Follow the Gay Money:
No on 8 Expenditures
In order to avoid repeating the devastating mistakes of the of A-gays who were the self-chosen leaders of the No on 8 disaster - Lorri Jean, Kate Kendell and Geoff Kors - the gay community must scrutinize how the money was spent.
To help facilitate interest in the expenditures of the No on 8 campaign, I went over the current expenses, which will of course change when a final expenditure is released at the end of the year, and categorized where the money went. I have a few points to make about the expenditures, then the actual numbers and a link to the expenditure report are presented.
Point one. By mid-August we had plunked down $5,052,547 in TV costs. BTW, the single largest expenditure was the $2,551,818 laid out on July 24 for TV time.
If I had any sway over how that money should have been spent, I would have created a TV spot with two loving lesbian married moms, preferably with kindergarten-age kids, and aired it in August. Why?
One, to first define ourselves and our battle. Two, to give us visibility in our fight to stop Prop 8. Three, showing the kids would have allowed us to co-opt the issue of kids and recruitment, and to defuse what we knew would be thrown at us in the fall - that gay marriage would harm children. Four, airing the spot before Labor Day would have broken many political rules, something gays have been good at over the centuries, generating massive free media coverage on network and cable stations.
Point two. Someone should tell both the gay leaders who ran this campaign and the lousy consultants they hired to actually operate the statewide effort, that there's a great new invention. It's called the web, and people use it to organize, engage and win campaigns with.
Our side spent a measly $105,081 on web services. Most of that money went to a company that created a boring, non-interactive site that gave little reason for repeat visits.
The Yes on 8 people plowed $230,133 into web services, spending more than double what we did. Granted, neither side seems to have put any significant resources into a solid web presence, I'm embarrassed that the gay side really lagged far behind in this regard.
Point three. The name Steve Smith, DeweySquare honcho straight dude who managed the campaign, doesn't appear in this report, so I don't know how much he earned for his valuable services. Likewise, the firm of Ogilvy International is omitted. Smith hired the Ogilvy folks and placed them in positions of power over the campaign.
Point four. Would it have been so terrible if more than a mere couple hundred bucks were invested in slate card mailers and other get-out-the-vote efforts of groups like the Bayard Rustin Coalition [$193] and the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance [$100]?
All that being said, these preliminary numbers must be the foundation for a new phase of extracting accountability from the No on 8 forces - following the money. When the CA secretary of state releases the final expenditure report in about a month, let's hope there are hundreds of gay eyes poring over the numbers.
Here are the numbers I categorized from the No on 8 expenditure report, data current up to October 18. Click here to read the full report.
Top expenditures by category:
1. TV production and air-time: $17,791,817
2. Campaign consultants: $1,187,941
3. Professional services: $804,797
4. Polling: $651,896
5. Voter outreach: $370,576
6. Campaign workers' salaries: $221,638
7. Office expenses: $177,449
8. Web services: $105,081
9. IRS taxes for campaign workers' salaries: $74,998
10. Campaign paraphernalia: $13,889
Breakdown by category, vendor listings
1. TV production and air-time
a. MeringCarson: $17,781,635
b. Tom Shepard: $3,900
c. Tom Donald: $5,000
d. Bigger Than Texas: $1,292
2. Campaign consultants
a. Lincoln Crow: $280,424
b. DeweySquare: $229,310
c. AC Public Affairs: $199,700
d. Grassroots Solutions: $153,432
e. Kimberly Ray: $80,322
f. Seth Kilborn: $50,105
g. Hirschberg Strategies: $47,752
h. Dale Bankhead: $45,000
i. Marjan Philhour: $44,802
j. Progressive Strategies: $36,193
k. Elgin Consulting: $20,000
3. Professional services
a. Will Copy, copying and mailings: $178,282
b. ML Associates, legal and accounting: $153,274
c. Phone banking: $126,102
( = Callfire, $70,000; Vincent Huang Associates, $56,102.)
d. Remco Johansen, legal and accounting: $116,083
e. Witham Dickey, mailings: $102,529
f. Reed Davidson, legal and accounting: $83,002
g. Fundraising: $45,525
(= H+H Catering, $36,525; AllAccess Inc, $9,000.)
4. Polling
a. Celinda Lake Research Partners: $550,039
b. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research: $50,000
c. David Binder Polling: $17,000
d. Progressive Era: $9,275
e. Equality California: $5,580
f. VR Research: $4,300
5. Voter outreach
a. Storefront Political Media: $165,952
b. Voter Information Guide: $144,016
c. CA Latino Voters Guide: $30,000
d. CA Concerned Women Voter's Guide: $20,000
e. Our Voices Latino Voter Guide: $10,000
f. Pacific Pride: $315
g. Bayard Rustin Coalition: $193
h. Ventura County Rainbow Alliance: $100
6. Campaign workers' salaries
a. Miscellaneous employees: $221,638
7. Office expenses
a. Advantage Computers: $90,150
b. Wells Fargo: $41,600
c. ActBlue: $19,157
d. Equality California: $11, 317
e. American Express: $8,928
f. SF Gay Center: $4,297
g. San Diego Democratic Party: $2,000
8. Web services
a. Blackrock: $55,585
b. Ofrenda: $15,180
c. Advocacy Marketing: $12,650
d. Virilion: $7,428
e. Target Smart: $4,489
f. Nicholas Henderson: $4,000
g. Advocacy Inc: $2,250
h. Mindshare: $1,399
i. Dawn Klugman: $1,100
j. ActBlue: $1,000
9. IRS taxes for campaign workers' salaries
a. IRS: $74,998
10. Campaign paraphernalia
a. Progressive Store: $7,956
b. Mitchell Printing: $3,524
c. Eagle Press: $2,004
d. Northland Poster: $405
3 comments:
Michael -
It would be helpful to post side-by-side the No and Yes spending figures. Then we could do a true compare-and-contrast.
Patrick Egan
Clearly in light of the lack of outreach to various communities, we were destined to fail. One wonders what the agenda of Mr Smith and others really were.
When people or companies make their living off Democratic Party interests, it's to be expected that there are loyalties. Perhaps, with some of them (certainly not all) some mixed feelings about advancing a wedge issue into the dead center of American culture and politics, for years to come. And into a Presidential election now, in '08! A wedge issue that has been used against Democrats for many, many years! So one must ask, as you just did Marc C. if there were at least some mixed feelings. I'm sure they liked the money. But winning?
For example, you have to ask if, in the inexplicable failure to use Obama's opposition to Prop 8 until the matter was forced by the Yes side, who used him first and wrongly.... and then No did, only at the last minute, only ineffectively in reaction... you have to ask if someone thought the were doing the President-elect a favor.
I'd be surprised if the man wanted such a favor. I've read in the press how Obama's California staff was shocked that No On 8 didn't use his opposition to Prop 8 as a weapon. Way back in June, Obama wrote a very clear letter in opposition to Prop 8, and offered the newlyweds the customary "congratulations" that all nice, polite people do to happy couples. This is a man who gave the brilliantly direct and honest race speech after the Rev. Wright dust-up. I don't think he's afraid of things.
So you do have to ask.
The very capable Patrick Guerriero flew in a month before the election, took over, made many, many changes, and from the assessments I have seen, gave us a close loss instead of the big one we were headed for. He's a Republican. With no particular ax to grind. He's gay. Works for the bipartisan Gill Foundation. Wanted to win. If the guy had another month, we might have.
It is reasonable to ask.
Post a Comment