In today's Post Bulletin, staff writer Heather Carlson writes in Rochester donors favor Walz, Coleman:
While voters might gripe about members of Congress, one thing is sure -- these incumbents are raking in big money from Rochester donors.
Democrat Rep. Tim Walz is a prime example. The former teacher from Mankato has dominated the donation race, raising more than $85,000 from Rochester alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[link added] That is more than twice as much collected by his Republican opponent, Dr. Brian Davis. The gap in total donations remains significant, with Walz claiming $2.3 million in donations compared to $838,000 for Davis.
And later in the article, this remarkable paragraph:
Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that donations under $200 are not recorded with the Federal Election Commission. That means a candidate could be doing much better when it comes to small donors, but campaign finance records would not show that.
Um, Ms. Carlson and Jay Furst, can we talk? We think you mean well--we certainly hope so--as does the Post Bulletin. Unfortunately, that's a misleading snapshot of giving in this race.
We'll break out of the natural order of the article itself and take on that second paragraph first. It's breathtaking in the way sloppy writing combines with the potential to mislead readers.
Small contributions (we like to use the precise word for political giving) are indeed reported to the FEC. They are reported in a lump sum, and thus the reports indicate the total giving by small contributors, but not the names of the individuals. In FEC reports, this lump sum is call "unitemized
To write, as Carlson did, that
a candidate could be doing much better when it comes to small donors, but campaign finance records would not show that.
is simply wrong. We will no doubt be seeing Davis supporters repeating this line, and they will be as equally misinformed as Ms. Carlson seems to be.
How does the giving from small contributors to each candidate compare? Since campaign finance records really do include information about contributions from small givers, here goes. We'll be looking at Line 11, Section a(ii) on the detailed summary reports online with the Federal Election Commission; Line 11, Section a(ii) provides lump sum figures of small contributions under $200.
Here's part of Davis's latest filing, drawn from his committee's pre-primary report's detailed summary report in which we highlight the "unitemized" contributions in red:
| 11. Contributions (other than loans) From: | |||
| (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees | |||
| (i) Itemized | 67039.00 | ||
| (ii) Unitemized | 21759.00 | ||
| (iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals | 88798.00 | ||
And the same lines from the Walz for Congress report:
| 11. Contributions (other than loans) From: | |||
| (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees | |||
| (i) Itemized | 95587.95 | ||
| (ii) Unitemized | 62076.50 | ||
| (iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals | 157664.45 | ||
Once again, Carlson is simply wrong. Campaign records show that for the period from July 1-August 20, small contributors gave Congressman Walz's campaign committee $62,076.50 versus the $21,759 Davis's committee took in from simliar contributors.
That's not quite three times as much in one short period, but the Post Bulletin readers don't know that. Instead, they have been told there's no way of knowing.
Since Ms. Carlson proved herself incapable of mining this data from the FEC reports, we'll do it now for each of the reporting periods in which Davis has filed a report. We'll cut Line 11, Section a (ii) and paste the data here.
From the beginning:
July 2007 quarterly report
Davis
(ii) Unitemized $500.00
Walz
(ii) Unitemized $63,457.64
October 2007 quarterly report:
Davis
(ii) Unitemized $3,269.00
Walz
(ii) Unitemized $65,063.00
2007 year end report:
Davis
(ii) Unitemized $8,982.50
Walz
(ii) Unitemized $45,064.50
April 2008 quarterly report:
Davis
(ii) Unitemized $3.993.00
Walz
(ii) Unitemized $88,537.33
July 2008 quarterly report:
Davis
ii) Unitemized $29,709.55
Walz
(ii) Unitemized $97,617.24
Those pre-primary report figures again from the most recent reports (a shorter reporting period than the quarterly reports)? Davis had $21,759 v. $62,076.50 for Walz.
Update: Since Davis jumped in the race, total dollar amount in small unitemized small contributions for Walz? $421,814. For Davis? $ 68,212. (Both figures are rounded off).
Walz's huge edge among small contributors is clear. Any questions? Walz did receive other small unitemized contributions before Davis started fundraising, but we think our point is made. There's no good journalistic reason for the Post Bulletin to neglect reporting these figures. [end update].
The story--which the Post Bulletin couldn't report--is that Walz has continued to wallop Davis in the small individual contributor category after Davis secured his party's endorsement. Another part of the story is the very small amount of given Davis received from small contributors prior to gaining the endorsement.
Given the actually data the FEC reports provide, a paragraph in Carlson's story takes on added meaning:
"If there is a big difference (in fundraising) between the candidates, that really does indicate that one candidate has a much better base in the district than another," Schier said.
The difference in small contributor giving to Walz compared to Davis' anemic base is breathtaking. But the Post Bulletin didn't tell--or didn't know how to tell--its readers that. (And by not telling the full story, Ms. Carlson allows Davis apologists to fall back on their line of bull about Davis's grassroots support. Nice work if you can get it).
Finally, we must take issue with the Post Bulletin's presentation of overall fundraising as well, given how it stirs together all categories, including loans.
Brian Davis's "donations" (his favored word for "contributions") do not total $838,000. On the latest FEC fundraising report from his committee, from which we presume you took the data (given that the Open Secrets summary page lists a different figure), the general term for income is "receipts."
Contributions are listed as a separate category from loans and other receipts. It doesn't serve any public purpose for the Post Bulletin to report loans as receipts. Does it?
The most recent fundraising report indicates Dr. Davis has loaned--not "donated" $248,000 to his campaign--he paid $124,000 back, but then loaned it to himself when his fundraising sputtered out in August.
Take away the $248,000 he loaned to his campaign--loans, that is, and not contributions--his total take in all types of contributions plummets to $590,190.81.
We're also just petty enough to point out that the FEC divides total contributions into several types. One catergory is labeled "Contributions from the Candidate." In this category, Doctor Davis has done quite well, giving his campaign $63,363.76 across the cycle. That reduces giving from others to $526,827.05 from individuals, party committees and PACs.
We hope that our readers will call attention to the deep flaws in this article. The comments at the Post Bulletin online are a good place to start, but letters to the editor and emails as well might help set the record straight.
And this sort of misleading reporting is yet another reason why it's important to contribute to Tim Walz's campaign committee. Help Congressman Walz get his message out by contributing here. And yes: volunteer to help door knock, phone banks and all the other crucial GOTV activity necessary to keep Walz working for Southern Minnesota.
Thanks for the heads up on this. I had questions on it when I read it in the paper.
Posted by: rochesterresident | September 27, 2008 at 05:18 PM