at 4:58 pm, Wed, 8.4.2010
I listened to the AR interview on The Caplis & Silverman Show (podcast here later today www.khow.com) and he stipulated that he has not taken PAC money in this campaign and will not. Caplis was gone- Siverman was solo, and tried to ask about the DSCC and the fungibility of funds, but after a brief joke, they changed the subject.
I believe AR thinks that he can accept DSCC money and still honestly claim that he has not received PAC support. I don’t believe that’s true – I agree with Pols that it’s “absurd.” But I do believe AR believes it.
Yesterday the hot topic in the CO D US Senate primary was the news that despite railing against PAC money for the past 10 months, Romanoff’s campaign has no problem accepting PAC support, as long as it goes to some 3rd party first.
Politico has had the story – and numerous updates. As of 8am (MDT) today, I believe they are up to update #4.
Campaign Romanoff has clarified, and re-clarified and re-clarified all night. Now it’s starting to make sense how this could not be a gaint flip.
“We’d be willing to accept that, sure. I don’t think it is a significant part of what the DSCC raises overall, either. The DSCC doesn’t represent an industry or any group of industries or anything else. There’s no direct relationship,” Romjue said. “The percentage of PAC money they raise overall is low. We’re not going to unilaterally disarm.”
See- the percentage is low, and it’s not directly from the industries or groups or PACS donating. Ohhhhh, sure…wait, what?
Percentage: DSCC estimated 20-25% of their 2010 donations have come from PACs. And I agree this is relatively low, lower than I would have expected given all the talk about how the US Senate is for sale.
Senator Bennet’s PAC contributions have been 18.3% of his total fundraising. The lowest percentage of anyone in CO Congressional delegation, except for Jared Polis who was able to largely self fund.
18.3% vs 20 to 25%. I may need some help with the math, but it would appear that 18.3% is less than 20 to 25%.
As for the directness of the donations, well, that’s certainly a challenge. How about if I create a campaign finance organization to receive PAC and industry donations that I redistribute to candidates as I see fit? Then when I choose to support a candidate, they wouldn’t have to worry about getting PAC support direct from the PAC or industry. It would be form MADCO. That would certainly make it clean, right?
AR1.0 PAC money is ok, even necessary
AR2.0 Sep 2009- Jul 2010 PAC is always bad
AR2.1 Aug 2010- tbd PAC money is ok if the percentage of total money is low and it’s only accepted through some 3rd party.
Depends on what the definition of what “IS” is.
PAC money is bad when used against me. PAC money is good when used for me.
DC corruption is real. Colorado corruption is fake.
Saying yes and no is saying yes if you think it is yes.
Saying yes and no is saying no if you think no.
Those are the messages that have put out since January.
Romjue captured all of that when he said:
“Not one dime.”
“Not one dime.” = “There’s one of those dimes I won’t take. You can give me plenty of the other ones, though!”
MADCO which of Ray Springfield’s conspiracies are you into today?
How about this one?
to which you agreed with
Off subject- again. I believe Romanoff went to Nicaragua, I rad it on his website and had no reason to doubt it.
I asked “When was he there?” Which you (and jpsand) have concluded must never be revealed and by my even asking I’m convinced that Oswald did not act alone, Area51 has aliens and Bicycle COlorado is a front for or the new world order.
Do you agree with Romjue that PAC money is ok when it’s less than 25% of donations received and it comes form a 3rd party?
which you agreed with in your attack
yes he is going to take the money from individuals. and it is possible for the DSCC to do it.
First of all, please provide a source on these percentages.
Secondly, you’re comparing percentages of the Senator’s current war chest to what AR might take from the DSCC? (And of course, you fail to mention that Bennet has already taken money from the DSCC).
If Bennet were to raise $100 million dollars, and only 18.3% of it is PAC money, and Romanoff were to raise $100,000, and took 50% from PACs, which do you think is MORE? And who do you think is subsequently OWNED by special interests?
Percentage tell us a story, but not the whole story. But you already knew that though, didn’t you?
18.3 % is the percentage of PAC donations received by Bennet through Q1 reporting.
Candidats/PACs/Other committee Total %PAC
Michael Bennet (2010) $885,195 $4,824,998 18.3%
Mark Udall (2008) $2,186,292 $11,787,048 18.5%
Betsy Markey (2010) $448,820 $1,179,896 38.0%
Diana Degette (2010) $205,515 $311,667 65.9%
Jared Polis (2010) $1,000 $242,305 0.4%
Ed Perlmutter (2010) $428,799 $882,124 48.6%
John Salazar (2010) $381,049 $676,561 56.3%
Doug Lamborn (2010) $90,135 $153,256 58.8%
Mike Coffman (2010) $148,336 $410,447 36.1%
As to the 20 to 25% from the DSCC- I called and asked.
I have made the point previously that Bennet’s percentage from PACs is relatively low. But the point being made now that a relatively low percentage is meaningful and somehow makes PAC money ok is from Bill Romjue, Romanoff campaign manager
and compare PAC money taken and claim Bennet’s taking less money than AR in the future.
I personally do not care if he takes the DSCC money.
Romjue said of course they would take DSCC support if AR wins. AR previously said they would not.
Romjue defended it by saying that the DSCC PAC money is a low contribution and whatever came to AR would be indirect.
I never cared about it either – but Romanoff made such a huge deal out of avoiding all PAC money this time around that it is kind of big deal to find out either he lied, or didn’t understand how the DSCC works.
SO which is it- he was dishonest or dumb?
don’t buy into MADCO’S deceptions.
In this diary MADCO says
MADCO is implying that they had never seen or heard of the updated retraction and correction by Politico which I posted yesterday at
and that story contained this correction from Politico:
and how do you know MADCO knew of this update yesterday and not at the time they wrote this diary?
MADCO was the FIRST person to comment on that diary posted at 4:57 yesterday;
Seems pretty flimsy.
Also- is AR2.0 also going to ask the DSCC to only use money from individual Coloradoans or is outsider money now ok too?
And the DSCC has already said it is improbable they could do it – so waht does AR2.0 intend to do with that?
by: MADCO @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 17:01:13 PM MDT
There it is folks, MADCO posted yesterday an attack that both recognized Romanoff would be taking money only from ‘individual Coloradoans’ and that it was possible for the DSCC to do this although it seemed
‘improbable’, not impossible to MADCO.
MADCO is either completely lying by saying this diary was written with the most updated facts to form their opinion, or has selective amnesia.
(MADCO – next time check what you wrote the day before – that way it won’t be so easy for me to poke giant holes in your logic)
Yes, Politico has had several updates – they don’t number them, I tried to keep up, but I’m not sure. I believe all the updates came in response to comments and clarifications from the ROmanoff campaign.
I didn’t say it was unlikley the DSCC would be able to honor the absurd request Romanoff says he’ll make. The DSCC said is was improbable. You could read about it in the paper that shall not be named. I’m sure it’s elsewhere.
I never posted that AR would be talking money form individual Coloradans – because he hasn’t. I posted that if he wins and also wants support from the DSCC, in addition to expecting the DSCC to somehow segregate fungible funds and pretend that the money that comes to Romanoff is only from individuals- not PACs and also only from individuals in COlroado since AR has previously disparaged out of state support for Benent.
I also did not post – as you did Wade – that AR has never taken PAC money. He has. He paused between Sep 09 and next week. If he wins this primary, he intends to start again.
You can poke away- with anything I wrote.
I’m nowhere near smart enough to twist and confuse and lie consistently and neither are you apparently. I stick with what I know to be true. You should try it.
AR1.0 PAC money is fine
AR2.0 Sep 09- Jul 2010 PAC money is always bad
AR 2.1 Aug 2010 PAC money is bad for the other guy, it’s ok if it’s for me. the percentage is relatively low and it’s laundered through a 3rd party.
W h e n s o m e b o d y c a l l s
b u l l s h i t o n y o u i t d o e s n ‘ t m e a n t h e y a r e l y i n g.
I t m e a n s Y O U a r e.
“I’d like a bowl of M&M’s in my dressing room, but you can pick out all of the green ones, oh and red, too.” Rock stars can get away with it, but Romanoff isn’t at that level yet. Excluding oil and gas, oh, and banking money, from the potential pile of DSCC cash is disingenous even to his supporters. It’s the “I’m a little bit pregnant” argument – either take it and run like hell or man up and say ‘seriously, none for me, thanks.’ Don’t lurk around thinking no one will notice you’ve taken all but the red and green M&M’s – they all taste the same.
His donor list consists largely of lawyers and lobbyists. If PAC money is so evil, why is lobbyist money pure?
Because Romanoff wants the lobbyists to write the bills?
This isn’t good for Andrew.
Surprised Bennet doesn’t have an ad up yet. Maybe he doesn’t want to interfere while his opponent is in the process of self-destructing.
Andrew is getting lots of free media about this flip-flop. Even made MSNBC this morning. Exposure is something you die of.
to the release of AR3.0
Windows 7- not as good as XP, but doesn’t suck as much as Vista.
We’ll see 2.5 next weekend.
why these headlines?
Which candidate sounds like they are losing to you?
AR is winning.
Your work is done- good job.
Ken Buck is one nutty guy
and I will be preparing attack ads against his latest revelation.
“…I will be preparing attack ads against…”
I can understand why.
I agree with Ralphie – if you’re not driving the message, it’s a problem. Things have changed in the day since the awkward Romjue statement. Doesn’t mean Bennet is winning, but in terms of driving message, Romanoff is driving off the proverbial cliff.
that the message is no different. Even AR is saying that how he was quoted back in Jan is not what he meant. In other words, his refusal to accept PAC support during “this election” always meant “in this primary”.
That and the Festivus Senator – which also hasn’t changed.
Is getting old. I’ll take a rev 3 of a politician over a Beta candidate any day. “Beta Bennet” is about to be shown the door.
And Win7 is much better than XP. You’re probably a Mac user, though.
Your nose was too far up the Senator’s rear end to actually read my comment.
Try Control-F and type in my handle to find my comment.
But since you brought it up…
I saw your sad attempt at a point above about percentages. Then you got bitch slapped with facts by MADCO. I imagine that stung a little so you came back with the aforementioned off-topic comment.
Now that we’re all caught up, I’m still waiting to hear what your comment had to do with this diary? Was it a deflection? Do you just hope we’ll all get distracted and fight with you about something other than the diary subject?
First- it was Romjue who sad that thing about percentages, not Andrew. See, it is Romjue who’s about to get his ass fired for blowing the whole campaign message2.1 right into the headlines about 6 days to soon. Nothing to do with Romanoff. Or Caddell.
As for bitch slapping- please.
I answered a request for numbers and a source with, well, numbers and a source. That’s hardly a bitch slap. More like a gun in a knife fight.
Of course it’s deflection – you should see the comments at the other places. OMG Absolutely nothing to see here – please move along while averting your eyes and ears. Hey what about the crazy bikes are taking over the world and destroying our way of life? Now there’s something to see.
If only they could find a naked woman…with puppies and a really funny name, a celebrity maybe..who dated a celebrity … and is involved in a news worthy scandal …and get her to claim AR would never take PAC money directly or from the DSCC.
I kind of like Beta.
Room to improve, acknowledgement that there is imperfection and not quite finished product, I’ve used lotsa Beta versions- most were more than pretty good and got really really good later.
I knew those bikes looked a little shifty.
Madco’s diary tries to make the case that somehow Bennet is cleaner because as a percentage, it’s less than what Romanoff would take from the DSCC? This was the point I was addressing.
I did not care to address the cleanliness of the DSCC as a whole, because it has been beaten death by MADCO and others on various diaries.
I know you’re just trying to continue a dead story from yesterday, but it’s over. Sorry MADCO. Romanoff himself came out with a clear statement that he is not and will not take PAC money.
How is it clear that he won;t take PAC money when Romjue says they willl?
At the end of the day it’s his call.
He’ll tale DSCC money, even if it’s from PACs, even if it’s from lobbyists, even if it’s people out of Colorado. ANd if not – he can’t compete in the general.
Romjue is just telling the truth- get over and get used to it.
For attacking Romanoff along with the Republicans…
Can you tell who said these quotes?
One is from the Bennet Campaign,
the other is from the NRSC.
Clearly the Republicans fear Romanoff and would rather face Bennet.
It’s what they tell their children around the campfire: “Romanoff’s coming to get you! And instead of a hand, he has a hook!”
Or is that not fair to mention children?
Talking about the hook was a little over the line.
Or recent history.
How about dates? Probably not. That might show that, if these are accurate quotes, they came very recently. After months of Romanoff being the Best Senator Money Can’t Buy.
The name calling from Campanoff started DAY ONE after he announced. Your hypocrisy has reached huge shit pile status, Wade.
Because the Romanoff campaign dearly wants this to blow over.
I think the Romanoff campaign dearly wishes they had not flip-flopped at this point.
I’m hearing that the DSCC is pretty unhappy with Andrew, and does not have any well-formed plans for major assistance, should he win the primary. Their support will be mostly going through the motions, if it exists at all.
I’m also hearing that Bennet should handily win the primary, and all the talk about being on the ropes is simply a mistake.
Anyway, this is the rumor I heard, and I’m certainly not arguing that it’s correct.
And I’d almost buy the second part.
“Should” is true. Will he? Six more days till we find out.
dlof is hearing that bicycles are a plot from the UN.
oh, and that dlof does not link to any sources – which allows the dispersal of pure fantasy.
I’m not sure I buy either part of this, personally, but it seems to me that it’s a reasonable conversation point for this blog, and certainly not something that requires you to sling ad hominem insults at me.
Thanks for reinforcing your position as resident douche canoe!
he just found out his chosen candidate is a flip flopping cretin. It stings.
After all, he’s a Romanoff shill.
perfection. Anyone that can prove otherwise must be severely chastized. If Romanoff were to ever enter the senate, the rest of the senators would bow down and recognize his superiority and everyone of them would vote exactly the way he wants. It would be a Romanoffian paradise. How did Colorado become so lucky?
a land where the Governor appoints the guy you want and all money is fungible.
all you want,
it keeps you off your message.
because the message is what denverco stated. Matters not if it’s delivered with irony, sarcasm, statistics, or big red bows. The message is that Romanoff and his supporters are hypocritical WATB’s.
And you are among the top three whiniest, most irritating, and sometimes downright stupidist. How you can think you could ever bring anyone here over to your side with your constant unreasonable, non-fact based, insulting, smearing, usually cowardly comments just defies all. I say cowardly because every time someone asks a legitimate question of you, you run and hide. Truly don’t believe you’ve ever, EVER, given a factual, evidence- based response to anything.
Right now, the biggest reason I’m looking forward to this primary being over and Bennet emerging as winner is just to shut you up!!! That’s the pettiness you’ve driven me to. And I used to appreciate reading what you had to say on other topics. Now I’d be happy to never see your name again.
And you don’t have a history of Making Shit Up….
Wade does have a history of MSU.