Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Pete Ashdown

Jeff left this on a previous post: "if people continue to worship Pete’s campaign with words, and not dollars, then how can we, the people who actually understand and support his issues expect Pete to poll out of the lower teens?" The truth hurts. Everyone, let's unburden our consciences and donate some money. It doesn't have to be a lot.

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a good and a bad way to fundraise. Anyone who has worked on a campaign can name a dozen ways to bring in money. But what is Ashdown's campaign doing to raise money? They can't possible depend on people getting online and making $20 donations. From what I have heard, they are not doing any other significant fundraising efforts except a few fundraising dinners. To make an actual effort in this campaign, his war chest needed to be substantial by now. It is almost too late to begin. He may have the issues and the message but without funds, there is no way to communicate that message to the public at large. I am afraid this is now looking like a lost cause. Big donors that have not donated yet, are looking to see who is in the front running. With no money and a very small campaign team, Ashdown looks unorganized and not supported. No one wants to give money to a lost cause. Does anyone know if the National Democratic Party is going to help Ashdown in any significant way like the DCCC helps Matheson?
ALB

12/13/2005 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger pramahaphil said...

Exactly, I would donate the hundreds of thousands of dollars that he needs if I had more than 10 dollars of discretionary income.

My biggest hope is that the DNC, or related PAC's would jump on board and lend hefty monetary support to rid the Senate of Hatch. I don't think there is enough Dem. money in this state to help.

I can give the $1 a month I earn off my blog.

12/13/2005 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Ethan said...

You earn 1$ per month? That's more than I do. Good job.

12/13/2005 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous John said...

Dammit! Give Pete the money! This isn't well you didn't ask me the right way..."#%!!!. It is OUR responsibility to give up the money. OURS! If we really want a decent and capable guy like Ashdown in than it is our responsibility to help.

No excuses Utahns, our voice needs our help.

12/13/2005 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger Ethan said...

Well said, John.

12/13/2005 05:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John- That is a little idealistic. It just doesn't work that way. If we only get a ~50% voter turnout of registered voters (not eligible voters) than how in the world do you convince people to give up money to a political campaign. People in Utah won't even go out to eat for over $8 bucks much less donate to a political campaign as an individual. Campaigns are not won financially on a grassroots, individual basis.
ALB

12/13/2005 05:18:00 PM  
Anonymous John said...

Realistic? This is David and Golith! I'm sending my check tomorrow! It is how it works!

12/13/2005 08:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both of you can be right; you're not exactly arguing with each other here. The people who constantly tout Ashdown on the Web would be well-served to donate money and time to his campaign, which he would probably appreciate. Every little bit helps, and if one truly believes Ashdown should be Utah's senator, he/she has a responsibility to do more in order to make that a reality. With that, however, comes Ashdown's role in generating more funds. He needs to ask more than just the little guy for help and obviously needs to become more aggressive in fund-raising. The burden for raising money falls on both the campaign and its supporters, who are willing to open their mouths but not their wallets.

12/13/2005 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The DNC can't give a bunch of money to Pete. It's against the law. The State Party can't give a bunch of money to pete, it's against the law. ONLY PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION UP TO 2000.00 or PAC Contributions up to 5000.00 can be given.

Nowm the DSCC can choose to spend money here on their own anto-hatch agenda, but, they won't. The DCCC and the DSCC are not in anyway managed by the DNC nor do they take guidance from the Utah State party.

Seriously, there is no way, under FEC law that some willing millionaire is going to swoop in and give Pete a lot of money. It's against the law.

I've given what I can, have you?

12/13/2005 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger pramahaphil said...

I may be exagerating a little, so far its more like 50 cents. GOOGLE ADSENSE!! Woo Hooo.

I guess the best help small incomes (like the majority of those involved here) can do is to give of our time and help on a local level. I need to get helping.

12/13/2005 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger Pete Ashdown said...

Thank you all for your support and consideration of our fund raising. I continue to make calls to past party donors, but December is a miserable time for politics. There are some things in the queue for January which I hope will make a difference.

The FEC limits are a hurdle for us, but in some ways its a bonus. During 2004, I had some local candidates ask me for upwards of $30,000. If they'd asked me for $2100, I would have been more likely to say "Yes." $2100 is the maximum that any individual can give a federal candidate.

I also gave Google Adsense a shot early on in the campaign. Not enough clicks to stay active. Maybe that will change as we get closer to the election and it will be worth a try again.

12/14/2005 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the campaign laws change that drastically that no political party can contribute to its candidates' campaigns? I know that in 2002 the County Republican Party was giving money to all the Republican candidates. Even those who had no chance of winning because of the demographics. Is that impossible now? That seems bizarre to me, but maybe someone knows more about this than I do.

12/14/2005 12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the campaign laws change that drastically that no political party can contribute to its candidates' campaigns? I know that in 2002 the County Republican Party was giving money to all the Republican candidates. Even those who had no chance of winning because of the demographics. Is that impossible now? That seems bizarre to me, but maybe someone knows more about this than I do.

12/14/2005 12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous brett said...

Anonymous post seems to confuse Federal election limits with county laws. Federal laws are MUCH stricter: see http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#How_much_can_I_contribute for the Federal contribution limits. County parties did not give to Federal candidates because they (at least in 2004) did not have Federal accounts that are free of soft money. Only the state parties' federal accounts gave to candidates. This article details what a national party committee can do: http://www.campaignfinanceguide.org/guide-108.html
So to answer your question, laws did change drastically after the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka McCain-Feingold).

12/14/2005 04:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AKA - The incumbant protection act

12/14/2005 05:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Ed said...

Well I've been touting him on my blog from the day he announced, and I finally put my money where my mouth is and coughed up $50. And even though I (thus far) refuse to join the Dem Party (too stubborn to give up my non-affiliated status) I will donate some time too.

And I also had to 86 the Google Adsense. I never made a dime, even though I made my kids click through everyday.

12/15/2005 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger pramahaphil said...

Good job, Ed.

12/15/2005 10:39:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home