Update 8/10: A friend in Winona says that the Zemlo letter indeed appeared in the dead tree edition of the paper yesterday. The source will be checking to see if it ran in the print edition in July as well. We will let readers know. In the meantime, we have added a link to the Jake Wagner letter of July 15 that is the source of Zemlo's complaint. The original posting of Zemlo's letter was certainly more timely back in July. Now? Who would remember what Wagner actually wrote?
However, we don't see any "incorrect" fundraising figures in the Wagner letter, while those Zemlo cites are presented in a way that is misleading. While the figure for Davis's individual contributions is correct, Zemlo is simply wrong in her assertion that this sum was greater than the amount of money Walz took in from individual contributors. Walz took in more from individuals (and from more individuals) than did Davis.
This fact--and it is a fact--makes us wonder what compelled the op-ed page editor to repost the Zemlo letter. As the old cliche goes, a person is entitled to her own opinion--but not her own set of facts. What's up with the WDN presenting a clearly false representation of the facts of fundraising in the congressional race--and presenting it twice? Does this sort of editorial practice serve the public good? Are they for real? [end update]
We're wondering what's up with the opinion page at the Winona Daily News, which seems to have come down with a case of Davis Misinformation Syndrome.
The online edition has posted a letter to the editor from Brian Davis supporter Rosemary Zemlo that contains errors of fact about Q2 fundraising. The beginning of the letter is exactly the same as a Rosemary Zemlo letter that ran online on July 26--only that link has been scrubbed completely from the newspaper's web site.
We're working to get a copy of the entire July 26 letter and to discern whether the paper ran the exact same letter twice, and if it has done the same thing in its print edition.
Even if the July 26 and August 9 versions are different after each letter's first paragraph, we're wondering who at the paper thought that Zemlo's false claim about Q2 fundraising was so special that it had to be presented to the paper's readers twice.
Perhaps the editors could share their reasoning on this one. We're especially curious why the original posting has been pulled.
And since the paper has done this--whatever the circumstance--we're reposting our original response from July 26, along with a link to Horse Apple a Day Keeps the Truth Away. from our friend Charlie at Across the Great Divide.
The truth about the Q2 fundraising hasn't changed.
There's our original post from July 26, which addresses the false claim in the first paragraph that Brian Davis raised more money from individual contribution:
Loyal readers--and our visits from the Republican camps--know that we've been documenting the horse apples tossed out by Brian Davis and his supporters.
Today's LTE from Rosemary Zemlo [note: this link is now dead] in the Winona Daily News is but one more meadow muffin:
This is in response to a recent letter saying that Brain Davis has no grassroots support and had incorrect figures on his fundraising. Davis is the strongest second quarter fundraiser of all candidates seeking election to Minnesota’s 1st District. From April 1 to June 30, contributions from individuals to Davis’s campaign were over $268,000. Tim Walz’s campaign continues to be funded by special interest PACs from outside the state of Minnesota. . . .
The facts speak otherwise (we've posted the detailed summaries from the FEC here, along with links to the FEC reports).
Davis was not the strongest fundraiser in MN-01. Walz raised $438,086.97; Davis raised $291,601.05 ($2070.50 of which he contributed), then loaned his campaign $100,000 on the last day of the quarter.
Walz was also the champ in individual contributions, both in total dollars and numbers of contributors. Among those giving contributions over $200, more people living in the First Congressional district gave to Walz than to Davis.
Period. This is a matter of public record.
Congressman Walz's campaign raised more than $306,000 from individuals, of which $97617.24 came from individual contributors who gave under $200. Davis only received $29,709.55 total in small contributions.
When we took our glance at the contributor lists, this is what we found from analyzing the FEC reports:
[Walz] bested Davis by $38,000, but the giving behind those figures reveals an important, wider gap in terms of grassroots support. Walz's total take of large, itemized contributions, $209,103.35 is smaller than Davis's, but Walz's haul came from over twice the number of transactions, 500.
"Transactions" don't equal number of individuals, but it's clear that more people are giving to Walz in this category. There also look to be more First District residents on Walz's list of large contributors than on Davis's.
This difference is far more striking in what we can extrapolate from Walz's small contribution total: $97,617.24,over three times the amount of small contributions that Davis took in ($29,709.55).
Walz can rightfully claim the grassroots advantage in this race, both in terms of total dollars and total donors.
Did Walz receive more PAC money? Yes--but at $124,000.00, the sum was less than half of the money for individuals. Put simply: Walz outraised Davis in money received from individuals and from PACs. Davis got more money from his party (biggest check from the NRCC in Washington DC) and from himself.
Does everyone who comes into close contact with Davis lose the ability to state simple facts?
Here's the first paragraph for today's Zemlo letter:
This is in response to a recent letter saying that Dr. Brian Davis has no grassroots support and which had incorrect figures on his fundraising. Davis is the strongest second quarter fundraiser of all candidates seeking election to Minnesota’s 1st District. From April 1 to June 30, contributions from individuals to Davis’ campaign were more than $268,000. Rep. Tim Walz’s campaign continues to be funded by special interest groups from outside the state of Minnesota.
Well, isn't that special?
Note: We're adding a dated head note to the July 26 posting, directing readers there to this post.
It's an incredible challenge -- and one we shouldn't have to deal with -- to compete against a candidate who shows no interest in sticking to facts.
Posted by: Jeff Rosenberg | August 09, 2008 at 10:54 AM