April 12, 2006
Darcy Burner pulls non-compliant video
The Darcy Burner campaign has already pulled down the video that was the subject of today's campaign finance complaint by the state GOP. I'll take this as an admission that the GOP's complaint was not without merit. Maybe Darcy Burner should have stayed in law school longer and taken a class on campaign laws.
I watched the non-compliant video before it was pulled. It contains more false inflation of Burner's accomplishments similar to others that Burner has been making. This claim is in the video screen shots in Exhibit B of the complaint:
Darcy's growing army of grassroots supporters raised over $100,000 in the first hundred days of her campaign.
No Democrat has ever accomplished such a feat in the 8th District.
This seems to be a lot of wishful thinking that isn't supported by FEC filings --
According to her FEC filings, Burner filed her candidacy papers on June 15, 2005 and 100 days later, September 23, 2005, her campaign reported a total of $56,500 in named individual donations (≥$200), including $25,000 from Burner herself. In addition, she received at most $22,654 in small donations (<$200) and $2,228 in party donations for all of 2005. i.e. her total take in her first 100 days was actually in the $30,000 - $50,000 range. On the other hand, in the first hundred days after Dave Ross filed on May 29, 2004, he collected $129,011 in identified individual donations alone, not including his and his wife's own contributions. (go here and do the math)
I've asked the campaign for an explanation, but they haven't yet answered my earlier questions about her apparent misrepresentations. If and when I hear from the campaign I'll post their response in full.
UPDATE Burner replaced the non-compliant video with a DCCC slide show that falsely equates Reichert's position on stem cell research with that of Pat Robertson. Reichert's own statement on the issue is here. This is similar to Burner's other attempts to mischaracterize Reichert's positions
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 12, 2006
12:11 PM | Email This
1. Violations, what violations? These are not violations, they're required actions.....required to level the playing field with Chimpy Bushitler, Darth Cheney, and the rest of the VRWC.
And wasn't Darcy's remarkable ability to raise funds from thin air a key attribute that received glowing praise and gushing from David Goldstein? Hmmm, I guess that was a lie too, just like Darcy being an MS Exec. Think we will see a correction from Goldstein? Doubtful.
Only an amateur would make the mistakes Darcy Burner is making. It's awfully naive to even suggest a former title that could be misconstrued when running for an office as conspicuous as the US House. Yeah, she really does need that book from Amazon ASAP.
3. (Literally) Nothing to see here....move along.
4. Darcy Burner--
5. On the day that Darcy filed (6/15/05) an executive (really high up) donated to Reichert's campaign. Six days later, another executive (also really high up) donated to Reichert's campaign. It's still a bit early, but maybe these Microsoft Executives (really high up) believe that they Reichert will better serve them......
6. The video that is up now uses the terms "stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" as though they were interchangeabe. Most Democrats probably don't know the difference anyway.
Let's see what gets more play in November - that Darcy got support from a group of Washington voters that may or may not have failed to fill out some paperwork or that Dave got the support of Dick (18%) Cheney.
Keep grasping at straws guys, at least you're entertaining.
8. As a Microsoft 'executive' Darcy must surely care about copyright and intellectual property laws. I wonder if the producers of the video properly obtained permission to use several minutes of a song by the Cranberries the soundtrack of the video. How hip.
The Darcy thing will get more play.
She's digging her own grave, and Claire will join her in it.
You mean she replaced a self-aggrandizing lie with calumny directed at her opponent?
I've sometimes wondered if Demwits would have much to say at all without calumny. I forgot about the possibility of telling lies to puff themselves up.
11. Right on Palouse...By the way Spy Glass Hill was great today!!!
Keep it up Darcy - keep digging that hole. Dave Reichert is one of the few members of Congress who has the cajones to stand against illegal immigration and stand up for securing the borders and not play politics about it like many of these despicable politicians are. He should be resoundingly reelected, especially if this issue stays on the front burner.
What is Darcy Burner's stand on securing the borders and enforcing existing immigration laws ? Probably watered down platitudes and cliches with no action. I don't trust her - like most of the rest of them ! Nice try, but she's running in the wrong district. She should be running against Bagdad Jim as a Dhimmicrat.
Thank you for proving that you're an idiot. You equate a violation of the law with receiving support from an unpopular politician.
VP Cheney may be unpopular, so perhaps getting his support won't play well. That's for Rep Reichert's campaign to decide.
Ms. Burner's campaign may have violated the law. Of course that's OK with you, the Dumbocraps don't believe in the rule of law; the law should be replaced by one's sense of "fairness."
Sorry to inform you, but it wasn't a "group of Washington voters that may or may not have failed to fill out some paperwork." It was Ms. Burner's campaign manager, or chair of her finance committee, that failed to fill out the paperwork. Failure to do so is a violation of the law.
Of course idiots like you don't think the law applies to your candidates. One can designate authority, but one cannot designate responsibility.
You sanctimonious losers are more than happy to blame Tom DeLay for crimes committed by his staffers. But, goodness, one of Darcy's staffers violates the law and it's not her fault.
You are a POS. FOAD. Am I angry, yes. Want to have an intelligent discussion? Then come back when you're able to talk like an adult.
Come on, Claire, debate me on the facts. But since the facts are not in you favor I have no choice but to declare you a "Loser."
Golly, Stefan, can your gruel get any runnier?
Have you been reduced to comparing Darcy's contribution reports with those of Dave Ross...in order, to ....WHAT? If this is the Republican idea of vigorous debate, have at it, big fella. Real persuasive, that.
Dave Reichert is an ideological butt buddy to Tom DeLay. He votes with him 95% + of the time, as he does with GWB.
That's what the folks of the 8th District will be rightly considering and debating, and it's understandable why that makes you folks nervous.
bartelby, your favorite POTUS, Slick Willy, was caught in many lies. He wagged his finger at us, and convinced his cabinet to support his lies. Your side bought it, and is now ashamed of being misled.
So now, your side has to resort to fabricating lies by Dubya to justify your sticking up for Slick.
So now Darcy lies. Please tell me what is true about these statements: A Microsoft executive. Having raised over $100,000 faster than any other Dem (or what ever the claim is). Now in your anger you must defend her because she's the best you have. If the Dems had a chance in the 8th they certainly would have fielded a better candidate, not an empty suit.
Tom DeLay is gone. Try again. And, BTW, tell me what statements that I mentioned by Darcy are true.
Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
16. Shark, I like the fact that I get to see dissenting views (even if they are nasty personal attacks by some of our left-of-center friends) on your blog. I tried to post to the NPI blog (a very respectful message without a single personal attack) and I was "moderated" out. After a little bit of searching, I find NO other dissenting views (with the exception of dems squabbling about Cantwell's war record). Apparently "progressive" means only hearing your own view, parroted over and over again, and quashing any dissenting views that may come from the other side.
17. " tell me what statements that I mentioned by Darcy are true" should read, "tell me what statements that I mentioned by Darcy are NOT true."
18. Phlash, you lucky bastard, stop rubbing it in ;-)
19. Have you been reduced to comparing Darcy's contribution reports with those of Dave Ross...in order, to ....WHAT?
My guess would be to show that, right out of the gate, she's already inflating, embellishing, and outright lying about even the smallest details.
Give Dave Ross credit, he didn't embellish or lie about his resume or who supported him or how much money he raised. That Darcy Burner feels the need to do this about things that in all honesty are relatively minor speaks volumes her character.
, can your brain get any runnier?
The fact that it rankles simpletons like you pleases me no end!