Scott Gessler’s Fundraising Black Hole

You can say this about Scott Gessler, the Republican candidate for Secretary of State: At least he isn’t running for State Treasurer.

We’ve wondered about Gessler and his bizarre spending habits ever since he first entered the race for Secretary of State last year. If you haven’t been following the story, through the first three quarters of 2009 Gessler managed to spend an incredible 82% of the money he raised.

Gessler’s Q4 campaign finance report shows that he raised $19,618 in the last three months of 2009, but he also spent $19,374. You read that correctly — Gessler netted just $244 in three months.

All told, Gessler has now raised $86,799 for his campaign and spent $74,567. He has only $12,231 in the bank after spending a whopping 86% of the money he has raised.

For comparison’s sake, Democrat Bernie Buescher has raised $92,921 and spent $27,877 (just 30% of the total), leaving him with $65,043 cash on hand.

Folks, we’ve never seen a legitimate candidate with a burn rate like Gessler’s. It makes you wonder how Gessler is going to continue to solicit money when donors start to realize that he’s just pissing it all away, because if Gessler can’t save enough money to advertise on television next fall, there is absolutely no way he can unseat Buescher. Donate now to Scott Gessler — for every $10 you send, almost $2 will go towards winning the election!

This kind of fiscal irresponsibility is bad enough for a candidate for statewide office, but wait, there’s more! On the same day that he filed his Q4 finance report, he sent an email blast to supporters that, well, you just have to read it yourself. Click below to find out how electing Gessler will bring Democracy to the Middle East, or something.


The Iranian uprising is truly inspiring.  First, it proves once and for all that Muslim societies also yearn for freedom and democracy.  Second, it shows that many Muslims reject theocracy and repression.  And finally, it holds the promise of a future Iranian government no longer bent on building nuclear weapons.  

But Obama and the Democrats are embarrassed by those Iranians seeking freedom.  In pursuit of “engagement” and “stability”, the Obama administration has continued to accept the Iranian regime, both in word and deed.  The U.S. continues to negotiate under all circumstances, still offering concessions (and legitimacy) in vain attempt to convince the Iranian regime to give up nuclear weapons.

The result has been complete failure, and now Obama and the Democrats have placed the U.S. on the wrong side of history.

Compare this to Ronald Reagan and Poland’s Solidarity movement.  There, the U.S. condemned the Polish government.  We provided meaningful assistance to the Poles, and we used U.S. economic clout to push for democracy.

Why does this matter for us?  First, don’t be fooled by Democrats who talk about election integrity, but don’t stand up for it.  Fair elections are not merely talking points, and elections are not merely a path to power.  Rather, they are the cornerstone of free, prosperous, and peaceful societies.

Second, we cannot selfishly work for fair elections while turning a blind eye to others yearning for freedom and self-governance.

And third, democracies are less likely to go to war.  A democratic Iran will make it less likely that American boys and girls will die in the Middle East because of Iranian militarism.

But you can help me do our part by fighting for free elections here in Colorado, by making a contribution of $25, $50, $75 or $150. [Pols emphasis]

So next week, we’ll again turn to elections in Colorado.  But until then, remember that elections – and election integrity – are universal values.  Not merely slogans by those seeking to hold power.

22 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Middle of the Road says:

    This email would suggest otherwise.

    And WHAT is he spending his money on?  

  2. Froward69 says:

    must be pissing it all away. this is the first I have heard of him…

    • Fidel's dirt nap says:

      for violations of election law.  Or he gets sued when he represents candidates who run for office in Colo and run afoul of Colo election law ( I forget which).

      Pretty sweet gig on the R side.  They’re not much for election law.  

      • Froward69 says:

        that protects consumers or the electorate.

        only laws that restrict corporate Fraud and individuals who would sue Quacks or corporations…

        Yup Pretty sweet gig on the R side.

  3. ardy39 says:

    As pointed out by Ralphie, the well coiffed and sartorially dry-cleaned Representative Steve King (HD54, candidate for Senate 7) has a pretty incredible burn rate too. His filings for the 3Q & 4Q indicate he raised $10,373.94 while he spent $10,564.92. This is a burn rate of 102%. (Only the fact that he took out a loan for $1,000 provides for his positive balance of $606.06 COH.)

    Or, maybe it’s a Mesa County thing?

    Laura Bradford (HD55) has raised a total of $4,850 over all 4 quarters of 2009. During 2009 she spent $7,863.21. (Good thing she started off the year with ~$5,000 in her account.) What is striking is that she is paying her treasurer $250/mo. She reports spending $2,500 on “Campaign Accounting Services” for someone to keep track of $4,850 in fundraising!

  4. Jambalaya says:

    Apparently Gessler had serious doubts about Muslims before the “Iranian uprising”:  

    The Iranian uprising is truly inspiring.  First, it proves once and for all that Muslim societies also yearn for freedom and democracy.  Second, it shows that many Muslims reject theocracy and repression

    I guess the millions of Muslims who support democracy in Indonesia, India, and elsewhere don’t quite rate his notice.  Perhaps I’ll donate $25 or even $50 so that he can buy an encyclopedia or something.  That would be truly inspiring!

  5. Half Glass Full says:

    What a maroon.

  6. DevilishlyModerate says:

    Where are Republicans getting this notion that the folks representing the Green party in Iran are against nuclear arms? The opposition is made up of a fringe of political opportunists, students and backers of a range of political issues. There is no consensus whatsoever about the nuclear issue, especially with the political opportunists who are essentially one and the same as the current administration except that they aren’t the ones currently in power.

    Gessler is an odd fellow

  7. DavidThi808 says:

    It’s not like he has a prayer of winning anything.

    • allyncooper says:

      I think it would be a waste of your time and a waste of perfectly good electrons if so reported on Pols.  

    • Middle of the Road says:

      is to ask him what he’s spending his money on. I’m guessing internet porn sites.

    • gertie97 says:

      You just never know what one of these clowns might say.

    • ajb says:

      From what little I know, it could be a really interesting interview. Do you remember when SG ran for Boulder city council? A friend of mine, a pretty outspoken liberal, voted for him. She went to school with him at Yale and thought that he was incredibly bright (go figgur). She also worked for the city at the time and thought that most of the council members were doofuses (she’s not one to mince words).

      Personally, once I heard that SG was representing the GOP in the redistricting case, pro bono, I dismissed him as a partisan hack. And during the city council campaign, Sandy Hume sent a letter to all registered R’s asking that they vote of SG, even though elections are supposed to be non-partisan. Probably as a result, SG had far more yard signs than any other candidate. He still came in 6th or something, so wasting campaign money isn’t exactly new to this guy.

      Since your first interviews are pretty low key, he might provide for some interesting conversation. After all, the questions write themselves: How DID you spend all that money? Iran, seriously? How could you have a yard sign on every street corner and still lose an at-large city council race? How can you run an impartial election when you have such a clearly partisan record?

      • DavidThi808 says:

        These interviews are 4 – 6 hours each plus travel time. Writing them takes a lot of time & effort.

        • gertie97 says:

          Does a politician interview take that much time? Try 30-45 minutes for the interview, if the candidate gives you that much time, and then an hour for writing, and another half hour, if you really stretch it, for editing? Try writing from your notes and use the tape for checking.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            travel to meeting – 45 minutes

            waiting to start – 15 minutes

            interview – 1 hour

            small talk after – 5 minutes

            travel back – 45 minutes

            procrastinate starting – 15 minutes

            write it 2-1/2 – 3-1/2 hours

            post it to 4 sites – 20 minutes

            Travel time is 15 – 90 minutes

            rest is 4-1/2 – 5-1/2 hours

            It’s quite a bit of time. needless to say, it doesn’t break my heart too much that Scott McInnis & Jane Norton are afraid to be interviewed by me…

    • RedGreen says:

      That has got to hurt.

  8. bmenezes says:

    Maybe Mr. Gessler wouldn’t have posited such a laughable introductory premise had he actually followed the news in Iran instead of getting it from Newsmax and WorldNet Daily, thereby missing news such as this:

    And this:

    And this:

  9. truth and wisdom says:

    Ask Gessler what he did with the $68,500 he ripped off from Longmont?  Looks like he’s going to need it for his campaign war chest.  Of course, he could have blown it already.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.