ndert2
Follow us on Facebook

Latest Comments

ND Outdoors Sites

FishingBuddy
NoDakOutdoors

Featured Link

Meanwhile

Login Form



Support NorthDecoder

Search This Site

Loading

Amazon Search Widget

Feature Stories

Personal
The Low Road

Amazon Search

JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
Friday Thought Exercise: The AP Scandal
Written by Chet   

AJHere's a thought exercise for the hypothetical reasonable, rational and intelligent conservative Republicans out there.  (Most North Dakota Republicans can sit this one out.)

Imagine someone in the federal government is leaking sensitive, classified information to a journalist. Because of the leak, respected, non-partisan, government officials and their family members' safety and security are being jeopardized. These people and their family members could be killed.  Imagine that the journalist is knowingly receiving sensitive, classified information, and that the release of that information could put peoples' lives on the line. 

Now... Imagine it's a felony -- possibly the constitutional crime of treason -- for someone to leak this classified information to anybody, including a member of the media. Imagine that when a crime like this happens, we expect our government to investigate it and bring to justice anybody who has commited such crimes, and any co-conspirators.

Imagine that everybody acknowledges the the government tries to investigate the leak but comes up with nothing. So they seek subpoenas to get phone records so they can start to figure out from whom the press is getting the classified, secret, sensitive information.

Now, imagine that the leaks were all going to a journalist with Al Jazeera, and not the Associated Press.

On a 1 to 10 scale, how outraged are you about what the government was done?  By comparison, how outraged are/were you about illegal leaks to the Associated Press?  Should it matter to whom the classified information is illegally being leaked? 

Should Eric Holder resign or be fired?  

Discuss.

 
John Hoeven: Letterman's "Stooge of the Night"
Written by Chet   

North Dakota's oil company lapdog in the United States Senate, John Hoeven, made North Dakota proud last week on David Letterman's show.  Here's a clip, in case you missed it.

Those of you on our Facebook page knew about this last week almost in real time, but I thought I should share it with the rest of y'all.

Congratulations, John. Keep helping North Dakota's radical Republicans make our state look like a bunch of unsophisticated, back-woods hayseeds.

 
The IRS Tea Party "Scandal"
Written by Chet   

patriotsBy now you've likely heard reports that some staff in a regional Ohio office of the IRS were targetting groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their name as those groups sought tax exempt status. I have a few general thoughts about this.  Here's my rant:

First, I listened to right-winger Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show this morning expressing his outrage over the fact that this appears to be an attack by Democrats against "the other side."  When I heard that I started to wonder if I'm the only person who can remember past last week.

Back when the Tea Party was becoming the astro-turf movement it became, I personally joined the chorus of Americans who insisted it was a transparent attempt by the Republican Party to expand its base.  "No, no, no," we were assured.  "The Tea Party is made up of disaffected Democrats, independents, people who've never been political a day in their life, libertarians, Republicans." (See, e.g., Michele Bachmann, founding chair of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, in the Huffington Post). This spin came from Tea Party activists nationally, and locally. Some were paid shills; others were partisan politicians. I heard it from a Teabagging organizer here in Bismarck. I got it from one of the teabagger organizers in Grand Forks. "The Tea Party is non-partisan," I was told by some of the movements mouth-breathing North Dakota leaders.

But now -- today -- Republicans and Tea Baggers (but I'm repeating myself) want it both ways. "The Tea Party is a Republican organization and Obama's IRS went after it unfairly," they blather.  It's nonsense.

Anybody who remembers past last week -- apparently only me -- remembers how vehemently they protested just a couple years ago when anybody dared to call the Tea Party a Republican Party organization.  

If the IRS targetted organizations with the phrase "tea party" in the name and if the "tea party" is non-partisan, besides their methodology being seriously flawed, what's the big deal?

Teabaggers and Republicans (but I repeat myself) can't have it both ways.

Secondly, in the past few years -- and especially since the Citizens United case was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court -- lots of Americans have questioned the legitimacy of non-profit, allegedly non-partisan special interest groups on both sides of the aisle. Lots of people think those organizations should have their non-profit status more aggressively scrutinized both when that status is obtained, and subsequent to certification.  

When these organizations fill out their 990 tax returns, they are asked to certify that they don't do any lobbying, or to disclose how much they do (because there are limits to what they can do). Many -- like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- lie on their tax returns, with no consequences from the IRS.  This is what's really troublesome about IRS enforcement methods.  There seem to be no consequences for these partisan astro-turf groups that break the law or rules.

Keep in mind, one of the things the IRS is tasked with doing is ensuring organizations that engage in certain types of political activity must not get classified in certain ways for tax purposes.  So today the IRS is being criticized for trying to do its job.  I totally agree that by targetting groups with certain words or phrases in their names, they're doing a horrible job of doing their job, but it's still a part of the job they've been assigned. Criticize them for being bad at part of what they're supposed to do, but don't attack them as being partisan.

America is full or fake grassroots organizations set up for the primary purpose of lobbying the government or swaying the outcomes of elections, and they're getting away with doing it under the banner of an IRS issued tax-exempt status certifications. ALEC is one such group. The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is another. Both of these organizations are funded by the Koch Brothers Crime Family and are set up for the purpose of lobbying government and/or distributing partisan political propoganda to manipulate election and legislative outcomes. They have no business getting tax exempt status the way they do.  I, for one, think it would be a great idea if the IRS started scrutinizing all of these fake grassroots non-partisan, non-profit organizations, regardless of their political leaning. But if you look at Tea Party groups, specifically, some of the main ones have earned -- through hard work -- the attention of the IRS.  They should lose their tax exempt status.

Thirdly, who decided every organization that has the word "patriot" in its name is a right wing group?  Do some organizations with the word "patriot" in the name lean to the right?  Sure.  But all of them?  Doubt it.

I arbitrarily pulled up a listing of such organizations on Guidestar.org, and the first 10 listed include:

  • Patriot Volunteer Fire Department 
  • Patriot Indiana Main Street Inc
  • Children of Fallen Patriots Foundation
  • Patriot Foundation
  • Carolina Patriot Rovers Inc
  • United American Patriots Inc
  • New England Patriots Charitable Foundation Inc
  • Pets for Patriots Inc
  • Illinois Patriot Education Fund
  • American Patriot Foundation Inc

Anybody want to guess how many of those are right-wing, partisan groups?  

One.  

So if you are an Obama administration IRS field office administrator and your goal is to target right wing, Republican organizations and you plan to do so by going after non-profits with the word "patriot" in their name, the only thing you're good at is being an idiot.  Are you corrupt? Not necessarily. Are you stupid and/or incompetent in at least one relatively minor component of your job? Yep.

Did the IRS screw up? Sure. Is this story worthy of all the calls for impeachment from the right-wing fringe?  Um, no.  Is this story worthy of all the press its getting right now.  Not a chance.  Are there more important stories?  Yes.

 
"Want To Schedule A Meeting With Congressman Cramer? Let Me Put You Through To His Campaign Fundraiser."
Written by Chet   

Cramer I was intrigued when I read, a couple weeks ago, that North Dakota's only congressman, Kevin Cramer (R), has hired his wife as his in-state scheduler.  She is allegedly doing the official staff work "pro bono."   (See Legistorm).  I thought this was interesting because, at the same time, Cramer's wife is apparently being paid about $1,500 per month by Cramer's partisan political campaign. (FEC report) The question I'm trying to sort out is this:  Is this a violation of Congressional nepotism rules?

I'm not asking because I'm sure it is a violation of the rules.  In fact, the opposite is true. I'm not sure it is. But should it be a violation of ethics rules?

For discussion's sake, let's say one of Cramer's wife's campaign job functions relates to fundraising.  Let's say you want to schedule a meeting with the Congressman in North Dakota.  So you call his official office and get a receptionist.   The receptionist says, "Oh, you want to schedule a meeting with Kevin? Let me put you through to his in-state scheduler, sole campaign employee and fundraiser, the Congressman's wife, Kris. Please hold."

Where does that put you, the constituent? At best it looks a little unethical. At worst it would look like a potentially horrible case of "pay to play" politics.

But this wouldn't be Cramer's first ethics rodeo.  Remember, this is the same guy who took campaign contributions from the industry he was tasked with regulating when he was on the North Dakota Public Service Commission. Remember that?

Cramer didn't seem to care at all about ethics when he was on the PCS.  Why would anybody expect Cramer to be any different as a member of Congress?

If we had any real journalists in North Dakota, they'd dig into this to figure out how bad this is.  But I'm certainly not going to hold my breath until that happens.

 
How Awful Is It To Work For Kevin Cramer?
Written by Chet   

IMG_1077Lesson Number One for political public relations professionals is that if you have bad news, release it on Friday afternoon, after it's too late for the press to do anything with it.  By monday, the morons in the media will have either missed it in the Friday afternoon bad-news dump, or they will not have recognized the significance.  Here's one that's been missed by North Dakota's crack squad of investigative local news losers: North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer is losing staff left and right. He issued a positive-sounding press release late on Friday of last week. His announcement was that he had lost key Washington D.C. staff. But he didn't put it that way.

I've known about Cramer's Chief of Staff -- Kimberly Badenhop -- and her rush for the exit door for about a month and a half now. The day after the election Cramer announced Badenhop would be "his transition director [ ] and then [ ] his chief of staff."  (Source)  She started as his Chief of Staff in early January and had already decided she needed to leave about two months later, by early March.  If you include her time as transition director, Badenhop worked for Cramer for about 3.5 months, total before making a break for it. She suffered through barely two months as his Chief of Staff, and had to get out of there.  Either way, that looks horrible for Cramer. How bad must it be that your Chief of Staff -- the best paid person on your staff -- can't stand working for you for four months?

Well it's actually worse than that. Cramer didn't just lose his Chief of Staff; he also lost his Communications Director. His Communications Director -- Tommy McKone -- started in January but has also found it necessary to leave. Cramer announced late Friday that he's moving a staff "Legislative Correspondent" named "Matt Becker" into the Communications Director position from which McKone had escaped.

You have to ask yourself how terrible it must be to work for Cramer. It's supposed to be a bit of an honor to get congressional staff jobs in Washington, D.C.  I know people who have applied for those jobs and dreamed they might get them. They can be great stepping stones to other interesting work in Washington and around the world. People who take these jobs don't often race for the door after two or three short months.

If you were a skilled journalist in Bismarck or in Washington, when you got that press release last Friday, wouldn't you have been a little curious as to why Cramer is losing his staff so quickly? Shouldn't someone be asking questions?

There must be a reason why Cramer is bleeding off staff left and right.

I've been told Kevin Cramer is an awful person to work for.  Maybe the recent shuffling of staff is just one more sign that this is true.

Perhaps not.

 
Will F-Bomb Lead To Shortest Career In TV Ever?
Written by Chet   

This weekend Bismarck's KFYR-TV got to introduce a new weekend co-anchor.  His introduction was less than good.  Some might also say it's NOT SAFE FOR LITTLE EARS.  Here it is:

&feature=player_embedded 

So immediately after this went down, there was apparently a bit of a firestorm around the interwebs with people who thought A.J. Clemente's first on-air word as a TV co-anchor was "gay."  Well, Clemente apparently responded to that via Twitter and insists he "did not say the word gay" and that he "was trying to pronounce the London Marathon winners name Tsegaye Kebede."  (Twitter)  I suppose he should be given the benefit of the doubt on that part.  But I gotta say this: I've been interviewed on TV once or twice. I don't think I've ever said anything stupid when a mic was on me, but I may have. I try to remember that anything I say when there's a microphone around might possibly end up on Joe Scarborough's show on MSBNC if I mutter something stupid.  Mr. Clemente would be well advised to try to remember that, too.  

One thing about this is that he's ten times more famous, nationally and internationally, than any of the other hacks at KFYR.  The guy's already made the Huffington Post, MSN.comThe New York Post, the U.K.'s DailyMail & Independent, Australia's News.com.au,  Mediaite.com and AwfulAnnouncing.com. You couldn't possibly ask for a bigger introduction to weekend news anchoring, though you might be able to ask for a better one.

I'd be lying if I said I've never muttered a choice curse word or two under my breathe.

P.S. I don't watch KFYR TV news because they haven't done any worthwhile journalism in years and I don't care for their management team, at all.

 
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
Written by Jim Fuglie   

(Cross-posted, with permission, from The Prairie Blog.)

Okay, here’s  your North Dakota Political Trivia test for today:

Name the six candidates for public office in North Dakota in 2012 who raised at least a million dollars for their campaigns.

That should be easy, shouldn’t it? Let’s start at the top.

Rick Berg ($6,502,926) and Heidi Heitkamp ($5,642,938), who ran for the U.S. Senate.

Kevin Cramer ($1,321,178) and Pam Gulleson ($1,023,930), who ran for the U.S. House.

Jack Dalrymple ($2,769,668), who ran for Governor.

Okay, that’s five. But who’s the sixth?

Ryan Taylor? Nope—only $604,423.

Shane Goettle, who ran for Congress at the Republican convention? Nope—only  $158,384.

Brian Kalk, who ran against Kevin Cramer in the Republican primary? Nope—only  $319,768.

Hmm. Who’s left?

Ah! Duane Sand!

Huh?

Yep, good old Duane, who ran against Rick Berg in the Republican primary election last June.

Duane raised . . . you ready for this? $1,085,246.

Now, wait a minute, you say. Duane raised a million dollars? How come I don’t remember seeing any of his ads on TV? Or hearing them on the radio?

Well, that’s because there weren’t any. Duane didn’t produce any ads. He didn’t buy any air time. In fact, he really didn’t run much of a campaign, other than a little rally in Fargo with Herman Cain, and an east coast “fundraising dinner” with Dick Morris.

He did have a website, with a nice picture of himself wrapped in the flagduane-sand-flag-photo (literally), but he seems to have converted www.sandforsenate into a telemarketing website. Does that surprise anyone?

When the campaign was over, Duane’s FEC report, filed at the end of January,  2013, showed that he raised that $1,085,246, and he spent $1,080,467 Yep, spent it all, except for about $5,000.

So where’d that money go, then? What’d he spend that million dollars on?

Well, except for a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets and motel rooms and rent on an office in Bismarck, he spent it all on . . . fundraising.

We wrote about this last year a little bit. Duane’s been doing this for a few years. He runs for office, and he signs on with this direct mail firm in Washington, D.C. called Base Connect, and then he turns them loose on conservative fundraising lists, and he raises lots of money, but only enough to cover the fees charged by Base Connect and its related little mini-companies, who do everything for Duane, from conceptualizing and printing a fundraising brochure, to writing the fundraising letter, to buying the mailing lists, to printing the letters, addressing and stuffing the envelopes, affixing postage and hauling them  to the post office. And picking up the mail with the responses in them, and depositing the money in Duane’s account. All Duane has to do is write a check on that account back to Base Connect and its related companies who do all that for Duane (they’re pretty much all in the same office in Washington, and for all I know, they are all owned by the same people).

They let Duane keep a little bit of the money for incidentals—maybe 5 per cent—and they get all the rest. It’s a great gig for these D.C. entrepreneurs who have cooked up this scheme. They have these suckers around the country like Duane who like to see their name in the paper and on the ballot, and it doesn’t cost Duane a thing except his time, which he seems to have plenty of, being a retired Navy officer. And he doesn’t spend much time at it either. He doesn’t campaign, doesn’t waste time shooting commercials, doesn’t meet with campaign managers and media consultants and advertising agencies, doesn’t have press conferences or rallies–in fact, about all he does is write checks to his direct mail firms. The only thing I’m wondering about is this: Is it just possible that they’re slipping Duane some of the money back under the rug for letting them use his name? Just askin’.

So who are these people who give Duane all this money. Well, let me tell you, I’ve talked to a few of them, and for the most part, they seem to be pretty nice folks—if a little gullible. After I talked to some of them, I compiled a profile. Well, actually, a short profile. A very short profile. They have two things in common: The first number in their age in almost always 8 or 9, and almost none of them are from North Dakota.

A typical donor was John Valerius, age 81, from Irving Texas (a suburb of Dallas), who sent Duane a check every time he got one of Duane’s letters, which was pretty often, because his total for the campaign was $3,050. Beginning back in 2011, John sent Duane $200 on November 17 and another $100 on December 15. Here’s a list of John’s 2012 contributions to Duane’s campaign: Jan. 10, $200; Jan. 26, $100; Feb. 24, $400; March 19, $400; May 1, $100; May 30, $100; June 21, $600; July 6, $100; July 20, $50;  July 30, $100; Aug. 21, $200; Sept. 20, $200; Oct. 15, $100.

And yes, you read those last six dates right. They were all after Duane was no longer a candidate. Just because Duane lost the primary in June last year didn’t mean he stopped sending out letters. Nope. He kept on sending, and the checks kept on coming, even though he was out of the race.

Well, I called John, down in Irving, Texas, and asked him why he was such a big fan of Duane Sand. John said “I support candidates who standup for biblical principles. I would like to send more but my funds are limited.” Hmmm. Limited to $3,050. Not TOO limited, John.

So I asked John if he knew that Duane had lost the primary, and that he had sent Duane six checks when Duane was no longer a candidate. “I did not know he lost the primary,” John said. “I’m troubled now that I know it. I would have sent less if I had known it.”

I talked to Raymond Tobin, an 85-year-old conservative from San Diego, who gave Duane a total of $1,650, including a $300 check in August, two months after the primary.  “Well, I send money to conservative candidates,” Raymond told me. “There aren’t many conservatives here in California, and I liked what he said to me in his letters.”

Raymond is on a lot of mailing lists. He keeps a post office box at his local post office, and goes there every morning.  “Most days there’s a little blue slip in the box, telling me to come to the window, where they give me a box of letters. It’s kind of a pain in the rear end.” How does he decide who to give to? “I look these guys up on the Internet, I talk to friends in other states.” I didn’t do the math for the whole campaign, but Raymond said he had written checks for more than $7,000 by the end of March last year. He hadn’t added up the rest of the year yet.

Marthe McKinnon, from Princeton, NJ, is a relative youngster in this crowd, only 71. She sent Duane a total of $2,800.  “I wanted to help elect conservative Senators,” Marthe told me. “I give to lots of conservative candidates. No, I did not know he lost the primary.”

Then there’s Philip Ritch, 89, from Hawaii. “I’ve gotten 3 or 4 letters from Duane Sand, I guess. I support conservatives and TEA party candidates,” Philip told me. “I felt we had a chance to win this year. I remember Duane Sand was a Navy veteran. I’m a veteran too. Duane wrote to me after the primary and said he needed a little help to offset the costs of the campaign, so I sent him some more money.”  Philip actually got off pretty easy. Most of his checks were for $10 or $20. He sent a total of $403 for the campaign.

The list goes on, hundreds and hundreds of names. Here’s just a sampling. The checks listed are those sent AFTER the Primary Election in June, when Duane was no longer a candidate. The total for the cycle is how much they sent him in 2011 and 20012.

  • Mary Rosencranz, 88, Mystic CT, four checks, $3,204 total for the cycle
  • Eva Moore, 96, Rockville MD, $2000 on July 26, $3,800 total for the cycle
  • Elizabeth Brunette, 92, Grosse Pointe, MI, 3 checks, $225 total for the cycle
  • Susan Brunoff, 86, New Holland, PA, 4 checks, $3,224 total for the cycle
  • Beatrice Menghi, 85, Staten Island, NY, 5 checks, $975 total for the cycle
  • Edith Palmer 87, Chester, NJ, $500 on Sept. 20, $1,500 total for the cycle
  • Robert Pitzer, 87, Hallandale B each, FL, 3 checks, $950 total for the cycle
  • Grace Baron, 91, West Springfield, TX, $100 on Sept. 26, $400 total for the cycle
  • George Brownlee, 82, Kingfisher, OK, 2 checks, $615 for the cycle
  • William Spencer, 90. Smith River, CA 4 checks, for $40 each, $9,300 total for the cycle

Small, but representative sample. If you want to see the whole list, go here, to his FEC report. You just have to type in his name, find North Dakota on the list of states, and click on “Get Listing.”

I didn’t have the heart to tell any of those folks that none of the money they sent went to help get Duane elected, that it all went to a direct mail house in Washington, D.C., and Duane never even saw their checks. Maybe they know that.  But I don’t think so.

At the bottom of Duane’s FEC report is a line that says “Debts.” It says Duane owes a little over $92,000, all to the mail houses in Washington, D.C. So I thought I’d try to find out how they intend to collect that money. I called Base Connect, Duane’s direct mail firm. I got a guy on the phone who said his name real fast and wouldn’t repeat it. I asked how they were going to collect the debt, wondering if they were going to send out more letters to try to raise the money for Duane to pay off the debt.

“We won’t comment on that,” he said.

So I thought I better ask Duane directly. I first tried his office number, at the North Dakota Heroes Foundation. Seriously. You can look at his website here. That phone was disconnected. So I tried his home phone. Got an answering machine. Left a message. Haven’t heard back yet. When I do, I’ll update this report.

Oh, by the way, Duane does a little side business with Base Connect as well. He sells his own list through a little sister company called Legacy List Marketing. Got almost 12,000 names on it. Here’s a flyer, in case you’re interested in raising some money.

One more thing: I’ll let you know as soon  as Duane files his 2014 campaign committee with the FEC. He’s got to raise some more money. He’s got bills to pay. $92,000 or so.

 

 
Other Senate Votes From Yesterday You Should Know About
Written by Chet   

gun2As we posted on our Facebook wall yesterday afternoon Senator Heidi Heitkamp (and John Hoeven) voted with the National Riflemanufacturers Association (NRA) and 6% of North Dakotans who think violent felons should be able to purchase weapons at gun shows without suffering through the trauma -- or "undue burden" -- of a five minute background check.  What I did not write about was the other votes that took place in the Senate yesterday.  One vote I think is important is what is called the "Cornyn Race To The Bottom Amendment."  That amendment, proposed by John Cornyn (R-Texas), would have forced every state to recognize and accept concealed carry permits from every other state.  

Right now, different states can have different requirements for concealed carry permits. Some states have affirmatively elected to participate in reciprocity with other states, but they don't have to.  Today, California and New York, for example, might chose to make it harder for people to get permits to carry concealed weapons. They might want, for example, concealed carry permit holders to have some minimum level of intelligence and gun-safety knowledge when it comes to guns. Some other states with radical, right-wing legislatures that are bought-and-paid-for by the big business -- like Mississippi, Alabama or North Dakota -- might want to have laws requiring that every inmate must be handed a concealed carry permit as they are released from prison. They might want laws requiring night clubs to hand out concealed carry permits to every drunk who picks a fight with a bouncer.  The Cornyn Race To The Bottom Amendment would have made it so that every state would have to recognize and accept concealed carry permits from the states that chose to hand out concealed carry permits to violent convicts and drunken bar brawlers.

I was interested to learn that MORE U.S. Senators voted to support the Race To The Bottom Amendment than voted to support the background check amendment that's supported by about 90% of all Americans, including 74% of NRA members.  The Race To The Bottom amendment died with only 58 votes (to 42 against) as compared to the 54 votes the background check amendment had.  Among the Senators voting for the Race To The Bottom Amendment were both of North Dakota's senators: Heidi Heitkamp and John Hoeven.  (Check the roll-call vote by clicking here).  

There were seven (7) votes on weapons-related amendments yesterday (April 17, 2013). Heitkamp and Hoeven voted exactly the same way on 6 out of 7 of those gun amendments.  The one they disagreed on was Amendment 713 -- the Leahy-Collins Amendment -- which would have punished and deterred strawman gun purchases.  Heitkamp voted in favor of that amendment; Hoeven voted against it. I've looked through the amendment and don't see how it addresses the the mental health component Senator Heitkamp referenced in her press release yesterday, but it's possible I'm missing something.

Both Heitkamp and Hoeven will likely preserve their "A" ratings with the Gun Manufacturers' Association.  I'm not sure what else they're accomplishing by voting with the 6% of North Dakotans who think it should be easy for violent felons to buy guns at gun shows. Maybe I'll figure it out another day. Or maybe not.

 
Is Campaign Money For Racist North Dakota Congressman Drying Up?
Written by Chet   

IMG_1077[UPDATED (in red)] North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer has been facing criticism across the State of North Dakota and across the country for racist comments he made at a meeting in Bismarck a few weeks ago.  Many people knew of Cramer's views in this regard long before that rally rant, however.  With the campaign disclosure information recently made available online, you have to wonder if his former supporters are viewing Cramer as more of a liability than anything else.  Let's look at the numbers from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website:

CramerFinance

(SOURCE)

So Cramer has raised $43,111.00 in the first full quarter after being elected (see line 6.a., above). That's less than $14,500 per month. That's quite a bit less than $500 per day raised by a United States Congressman.  That doesn't seem like much.

How does that compare to former Congressman Rick Berg, the unpopular Fargo slumlord?  Let's take a look at that:

BergFinance

(SOURCE)

So in Berg's first full quarter after being elected, he raised $163,337.38 in campaign contributions (see line 6.a., above).  So Berg raised just over $54,400 per month; more than Cramer raised in the entire three-month period.  

Berg raised 3.8 times as much during the comparable period of time the first quarter of in his one term.  

So I'm wondering why this is. Do you suppose it's because people are quickly figuring out what a racist, radical liability Cramer is?  Or is it something else?

Thoughts?

UPDATE:  Perhaps it's just a national trend.  Perhaps all the deeply unpopular radical racist Republicans are having a hard time raising money.  See The Huffington Post article on this.]

 
<< Start < 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 > End >>

Page 6 of 251