McCracken Campaign Under Fire for Campaign Finance Violations

KVUE & News8 (0.00 / 0)

Your comments against KVUE & News8 seem unfair to me. They spent the money to produce the content -- isn't it fair that they get the ad revenue associated with the site hits their content generates? What harm is there in linking? Are you afraid someone will jump to KVUE and never come back to BOR? If you link, both KVUE and BOR get to share in any additional ad revenue generated by the content.

---

by: scarlson @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 09:25:52 AM CDT

it's not unfair (0.00 / 0)

As you can see in the Fox 7 report that is embedded, the stations can deliver the pre-roll advertisements that follow the content no matter where it is embedded. News 8 and KVUE both do the same pre-roll ads in their video, there is no difference there.

Video pre-roll ads command a higher rate per thousand views (impressions) than the banner display ads that exist on the site. Can you imagine if KEYE had allowed for emedable video 2 years ago when they had their ghost voting story that ended up getting uploaded to youtube as a way to share it (for 700,000 views and counting)?

Heck, I've been asked once or twice by reporters for those stations to capture their own content and put it on youtube so that it could be shared elsewhere within their family of sites. In this instance, it's a good example not of anything that is "stealing" content and very much helping to promote and drive revenue via increased video ad views.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 10:48:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

sounds legit (0.00 / 0)

federal races permit you to raise money in in the primary in anticipation of the general election. if you don't win the primary...you return the money.

i'm far from an attorney, but my reading of the language allows money to be raised "in the event"...that just about says it to me.

but this is just another distraction. mccraken's campaign has made some odd strategic moves and drawn attention for the oddest things. maybe he should have kept mario!!

btw: i hate that backdrop. i've seen it a few times now. i'm sure there is some big strategic reason behind it, but it doesn't come through.

---

by: colin @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 10:42:16 AM CDT

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

As long as he doesn't spend the money before May 10th, this seems like a non-issue.  He certainly has a reasonable expectation of reaching the run-off.  

Also, would it be too much trouble for someone in the media to speak with Jim Cousar or another expert in election law about this?

This seems like nothing more than mudslinging.  But, in politics, perception is everything.

---

by: Jeb @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:08:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good question (0.00 / 0)

Why is nobody asking a single expert to weigh in on this issue?  It certainly seems like rampant mudslinging.  I heard yesterday that the Leffingwell camp was going to file "criminal" charges, which 1. They don't have the authority to do and 2. That makes it seem all the more likely this is just dirty politics less than a week before the election.

---

by: TomBombadil @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 13:55:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

two things (2.33 / 3)

1) The complaint was filed in municipal court so maybe you heard wrong. That was written about in the post and is what happened. So whatever you "heard" has clearly been overridden by what actually happened.

Moving on to point #2...

2) Really people, if you are going to be campaign staff trying to post under a username that masks your identity and then use that to "raise questions" in the comments... you might be wise to not register with an email address that easily identifies you as McCracken campaign personnel. Like, really.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 16:39:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Campaign staff posting under fake names (1.00 / 1)

FTL

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 19:57:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Me campaign staff? Awesome. (0.00 / 0)

Hey guys, I'm really flattered that both of you felt it neccessary to come into the comments section and destroy my credibility, it really makes me feel like the questions I was raising were legitimate.

I'm also flattered that you consider me campaign staff.  Not sure why having a Yahoo email account indicates that I'm staff, but I guess that's cool.  Could you let the McCracken team know though?  Cause they haven't paid me in a while.  Or ever really.

---

by: TomBombadil @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 22:19:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

staff doesn't equal paid (3.00 / 1)

Though maybe others have different opinions on that, I consider campaign personnel to include both those paid staff as well as consultants as well as interns who can be paid or unpaid. Generally those who are involved with a campaign on a day to day basis, work at an office either at a campaign or for the office of campaign consultants.

I'm not saying who you are, just advising in the comments a suggestion that if you are any of the above, we generally prefer there to a bit more transparency here. We don't need any other Buck Smith or D Davenport episodes here.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 14:47:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

have you read the paper? (0.00 / 0)

There's a limit on how much you can raise from people from out of town. McCracken exceeded it. Pretty straightforward.  

But I guess when you're going to be leading the "Brewster Nation" you have to start reaching outside little ol' Austin for support.

---

by: BeatrixKiddo @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 14:05:26 PM CDT

Not straightforward at all (5.00 / 1)

For the election and runoff combined, McCracken is allowed to raise more out-of-town money than he has received. For just the election, he's already exceeded the limit.  So, is he allowed to raise money for the runoff ahead of time and give it back if he doesn't make the runoff?

It doesn't look like anybody on this thread (including me) knows the answer to that one. How about if we hold our fire until we find out?  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 14:59:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lawyerly Opinion (0.00 / 0)

Since there have been several requests, here's my opinion as an attorney, with the caveat that I am NOT an election lawyer and the usual caveat that if you are reading this, I am not your lawyer, and I am not providing legal advice.  If you want legal advice, consult your own attorney.

I think a great deal turns on how the funds were collected and handled.  For federal races, you can collect donations for both the primary and general at the same time.  However, you must make it explicit at the time you are raising the money that you are asking people to donate for both, and the funds must be earmarked accordingly.  I don't know if you have to firewall the funds in a separate campaign account, though I'd bet you do.  This makes accounting sense as well, since if you didn't clarify what money was for what, who would you return the money to if you lost the primary?

The same concerns apply for the general/run-off distinction, so to comply with the law, which probably hasn't been interpreted yet by any court under these facts, I'd predict that a judge would say at minimum the law requires the funds to be handled as above.  So the question is, did the McCracken campaign ask people to donate specifically for the general and/or the run-off?  Was there a form or some way of marking whether a donation was for both the general and run-off, or just for one or the other?  Were the funds handled in some way to ensure that they remained distinct?  If none of this discussion took place and the accounting records lack this information, that'd be pretty strong evidence that the McCracken campaign is relying on the general/run-off distinction ex post facto.

Another piece of circumstantial evidence is did the McCracken campaign actually ask people to donate $700 or just collected individual $350 donations exceeding the limit?  Now, this would not be conclusive, because nothing bars someone from saying, okay, all the donations collected up to this point are for the general, and then everything after this point is for the run-off, but it would be somewhat suspicious if a campaign said they decided to raise money for both simultaneously, yet never asked any single individual to donate to both.  At the very least, I'd want to hear the explanation as to why.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 00:07:43 AM CDT