sure felt good to send a message to the establishment (and a liberal democrat to the Senate).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah Blackhawks, from now on we are just gonna be good sheep and vote for whoever we are told to vote for! We get one chance to exercise our voice when it comes to who will represent us and gosh darn it, we need to let someone else tell us who that should be! That will teach elected officials that they work for us!
If the RNC wants to back an established incumbent, that is one thing. But to declare who the pre-selected candidate should be before the primaries tells me they see me as nothing more than an ATM to provide them with money and vote, not my opinion.
I learned to think for myself, not just accept what someone else tells me is best for me. Because chances are, when someone tells you what is best for you, it is really what is best for them.
But if you are so ready to let someone else tell you what to do and who to vote for, I can send you a list.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTime to move on Jim. This sort of piling on looks petty and small.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Dan
I know what you mean about being lied too by people who try and tell you what's best for you. In this particular instance, people like you were telling me that Christine O'Donnell was an electable, true conservative. I now know that I was being lied to by people with an agenda beyond electing another Republican US senator. Same thing in Alaska, where people told me a man who collected more than 1 million dollars from the government in his lifetime was the true conservative.
Also, where do you get off telling me I was told who to vote for? I saw a chance to pick up a Senate seat in a State that under normal circumstances would rather leave the Union than elect a Republican Senator. I supported the candidate who could win. Do you want to imply O'Donnell could have won that race? Even with the extra million dollars that her sheeplike (I'll use your word) supporters won't get back?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait, O'Donnell spent $6.2 million and still got blown out? Money well spent, eh? Don't get me wrong -- I'm not shedding any tears over not having Mike Castle in the Senate. He would've been worse than Olympia Snowe in his backstabbing.
But to think that Christine O'Donnell was ever a serious candidate in such a blue state is an absolute pipe dream. Blame the media, the Republican establishment, or whoever else, all you want. But the simple fact is that O'Donnell was a terrible, fatally-flawed candidate. The best press in the world and a mistake-free campaign wasn't going to get her elected in a state like Delaware.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy point, Blackhawks, is that with the exception of an established incumbent, the national party should not be pre-selecting candidates prior to the primaries. (And even that isn't something I really support because you get the long time incumbents like Rangel who abuse the system.) They need to allow the voters to settle the issue of who will be our standard bearer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's be honest, if you are a member of a particular party, chances are you are going to do one of two things in the general election; vote for your party's candidate if you support them, or not vote. If you are a Republican, chances are you will not vote Democrat to send the Republicans a message because it isn't in your best interest to do so. Likewise with Democrats. In 2008 I held my nose while voting for John McCain.
My point is that our real chance to send a message to the national party is in the primaries. And for the national party to tell us who we should vote for in the primaries is nothing more than telling us to shut up and let them tell us what is best for us. If I wanted to do that, I would be a Democrat.
When I think about the Delaware U.S. Senate race of 2010, I have the following thoughts:
(1) Mike Castle probably would have won the general election if he had been the GOP nominee;
(2) After his election to the U.S. Senate, Mike Castle would have delighted in frustrating conservatives by co-sponsoring Democrat legislation so that the establishment media could call it "bi-partisan."
(3) Mike Castle did nothing during the primaries to assure conservatives that he would not engage in the behavior described in my point #2.
(4) Delaware elected Pete DuPont and William Roth in its recent history. Consequently, a Republican who is significantly to the right of Mike Castle can win a general election in Delaware.
(5) Delaware prides itself on having no sales & use tax and very low real estate taxes. It is a more conservative state than Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.
(6) Christine O'Donnell would have been a reliable conservative as a U.S. Senator.
(7) In a July 12-14, 2010 Rasmussen poll, Christine O'Donnell was ahead of Coons 41% to 39%. This was the only publicly available poll regarding a hypothetical match-up between O'Donnell and Coons that was available prior to the GOP primary.
Consequently, as of GOP primary day, I thought it was worth a shot to try to elect Christine O'Donnell.
The fact of the matter was that the GOP primary was Mike Castle's to lose, and he was so arrogant that he thought he could thumb his nose at conservatives and we would still support him.
After the primary, I was quite irritated with the anger leveled at Ms. O'Donnell by Karl Rove, and the National Republican Senate Committee. Further, I think Charles Krauthammer, Jay Cost and Jim Geraghty, among others, all got the 2010 Delaware senate race dangerously wrong. Ms. O'Donnell's 2010 campaign, which was already an up-hill battle, was fatally damaged by all of the attacks she took from conservatives.
Lastly, it is completely understandable that Ms. O'Donnell would keep $925,000 on hand after the election. No political figure was more reviled during the 2010 election cycle than her. (The establishment media went so far as to publish an anonymous article by a young man who falsely claimed he refused to have sex with a drunk Ms. O'Donnell several years ago because she doesn't shave her pubic hairs.) The campaign laws are so complex and are arbitrarily enforced against conservatives. (Please think about Tom Delay's and Kevin Ring's respective recent criminal convictions in November for campaign finance violations that aren't violations of the law.) Ms. O'Donnell could easily find herself being criminally prosecuted for some alleged campaign finance violation. A serious criminal defense against a determined federal prosecutor costs millions of Dollars. If I were in Ms. O'Donnell's shoes, I would have kept more than $925,000 on hand to defend myself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, this seems unnecessarily critical, and by that I mean it is missing context. The only substantive criticism I hear is that she could have done more with the funds than save them, but is that so? How much closer would the race have been?
Other than that, how are any of these practices different than those of countless other "politicians", which is truly a criticism of someone like Ms. O"Donnell whose entire campaign rested on "differentness".
I am you? Perhaps I am the Walrus could have won?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Dan Davis
I am totally for the RNC not selecting these candidates prior to the primary. This bit them in the butt in Florida as well and I'd imagine we will see less of that in the future. I totally understand where primary voters could feel slighted by the powerful political people in Washington.
That being said, what I cannot get behind, is supporting unelectable candidates with shoddy credentials just to prove a point.
Messages can be sent without risking seats. Dont donate to the RNC. Send angry letters! Back a better, more electable candidate!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Blackhawks
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish angry letters would get something accomplished. But what did all the townhalls on Obamacare get us? It got us no more townhalls except for the phone-based townhalls where elected officials could completely control the agenda and we still got Obamacare over our protestations.
And yeah, in the future, I only contribute money to an individual candidate.
But sometimes it needs to hurt a little for the message to get through. Maybe these slaps in the face of the NRC will still sting in 2012 and they will let the people speak first.
And in an effort to bury the hatchet, and show you there are no hard feelings, just let me say one thing:
LET'S GO BLUES! LOL
"(6) Christine O'Donnell would have been a reliable conservative as a U.S. Senator."
This is the part that I'm much less comfortable believing than O'Donnell's supporters were. What are you basing your prediction on? Her rhetoric or her past behavior? Her rhetoric indicated a strong conservative, but her behavior indicated a deeply erratic and irresponsible personality. It's asking for a great deal of faith to believe that her rhetoric will win the day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Dan Davis
I can forgive and forget your support for Christine O'Donnell. But a Blues fan! That is a bridge too far! I went to the Hawks-Blues game on Tuesday. 12 goals and 3 fights plus a Blackhawk victory...it was a good night!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's what we know: The whackjob knocked off Castle without too much effort. Castle did nothing to win the primary and was prepared to do less in the general.
Why would anyone think Castle would have won the general? There's simply no evidence to show he would have been successful. Sure, early polls showed him winning, but those same polls had him beating O'Donnell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZman, you do realize that Castle had won something like 13 consecutive statewide elections, right? Eight consecutive victories to congress? That right there is a ton of evidence that he would win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about using that extra cash to pay the staffers from her previous campaigns what they were owed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse