MassGOP has $700K in the bank????

Couple that with Brown having a balance of $200,000 (4.00 / 1)

...left in his account (p. b10 in today's, can't find it online) and you've got almost a million bucks left on the table by the GOP in the Senate.

If I have the time, I'm gonna write a post on if either the State Dem/GOP parties or the National Dem/GOP parties were businesses, who running a better business.  You know my answer and I'd have plenty of things to back up my point.  Even the Warren "deficit" was smart business...knowing they could go into the red a bit and easily raise money to pay it off (and the debt is about 1% of what they raised, so even if they lost, they'd easily raise that from the base.)

For the party that prides itself as the party representing business  and often advocates running government like a business, the GOP runs a lousy business.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 14:35:29 PM UTC

I wonder if that's true. (0.00 / 0)

The $200k figure comes from an aide and it also comes after Warren's campaign debt became public.  I'm thinking that Brown might also be in debt, but wants to zing Warren on her campaign being in debt and his not.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 15:11:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...and I used the middle #...the Globe used $464,000 unspent (0.00 / 0)

But ya, accountants can make that into a deficit and Brown (even if he never runs again) can raise whatever his possible debt is.  

My point still stands on who runs a better business.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 15:41:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so fast, Mr. Malarkey! (5.00 / 1)

There are many possible explanation for state spending, and some might show excellent management.

So, for instance, lets stay Chairman Maginn and the state committee fully understood the turnout model of 2012 with President Obama and Professor Warren on the ticket. They said, "This is a tsunami that will wipe out the chances of virtually all Republicans no matter how good they are." [True enough - look at Sean Bielat's 25-point loss] "This money would be poorly spent on this election, but could, instead, fund a great deal of infrastructure and better candidates in 2014, when we could do much better. So we will not spend as much now and save our money for the future, especially that after huge losses in 2012, it will be very hard to raise new money for 2014."

Now, if that were their rationale, I would be impressed.

But I don't know their thinking. You don't either. Yet it is very possible they were smart, instead of foolish.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 13:36:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really Ed? Is that the best you can come up with? (0.00 / 0)

That the party chair new it was a lost cause and decided to hoard the money for better opportunities?  Back to my business analogy...many people (myself included) were telling Dem Chair John Walsh in 2011 that Scott Brown was unbeatable.  John Walsh did not listen and very aggressively did all the things necessary to win in 2012.  Based on your theory, John Walsh would have been smart to listen to the naysayers and let Scott Brown have an easy pass to reelection.  Fortunately the Dems don't run their business like that.

Also, based on some of you comments in your post and the comments, you seem to not understand that the MA GOP (like all state parties) have two basic pots of money (they often have more), which can not be intermingled...money for Federal candidates and money for state candidates.   All the money you mentioned and the Brown money I mentioned are for federal elections only.  Given that Brown's race very much was about the control of the US Senate, being conservative about these funds and saving it for a more favorable environment is an absurd concept, which if true, should result in the departure of the Party Chair (hmm...that might explain some things).  And with Tiesi, you had the best chance for a GOP congressional pick up in almost 20 years.  Yet the MA GOP kept $700,000 on the sidelines instead of funding an effective, comprehensive GOTV drive and lost the election by a few thousand votes.  Man, the 700K could have driving a lot of votes out...but did not.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 15:53:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just an example (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Malarkey -

I was merely saying that there is at least one rational reason for not spending all available funds that I came up with right away. This does not mean it is the only possible reason and does not mean that they ran the business, as you say, well. (I have no access to their strategy, but I support the current leadership and trust them.)

I did know there were local and national donations and those donations had intent behind them. I did not know that they were even more strictly segregated. Thanks to you (and Brock below) for informing me of that. .

However Brock said that federal money cannot be spent on state races but can be spent for miscellaneous other things. That makes sense and provides a possible justification for not using all funds on  the two best federal office chances we may have for quite some time. (I, in particular, am excited as I can think of many awesome software solutions that could be implemented for a small fraction.)

Also, the Globe did not say the $700K was all federal or all state. The breakdown will be interesting to see.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 20:07:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: your last sentence... (4.00 / 1)

The Globe was very clear about it being federal money...last sentence, 4th paragraph:

"Currently, there is more than $700,000 in the Massachusetts GOP's federal account, GOP treasurer Brent Andersen told the Globe."

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 23:13:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An unbeatable brown? (0.00 / 0)

Forgot to say that it would have been ridiculous for anyone to think Brown was unbeatable in a presidential election turnout model, nevermind Chairman Walsh, who is an expert in such things.

Even I sadly predicted Professor Warren would win by five since the day she announced. Only some RMGers and other partisans could possibly think him unbeatable.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 20:10:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought he was unbeatable. (4.50 / 2)

Personally very likable, had achieved a celebrity status, and he was an incumbent.  Who knew he'd tie his whole campaign to Cherokee nonsense?

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 20:20:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen (0.00 / 0)

Patrick -

I agree on the Indian crap. It should have been a small story indicting the stupid culture of acadmeia.

But Matt Elder and others have made a strong case that the turnout is so unfavorable that a Brown win was going to be very hard with a good Democrat candidate.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 20:28:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dig into the numbers (5.00 / 1)

At our last State Committee meeting on November 13, we were given our Treasurer's Report by Brent Andersen.  The Profit & Loss Statement was dated October 31.

In that P&L report we are given a fairly detailed accounting that, along with our balance sheet that was also dated October 31, is given to all State Committee members as well as on file at the State Party Headquarters.

The number reported in the Globe is actually much less, about half, of what was reported to us at the meeting.  Of course, now is early December and many bills have been paid, most especially election related debts being taken care of well past the casting & counting of votes.  I'm not the Treasurer nor do I serve on any of the finance related Standing Committees so I'm far from an expert here.

However, let me simply try to make sense of a few notes that I quickly scribbled while listening to the report and try to make sense of them.  I'll certainly stand to be corrected if I'm in error.

That having been said, it was reported that our Victory Account (Federal account) at the time had $1.57 million.  Our State Account had merely $7 thousand.  After all the dust settled we were estimated to be $200-300 thousand in the black.

Things may have changed in the actual details of the numbers but the importance here is in the ratio of funds in the federal to state accounts.

The short answer to your question is that there wasn't $200,000 available to be donated to state legislative candidates but apparently no more than $7,000.  Considering that the maximum that the State Committee is legally able to give to a candidate is $3,000 then we could have additionally assisted as few as 2 candidates, fully, and 1 additional candidate.  Of course, smaller donations would have spread the wealth around a bit more.  The Candidates Committee did recommend funding, and Chairman Maginn executed, in a sum more than twice what was done in 2010 & this time around I'd say that the majority of candidates we funded were at the full $3,000 level, especially the incumbents.  

Again, I'll stand to be corrected by someone who is a better expert than I since I'm not intimately involved in the money matters.

The remaining $7,000 was most likely left in the account as reserves for any last minute or expected expenses.

Finally, it should be noted that if my understanding is correct that a great deal of our basic operating expenses and such come out of the Federal account.

Before any conspiracy theories are hatched I would suggest that any sincere inquires be directed to Treasurer Brent Andersen via the State Party.  We will all be updated as to the financial state of the Party at our upcoming State Committee meeting in January 2013.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 16:26:40 PM UTC

If the max is $3000 a candidate (5.00 / 1)

Shouldn't the MassGOP just plan to raise $600,000 dollars every cycle for legislative candidates? Seeing we rarely recruit over 100 candidates, it would actually be just $300,000. Is that too much to ask for?

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 21:22:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)

Considering we only had a budget of $100,000 in 2010 & I believe we were over $200,000 this year it isn't too much to ask for but it's too much to expect until & unless fundraising in our State Account reaches numbers that can accommodation such a (good & obvious) idea.

When the MassGOP asks for donations be it by direct mail, an event, or any other method some people don't give because they think a check to the RNC, NRCC, NRSC, or RGA suffices.  It does not.  Some people think that by not contributing the the MassGOP that somehow they are sticking it to the Chairman or the State Committee.  Not really the case.  The people who were screwed over by such a boycott would've been our 2012 legislative candidates.  

We have a Finance Committee that is charged with devising successful ways to fill our treasury.  We have a Budget Committee to annually allocate our funds.  Both could use all the help they can get by able State Committee members & Party activists.  That way, we can reach numbers at least in the range of $300,000 and hopefully far beyond.

The Candidates Committee analyzes data, makes monetary aid recommendations to the Chairman, and directly assists candidates but the allocation comes from the Chairman and only then once, and if, the monies are available through successful fundraising.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 21:35:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Direct/in-kind (0.00 / 0)

I think the $3K a limit is in direct monetary contributions. I'm not sure, off-hand, what the limit for in-kind contributions is, but I suspect it's well above that.

---

by: mecowett @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:46:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct (0.00 / 0)

You are correct.  It's actually unlimited for in-kind contributions from the MassGOP to our legislative candidates.

Party contributions to candidates:  This limit applies to monetary contributions only.  There is no limit on in-kind contributions by a party committee to an individual candidate

.

http://www.ocpf.net/guides/fs_...

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:34:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two things first... (0.00 / 0)

Brock -

First, and foremost, thank you for being a window of transparency for a party that doesn't lift a finger to let people know what is going on. I appreciate it greatly.

Second, those of us on the outside have a hard time understanding why, according to the things you have said, that the party allocates such a small percentage of its resources to candidates. What the heck is the other 80%? Again, I am sure there is a reasonable explanation. But to party activists, it is hard to imagine all that so much money could be spent on party whose operations are out of the early 1990s.

Third, I want to re-emphasize that I am grateful that this kind of money is being raised. I know Chairman Maginn has done well with both raising money and increasing the amount given to candidates. I am a big fan of his and I will miss him in this role.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 13:19:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Methods of Fundraising & Destinations (0.00 / 0)

You're very welcome.  I don't claim to have all the answers and again, I'm not trying to pretend that I'm an expert on these matters but I do try to provide another perspective, at least from how it's historically been presented to me serving upon the State Committee.  My constituents, and Republicans from across the Commonwealth, deserve - need - to know how things work or at least have been done.

I believe part of the "problem" is how the money is raised.  
Let us look at the state account fundraising:

An individual can give, maximum, $5,000 per calendar year to any State Party.  There is also a $12,500 aggregate limit on all annual donations.  This would apply to the MassGOP State Account.

OCPF Contribution Limits

Now, let us look at federal account fundraising:

An individual can give a maximum combination of $10,000 per calendar year to state, district, or local committees.  this would be the MassGOP Federal Account.  

The Republican National Committee can give an unlimited amount of money to the MassGOP Federal Account.  

An authorized campaign committee could give an unlimited amount of money to the MassGOP Federal Account.  

That's not even accounting for possible PAC donations.

FEC Contribution Limits 2011-2012

The bigger questions are from who was the money raised and to what account was it earmarked?  I believe that we'll discover that the DC-based GOP groups (RNC, NRSC, NRCC) dumped in money to our Federal account.  My guess is that when you saw MassGOP doing things on behalf of say Scott Brown or Richard Tisei (and perhaps not on behalf of someone else) it's because the NRSC or NRCC contributed those funds to the federal account and had preferences as to how it was spent and upon whom it was spent.

I recall many instances between 2010-2012 where candidates would make a pitch for potential donors to max out to their campaigns & then to turn around & max out to the MassGOP.  My understanding is that in those instances the MassGOP donations are generally put towards the federal account (almost certainly in Scott Brown's case) but also in other instances as the Federal Account is more flexible, as I've written previously it's the account from which the State Party pays the rent, keeps the lights on, etc.

My caveat remains the same: I'll stand to be corrected by someone who is an expert in these matters.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 16:41:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But about that $3,000 limit and this $50K video (4.00 / 1)

So, now I will address an uncomfortable reality in how state parties raise money. I don't want to press for details here as I am not experienced in how state contributions work.

So you said you can give $3,000 max to a candidate in cash, eh?

Then what about this video about Professor Warren that the party made and released at the time of the DNC convention?

Leaving aside the issue that it overdid a theme that didn't ultimately work and was a terrible investment (in that it only got 7,600 views on YouTube) this video cost big money. My wife makes some videos and she said this high-quality video shot on site in a North Carolina town would cost, at the absolute minimum, $50,000 - and would almost certainly would be a lot more.

The MassGOP made many other videos about her and Tierney - at great cost.

What I would like to know is how much money you guys spent on races that is outside the $3,000 limit. (Yes, I could ask Brent, and he is a good guy and Treasurer, but this is probably an uncomfortable subject.)

I get the feeling that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on those two races. Of course, I believe spending on those races was critical. And yes, lots of other statewide races were not winnable no matter how much money was spent - BUT... what I wonder is why more money wasn't spent on things that could have helped all candidates.

Anyway, no disrespect meant here, but I think it would be nice to have some sort of release of the strategy of the SC in 2012, and how the budget funded that. You guys clearly went big on a couple of races and did, by comparison, little elsewhere. I am not saying this was a bad strategy, it would just be nice to know more.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 13:31:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so fast Mr. Factor... (4.00 / 1)

Spending $50,000 on a video that gets 7,600 youtube views is exactly the kind of bad business decisions I was referring to in my above post.  Never mind how the Democrat Party in MA completely out classed the GOP in organizational strength (please do not whine about a "Democratic Machine", it just amplifies my point).  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 15:39:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Malarkey -

Video is a very risky investment proposition. You never know what will sell. Even Joe Kennedy spent a lot on videos that were not popular. Being that his win was guaranteed by the first polling done in the Spring, certainly all that money was wasted, eh? :-)

I was very much against the Warren videos. So much so that I publicly criticized the MassGOP for such garbage and I deliberately unliked their Facebook page because of that. Does this mean they managed the whole party badly? No. Oh - and on those videos, ill bet they were a project funded entirely by out-of-state money with out-of-state direction. (But I hated them regardless of which self-righteous, rich, immature white guy was behind them.)

And I have never whined about anything, nevermind the Democrats. I almost never speak of them at all. I am only interested in Republicans. The Democrats have nothing to teach me. They are weak also. But they think they are strong because we are impotent. One day, when I am older, wealthier, and more powerful, I will prove it. :-)

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 20:26:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Best Guess (0.00 / 0)

The money for those films came out of the Federal/Victory account and not the state account.  I'm not on the financial committees so I can't attest to that as a fact, nor did I know about these videos any earlier than you & other RMG readers.

My point is not to forget that there are two pots of funds and simply because projects like the above are paid for by the MassGOP doesn't mean that it affected the amount of funds available to the legislative candidates as the former funds would've been from the federal account (benefiting our federal candidate, US Senator Scott Brown) and not the state account, which has drastically less money available to it.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 16:23:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]