Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Kerry v. O’Reilley

By

With all of the talk on BMG about Senator Kerry and his challenger, Mr. O’Reilly, I became curious about the money aspects of this campaign.

The FEC summary reports as of June 30 are here.

The Kerry report is here

The O’Reilly report is here.

The huge financial disparity is not surprising.  The big surprise was how much of Mr. O’Reilly’s campaign cash is from candidate loans, and how little is from individual contributions.  What’s up with that?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Individual Contribution to Total Receipt Ratio:

    <

    p>Kerry: 13.04%

    <

    p>O’Reilly: 13.86%

    <

    p>So O’Reilly is receiving relatively more from individual contributions than Kerry.  

    • $583,422

      <

      p>At first I thought it was five hundred and eighty-three.  Then I saw the comma!  That’s five hundred eighty-three THOUSAND, four hundred twenty-two!!

      <

      p>Where the f*ck did that loan come from and how will he pay it back? Is this loan from his house or business?

      <

      p>WOW!

      <

      p>(I’m still comparing both charts but that struck me as a huge difference!)

    • When no one actually donates money to your campaign but you loan yourself $500,000, chances are that you’re gonna come out on top of Individual Contribution to Total Receipt Ratio.

      <

      p>And wow, Z, where did you pull those percentages from? I mean, I’m a political dork but I don’t sit at home and break down numbers like that. Are those percentages provided by the FEC?  

      • …as an “individual contribution”?  It seems to me if you want a true picture of individual support you only count those contributions subject to the $2300 limit.  I would put self-contributions, which are not limited, into a different category.

        • The FEC reports do make that distinction in Form 3, Report of Receipts and Disbursements:

          <

          p>Contributions from individuals: line 11(a)
          Contributions from the candidate: line 11(d)

          <

          p>Loans made/guaranteed by the candidate: line 13(a)

          • I figured the FEC probably separated them.  It just seemed like some of the commenters on this thread were conflating the two when comparing the candidates.

    • He received a total of $678,112

      <

      p>And received
      Individual Contributions: $94,014
      Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Committees: $175

      <

      p>He made a loan to himself of $583,422

      <

      p>He’s paid out (or disbursed: $462,967

      <

      p>And he’s repaid himself $216,000

      <

      p>An he started out with zero–and the 215,145 reflects the cash left to him which is 100,000 less than the amount of the debt he owes! (See chart below)

      <

      p>Beginning Cash: $0
      Latest Cash On Hand: $215,145
      Debts Owed By: $367,422

      <

      p>So by that standard, and my understanding of the math, it means that ALL the donations will be used to pay back the loan to himself–(the bank).  And he’s still got 100,000 in debt.

      <

      p>With that kind of balancing of a budget, it looks like he will only inflate our US gov’t debt.  That’s wild and crazy spending!

      • your post would have been more effective if you didn’t attach a moral judgement at the end (aka you’re trying too hard and it’s obvious). Skip the last two sentences and it may have been an interesting, meaningful discussion that got your point across.  

        • Well, even I can do basic budgetting like that.  So there’s nothing moral implied.

          <

          p>You did that on your own.

          <

          p>The fact is that after the loans and donations, he still owes 100,000.  I’ve heard it said about others that if they can’t balance their budget, then should they be spending our tax dollars?

          <

          p>It’s actually a valid point.  

          <

          p>This is what Bush has done.  He overspent the budget.  He made loans against our children’s future.  

          <

          p>We’re in debt up to our ying-yang.  The last thing I want is ANY candidate who can’t balance their budget, who over spends, then writing checks with my tax dollars.  

          <

          p>NOW, I have specifically made a moral judgment. My money–not his to fritter away!  

          • That’s wild and crazy spending!

            <

            p>That’s moral judgement.

            <

            p>

            I’ve heard it said about others that if they can’t balance their budget, then should they be spending our tax dollars?

            <

            p>That’s a moral judgement… and a cheap shot. It also completely ignores the fact that a great many candidates for US Senate spend far more than $100,000 of their own money. Just look what Gabrieli spent on his campaign for Governor!

            <

            p>Also, you’ve “heard it said.” By who? I know plenty of candidates who invested a great deal of their personal resources for their campaign, instead of spending all their personal time fundraising, and they a) had huge grassroot support and b) were extremely fiscally responsible, far more so than the average candidate.

            <

            p>

            It’s actually a valid point.  

            <

            p>According to you, but you’re not exactly an unbiased source, no? I obviously didn’t find it an incredibly valid point – in fact, I called it an unsubstantiated cheap shot.

            <

            p>

            This is what Bush has done.  He overspent the budget.  He made loans against our children’s future.

             

            <

            p>Huh? Surely you can make me try harder than this. What the heck does George W. Bush have to do with EOR investing his own money into his campaign? Bush, by the way, did not self finance his own elections – he was a money raising machine. His campaigns also had a balanced checkbook. But feel free to poke wholes into your own arguments for me.

            <

            p>I wish you’d take my criticism constructively. If you’re going to be here posting in favor of Kerry, you need to strengthen your arguments, leave the hyperbole and cheap shots behind, just focusing on the facts. Focusing on EOR spending $100,000 of his own money in this campaign is the fakest issue ever and, given Kerry’s resources and the personal money he’s spent on his own campaigns, you really have no legs to stand by. If Kerry didn’t invest his own money into his POTUS bid, he wouldn’t have made it through the Dem Primary (or did you forget that he mortgaged his house back then to finance his campaign?). None of what kerry did was a bad thing, neither is EOR investing his own resources. It’s a normal, expected thing of anyone with personal resources running for US Senate.  

            • I think we’re all basically saying the same thing. I believe it was Z’s post which suggested that Ed was getting more per supporter than Kerry, a claim which is obviously incredibly flawed because of the small number of O’Reilly donors and the $500,000 Ed loaned his campain.

              <

              p>So basically, I think we all agree that (1) who cares if O’Reilly wants to spend every cent he has on the race, (2) but let’s not pretend that Ed has really made more per donor than Kerry, (3) Bush is a dbag.  

    • transfered from one account to the other as not being from individual contributions.

      <

      p>O’Reilly’s campaign seems mostly self funded. Kerry’s in fact isn’t.  

  2. I’m “just wondering.” Under 20% of Ed’s money is coming from grassroots.

    <

    p>I have pretty bad math panic but it seems awfully bad for a challenger.

    <

    p>Am I reading this right or is there a reason for this?

    • Here’s what it means: it means he’s paying for his own campaign. Honestly, it’s not that uncommon – and shouldn’t be confused with a lack of grassroots support. If you knew the work it takes to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, you’d want to cry. Candidates are making phone calls explicitly to raise money for hours and hours every single night of the week, just to keep the campaign affloat. I don’t hold it against a candidate who’d rather be able to attend local town committee meetings or meet small activist groups, rather than wasting away his time on the phone, if he has the money to do that. There’s nothing wrong with it.

      <

      p>Note: I am not making an endorsement in this campaign and haven’t officially supported either candidate. I’m just commenting on your critiques.  

      • So I politely asked for a simple explanation and you attack me?  

        <

        p>Here’s what I was thinking:

        <

        p>It just sounded a lot like McCain’s economic plan and brought that logic over here.  In fact it sort of sounds like a slogan–borrow and spend.

        <

        p>I thought it was a valid point–particularly since somehow someone posted a 13% above?  Things are not =.  

        <

        p>Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t attack me again for asking for a clarification.

        <

        p>

        • don’t spin this on me. You’ve had multiple posts on the same topic, all of which look like subtly different cheap shots. I just think this is silly, or very, very naive. Candidates “lend” money to their campaigns all the time. Quite frequently – and in this case – I would suspect EOR doesn’t have the intentions of getting it all back. Some, yes, but not all. I’m sure Kerry’s invested a lot of his own money into his campaigns in the past too – likely far more than a few hundred thousand dollars. It’s not out of the ordinary and, honestly, I don’t think it should be condemned – especially if they’re using the time they would be fundraising on immersing themselves with the electorate.  

          • Policy

            <

            p>The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.  Robust debate is an important means to that end.  We welcome bold,  constructive observations.  To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner.  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

            • The sole purpose of BMG is to further enhance the standing of the democratic party. Several times I have pointed out the emperor’s lack of trousers and been attacked for what you call personal attacks. I’ll probably be banned for this. Way to profess open-mindedness. At least RMG listens when I point out their errors.

            • I’ve offered constructive criticism on your posts and you choose to view it as something that offends you. Disagreeing with you does not equate to violating rules on this site, nor even being disrespectful.

              <

              p>I disagree with you and I wish you’d post more effectively for your candidate, because I think these sorts of ‘ra ra Kerry/boo that ebil EOR’ (vice versa) comments and diaries just hurt the candidate you support on these threads. And, honestly, I’d like to see solidly written posts because, quite frankly, I haven’t made my mind up yet.

              <

              p>As I’ve stated numerous times, I have no horse in this race. I don’t support EOR, I just think the line of arguments you’ve used against him in this thread and others have been unfair and, quite frankly, hypocritical. I’ve honestly never seen an argument weaker than condemning a candidate for spending $100,000 of his own money to run for US Senate, especially when John Kerry has spent millions over the years and will far outspend Ed O’Reilly.

              <

              p>Furthermore, I find the fact that you’d make assertions without backing them up (“I’ve heard it said” type arguments) to be counterproductive to this site, certainly not in spirit of the political discourse typically on this site. Not to mention, since you like to quote the rules of the road, are a violation of site-policy.

              <

              p>

              and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse… and are not permitted.

              <

              p>If you’re interested in having a spirited political debate, I’m more than willing, but if you consider my constructive criticisms on this site personal attacks made against you (they’re not), that’s not exactly a way to foster a good conversation. In the blogosphere, you need a thick skin. Regardless of our situation, I hope you do heed some of the advice I’ve given you on how to construct solid arguments and points on blogs. Stick to the facts and avoid hypocritical arguments or perceived cheap shots. If you do that, your posts will be more effective and you’ll do John Kerry a much better service on this site.

              • Then you further with your attack by complaining about the number of posts I made and the words I chose.

                <

                p>If you chose to not see this as a personal attack just like I chose to not see “wild spending” as a moral judgement, then so be it.

                <

                p>BTW…I had been an undecided/leaning Kerry voter who was trying to understand the numbers.

                <

                p>Now, I get it.  And having seen more information at Kos about the EOR campaign and his lack of resume, I’m more and more inclined to come out for Kerry, period.

                <

                p>The numbers in this thread make me further inclined to do so–not to mention the sarcasm and personal attacks.

                • I’m watching it closely.  So far I’ve seen more comments that make me throw my hat in Kerry’s ring completely.

              • to stand on, that’s ok with you?

                <

                p>What makes you think that he will do anything for the people of MA?

                <

                p>Will he have the skills needed to govern?  He has no experience.  In fact, I read at Kos that he couldn’t even keep his one year commission on the school board promise without breaking it.

                <

                p>I understand that the issue burns for you, but there’s more to the Senate than just that.  And so far, EOR hasn’t proven any skills and hasn’t released his resume to show he can govern!

                • just say it.

                  <

                  p>”John Kerry’s stance on marriage equality/ equal rights sucks”  Just say it.  Then I can have respect for you and your opinion.

                  <

                  p>However, what I will not tolerate is somehow that I am the issue here and that John Kerry should get some sort of pass or what’s worse that John Kerry’s lack of understanding of what “equality” is is somehow shrouded from view by people like you.  

                • I also add that Kerry’s position on many many other issues and his skills in the Senate and even his diplomacy around the world makes me learn towards him, instead of jumping into EOR’s court.

                  <

                  p>I encourage JK to endorse endorse gay marraige.  I encourage every single Senator and Representative across this nation to do so as well.

                  <

                  p>I find discrimination and hate-speech very vile–no matter the race, gender, sexual preference, or age.  

                  <

                  p>You of course don’t know me, but I have defended gays to a fairly ‘rabid’ anti-gay segment…my ‘church-going in-laws’.  I have taken a stand in real life.

                  <

                  p>But I’ll be damned before I become a one issue voter like my in-laws!  

                  <

                  p>Furthermore, I’ll repeat to you what I said in a previous thread…

                  <

                  p>I’m terribly sorry about what people have done to gay people in the “Bible’s name”.  I think it’s wrong.  It makes me sick to my stomach to see what my in laws have said.  But it makes me sicker to know the hate actions that have done even more harm.

                  <

                  p>I hope someday you and your significant other will be more than a significant other.  I hope you will be able to reach over and say, “My spouse…”

                  <

                  p>But I want more than just JK to do allow gay marriage.  I want the courts to rule it legal across the country.

                  <

                  p>Good luck, Alexander.

                  <

                  p>Namaste.

            • Just wondering. ‘Cause if it is, you need to come up with another name for what progressives used to be.  

      • … I can tell you that Ed refused to do the money calls that every political campaign advisor says are a daily necessity. We had lots of talks about this. Ed simply said no, he wasn’t going to spend his time asking for money. He was going to spend it asking for votes. He wasn’t going to become indebted to some big contributors. He would finance his own campaign. After enough go-rounds on this, I let it go and just filed the FEC reports with the data that is now available to all of you.

        <

        p>BTW, Z’s statement about Individual Contribution to Total Receipt Ratio is correct and significant.

      • grassroots, and lots of it, if you have NETROOTS support.  Ed figured he could do that, which is why he attended YearlyKos in Chicago in 2007 (I was there, and although I didn’t run into him, I saw his pamphlets, and talked to others who did speak with him).  Problem was, he was turned down by nearly everyone, and the big guns like Markos and FDL and other national progressive blogs, that have been willing and able to help progressive primary candidates across the country, took a pass on Ed O’Reilly.  Why?  Because John Kerry is already one of the favorite Democrats in the netroots; in fact, he is probably the top netroots Senator along with Russ Feingold.  He is a “better Democrat”, and we’re lucky to have him.  

        <

        p>Don’t believe me?  Go to Act Blue, and look Mass. up.

        <

        p>http://www.actblue.com/directo…

        <

        p>John Kerry:  768 donors, over $300K
        Ed O’Reilly:  298 donors, under $20K, mostly from revenge seekers mad at Kerry for endorsing Obama

        <

        p>Wow.  His top fundraisers are the PUMA groups.  Just wow.  That is pathetic.  Anti-Obama deadenders for Ed O’Reilly (#1 fundraiser refers to Obama in one of her posts as a “fascist”).  

        • ratings system again.  I give links and good info and get downrated to “worthless”.  Too bad Paul doesn’t understand the rules on BMG, and breaks them with abandon.  

          • of what she added at the end.

            <

            p>

            Wow.  His top fundraisers are the PUMA groups.  Just wow.  That is pathetic.  Anti-Obama deadenders for Ed O’Reilly (#1 fundraiser refers to Obama in one of her posts as a “fascist”).

            <

            p>Ryan said it best when he responded to another Kerry supporter’s….let’s call it “over zealousness” –

            honestly your post would have been more effective if you didn’t attach a moral judgement at the end (aka you’re trying too hard and it’s obvious). Skip the last two sentences and it may have been an interesting, meaningful discussion that got your point across.”

            <

            p>Stop with the ridiculous hyperbole.  

            • Sorry if you can’t handle it.

              <

              p>#1 donor at ActBlue to Ed O’Reilly (29 donors totaling $913):

              <

              p>http://www.actblue.com/entity/…

              <

              p>

              Keep the Democratic Party democratic

              by Heidi Li’s Potpourri

              <

              p>http://www.actblue.com/page/re…

              <

              p>Heidi’s blog (I have deadened the link, as she clearly is opposed to Obama):

              <

              p>heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/

              <

              p>(insert http:// to get to blog)

              <

              p>Post from August 11th (again I have deadened the link.  Add http://)

              <

              p>heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-plain-silly-except-of-course-that.html

              <

              p>

              This is consistent with Senator Obama’s approach to openness. He rents a football stadium but will not call for a genuine roll call vote with Senator Clinton’s name in nomination. He will text message anybody with a cell phone but he will not make himself available to reporters.

              These are not democratic methods. They more closely resemble the techniques historically used by fascists determined to control and manipulate public opinion while at the same time ralllying public support or insisting on shows of them.

              <

              p>Sorry, I had to include the above vile passage, but since I am being attacked for “hyperbole” when I spoke the truth, I had to include it.

              • Of course it was.  O’Reilly has raised $94K from individual contributions.  You found 1 donor out of all of those and you made this ridiculous blanket statement:

                <

                p>

                That is pathetic.  Anti-Obama deadenders for Ed O’Reilly

                <

                p>Seriously, leave the hyperbole at home.  You could’ve made a point up there, but instead it’s degraded by those type of blanket statements that you’re making.

                • I have just proved it, and it is NOT hyperbole, when I have proved it beyond a doubt.  Follow my links.  Not one donor, but 29.  And the 2nd place Act Blue donor group is ALSO PUMA, Hillary Clinton Forum (which absolutely does NOT represent the views of Hillary Clinton):

                  <

                  p>http://www.actblue.com/page/hi…

                  <

                  p>That’s another 18 donors.

                  <

                  p>So 47 small donors to Ed O’Reilly on Act Blue are PUMA donations.  That’s from the Act Blue page alone.  That is indisputable.  And stop characterizing everything in terms of “style”; the information I have provided is incontrovertible.

            • Those last two sentences must be so offensive to you and to Ry because they really state the unequivocal truth.  After being proceeded by pure facts.  

          • as a “delete” because you are breaking the rules right there.  Since you like to discuss the rules, lets then.  Here’s one for you.

            <

            p>

            and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse… and are not permitted.

            <

            p>Ah yes, blanket statements (not to mention attacks on character) such as this:

            <

            p>

            Too bad Paul doesn’t understand the rules on BMG, and breaks them with abandon.

            <

            p>are completely against the rules.

            <

            p>Here’s yet another blanket statement that you made:

            <

            p>

            That is pathetic.  Anti-Obama deadenders for Ed O’Reilly

            <

            p>So what was that you were saying about the rules again?  

            • on no evidence (sorry, but writing diaries about Kerry is not a crime, last time I looked), when it is clear that I am an independent blogger, you are breaking the spirit of the rules here.  You do it on purpose, and frankly, I am not taking your crap anymore.  You don’t run this place, and you have NO RIGHT to question my integrity based on zero evidence.

            • and she never answered.  I’m curious as well.  A simple yes or no will suffice.

            • Troll rated for breaking BMG rules.

              <

              p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…

              <

              p>

              Policy

              The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.  Robust debate is an important means to that end.  We welcome bold,  constructive observations.  To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner.  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

              <

              p>The point of your question is to vilify me simply for being a Kerry supporter.  Not only does that cheapen the discussion, but it is strictly against BMG rules.

              • And it’s not unsupported.  There is lots of evidence that leads to a logical conclusion that many would take, then yes it’s acceptable to ask.  If you’re not affiliated with the campaign, just say so.

                <

                p>But when people come onto BMG to post about a single candidate and when every single one of their posts is about promoting John Kerry….well, people can make up their own minds about that.  

                • I’m sure you can see why people would have just questions.  Thanks for answering.

                • Furthermore, there is no crime in a person chosing to post about whatever the subject is that they prefer.

                  <

                  p>I don’t like sports, I’m not on the olympics thread.  I like a variety of subjects so I post on them.  Some days, I just feel like shit so I don’t post but lurk.  Otherdays, I feel like posting so I do.

                  <

                  p>So who the f*** cares if Beachmom likes Kerry or posts about other topics.  She likes what she likes and it’s not up to you to be the blog police and censure WHAT she says as well as HOW MANY times she says it.

                  <

                  p>Like it or not…from my observations, Beachmom knows a hell of a lot IN SUPPORT of JK.  

                  <

                  p>So far, I haven’t seen dipsquat reasons to support EOR–other than the fact that some people don’t like JK or his gay-marraige stance.

                • I asked the question in a previous diary (along with other people doing the same) and we never got an answer.  

                  <

                  p>

                  The horse is dead, Paul and yet you’re still beating it?

                  <

                  p>I asked if there was an affiliation with the Kerry campaign.  Beachmom finally stated no and I thanked her for responding.  How is that beating a dead horse?  Seriously, calm down there.

                  <

                  p>As to:

                  <

                  p>

                  So far, I haven’t seen dipsquat reasons to support EOR–other than the fact that some people don’t like JK or his gay-marraige stance.

                  <

                  p>Well most people can’t really make up their mind yet since John Kerry is stonewalling having a debate.

  3. If I was O’Reilly, I would demand a debate.  It would be good publicity for O’Reilly, if nothing else. For a candidate with modest fund raising success and low name recognition, it would be a boon. It could only help him.

    <

    p>Tactically, Kerry will not agree to a debate unless it is to his advantage (not) or if forced to (by the media?).  Otherwise, highly unlikely.  It can’t help him.

    <

    p>  

  4. Above is the perfect example for why people should just hand out sixes and zeros. Zeroes should be rare. They should be restricted to personal attacks that use personal information, to deliberate bigotry, and to serious trolling. Debates about threes and fours, and handing out threes and fours only serve to piss people off. At that, they have succeeded marvelously above.

    <

    p>If you want to express disagreement, type some words.

    This is a disagreement, after all, between people with extremely similar views on Iraq, marriage equality, tax policy, the role of government, global warming, health care, and Massachusetts politics.

Archives