Perhaps Representative Rehberg Should Try Some “Made in Montana” Fundraising

Shares

In his analysis of the funds raised in the 2012 Montana Senate race, Matt Gouras pointed out a detail that has to make Representative Rehberg nervous. It seems that he’s having an awfully hard time raising money from the people he ostensibly represents:

Tester has also been winning the money war in contributions collected from Montana _ by a large amount. Tester reeled in $840,000 from Montana individual contributors, while Rehberg collected $286,000, according to the reports.

While I get as tired as anyone about the focus on money rather than issues in modern political campaigns, this is the kind of number that shows a campaign is struggling to connect with voters. Of course, it’s hard to connect with voters when you’re dodging them at every opportunity–and make an embarrassing gaffe every time you do speak with them.

If you appreciate our efforts to hold Montana Republicans accountable and the independent journalism here at The Montana Post, please consider supporting our work with a small pledge.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is an eighteen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.

His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.

In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

27
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
21 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Mark TokarskiMark TokarskiIngemar Johannsoncaptbobdpogreba Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
ladybug
Guest
ladybug

This too from the Gouras article: "The Republican gets 78 percent of all his money collected through individual contributions from people who live outside Montana. Tester gets 73 percent of his money from nonresidents." Quite similar, no? Beltway, all the way.

Rob Kailey
Guest

"Corporations are people, my friend".

Lega
Guest
Lega

Sen. Tester is clearly outworking Rehberg. That being said, Rehberg is probably just kicking back and waiting for more of those sweet, sweet Super PAC attack ads to keep rolling in to Montana.

Ingemar Johansson
Guest
Ingemar Johansson

I guess you didn't read the last sentence of the linked article.

" but unfortunately Sen. Tester rejected it because he refuses to part with the large sum of money he's taken from lobbyists, PACs and out-of-state special interests," said Rehberg spokesman Chris Bond."

ThePolishWolf
Guest
ThePolishWolf

But there's a difference between taking money from interest groups and having PACs do your campaigning for you. The former is transparent – we can see who exactly the money is coming from. That has existed forever, and is certainly protected speech. People and even corporations have a right to give money directly to campaigns they support. The difference is when you launder that money through a third party that can hide its donor lists.

Lega
Guest
Lega

Polish Wolf is absolutely correct. There is a HUGE difference between taking PAC money and having a Super PAC involved.

Ingemar Johansson
Guest
Ingemar Johansson

The left's strategy is becoming more transparent. Their "Super Pacs" suck so it's mud slinging time. From the Hollywood reporter. "The Democrats’ four leading super PACs thus far have raised a relatively anemic total of slightly more than $19 million, according to federal election reports filed Tuesday. The paltry totals rolled up by Priorities USA Action $6.7 million), the American Bridge PAC($6.4 million), Majority PAC ($2.7 million), and House Majority PAC ($3 million) reflect a national problem for Democratic fundraisers that has become particularly acute in Hollywood." You guys are the biggest hypocrites. Jon will use Super Pac monies and… Read more »

Ingemar Johansson
Guest
Ingemar Johansson

Want a good laugh?

Go down the list of individual contributors for Jon's cash cow, "Montanans for Tester".
http://fec-individuals.findthedata.org/search/Fil

They're all big contributors from out of state! Hardly any MT residents.

captbob
Guest
captbob

Hej do Ingemar, It's interesting that in the same dataset you pointed us to, Senator Tester only has one PAC listed: Montanans for Tester. You can find all his contributors there. Rep. Rehberg has 4, plus one oddly duplicated: Montanans For Rehberg. Rehberg For Congress, Rehberg Montana Victory Committee, Rehberg Victory Committee, Rehberg Victory Committee. You can't really compare apples to apples without downloading all the data and recompiling it. Rep. Rehberg dissembles even when reporting campaign contributions. And looking at his list of contributors, most of them are from out of state, and even some of his in-state contributors… Read more »

ThePolishWolf
Guest
ThePolishWolf

"Denny's biggest accomplishments is being re-elected to the House several times over with large margins. "

Yes, only 94% of incumbents can claim that accomplishment.

Ingemar Johansson
Guest
Ingemar Johansson

Then you shouldn't be worrying 'bout Jonny boy.

Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

The intellectual gymnastics (pretzel thinking) used to justify this extremely corrupt political system are impressive, to say the least. The invented differences between one party's corruption (SUPER PAC bad!) and the other's (PAC good!) are purely academic exercises. The taint ascribed to out-of-state bribery versus in-state is laughable. Montana is sparsely populated, so that saturation via 15 and 30 second ads is relatively inexpensive, making Montana senate seats a cheap buy. The guy that raises the most money, buys the most air time and has the cleverest ad agency will win, though I've never really understand the ease with which… Read more »

Rob Kailey
Guest

Mark, your absolutist claim concerning 'best financed campaigns' is pretty laughable given the obvious context of Jon Tester's career. In 2006, the Burns campaign spent $8.5 million, half again more than Tester's $5.5 million. Clearly, it does not always boil down to money.

Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

There are no absolutes, usually correlation of .3 or more is enough to say that there is a connection. But in politics the better moneyed side wins more than 90% of the time. Your example is anecdotal.

Rob Kailey
Guest

Your evidence, please. My example is anecdotal, and matters more to Montana. It also completely refutes your claim. Something that 'almost' always happens does not establish that correlation is causation.

Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

Correlation is not always causation, of course, but 90% speaks, and I doubt Montana is different. Burns was damaged goods, Abramoff and all, and still damned near won! Not that it mattered. tester is Burns II.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-win

Evidence, that's all. Glad you didn't use word 'proof.'

Rob Kailey
Guest

It did matter, Mark. Just not to you. Good thing that you don't live here anymore.

Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

Fairly easily moved by surface phenomena, are we, Philosophy 4.0 guy? I’m so surprised you’re not going deep on this. But I get it. I’m not stupid. A cigar is just a cigar. Always. THAT is how one should analyze politics. What they say is what is real. Always.

Ingemar Johannson
Guest
Ingemar Johannson

Your right Rob, doesn’t boil down to money.

Especially when Lee Enterprises gives you daily Abramhoff and firefighter stories, free of charge.

Which begs the question Don proposed.

Where’s the partisan reporting for Jon against Denny?

Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

Isn't belief without evidence the definition of religion?

Support Our Work!

Poll

What would be the most appropriate nickname for Matt Rosendale?

Follow Us on Twitter

Subscribe Via E-mail

0 /* ]]> */