Did the Democratic Party Give Up on Brown?

[TheCat]

I'm looking through campaign contributions to Brown's and Curry's affiliated PAC.

Through the end of April, the PAC associated with Brown raised $2.4 million. Between January 2015 and April 2015, $2.3 million was "Contributed" to the state democratic party, approximately 95% of their funds.

Curry's PAC raised about $2.7 million and contributed a little over $1 million to the state Republican party, approx. 37% of their funds.

I initially thought that maybe the PAC is paying the state party for services rendered. If that were the case, it is my understanding now that the "contribution" would have had to have been listed as an itemized expense. So, if the state party was sending out mailers or polling on behalf of Brown then the itemized report needed to state the activity the PAC was paying to receive.


For those interested:

Curry's PAC is registered with Jacksonville and Brown's PAC is registered with the state.

Link to Curry's pac finance reports:

Together For A Greater Jacksonville

http://www.duvalelections.com/Candidates-And-Committees/Candidate-Committee-Treasurer-Reports-Bios/Campaign-Treasurer-Reports-Bios


Link to Brown's pac finance reports:

Taking Jacksonville to the Next Level

http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/committees/ComDetail.asp?account=60893

[Tacachale]

Sigh. No.

The Democrats pulled out all the stops for Brown. He was defeated by his own record and campaign.

Barring any evidence  that the Democratic Party took folks' $2.3 million and just didn't use it, the likelier answer is that they simply didn't spend it as wisely as the Curry campaign. It is known the Brown campaign had five different people on their communication staff, they were paying some staffers very amply, and of course there was the turnover issue. Curry didn't have nearly as much of that; he put his money into TV ads and advertisement.

If anything, the party had too much influence on Brown's campaign. They were heavily reliant on out-of-town operatives who clearly didn't know how to win in Jacksonville (Curry had his share of that, but apparently not as much)

[jcjohnpaint]

I think Brown gave up on himself

[mtraininjax]

Brown lost the election narrowly, rather than Curry winning it, I think.

A hollow statement, just the same one that could have been made 4 years ago with Hogan and Brown.

[Tacachale]

I'd say the statement is true: the election was Brown's to lose, and he did. It started long before this race, though; the handling of his campaign was just a symptom of his bigger issues as a mayor.

[strider]

Brown lost the election narrowly, rather than Curry winning it, I think.

Ha.  And it can be equally stated with authority that Curry WON the election because, gee, he did.

It can be just as easily said that Brown's campaign relied upon the sediment that so many here  subscribed to.  While even he and his camp knew they had not done a bang up job the last four years, they were the incumbent and as such, they could not be beat.  They were.  Regardless of who spent how much or how big or small the margin was, Brown lost, Curry won.

Rather than why Brown lost or Curry "narrowly" won, perhaps we should be asking if spending millions on winning a poorly paid CEO job, a temp one at that, is truly in the best interests of the people of Jacksonville.

[TheCat]

Sigh. No.

The Democrats pulled out all the stops for Brown. He was defeated by his own record and campaign.

Barring any evidence  that the Democratic Party took folks' $2.3 million and just didn't use it, the likelier answer is that they simply didn't spend it as wisely as the Curry campaign. It is known the Brown campaign had five different people on their communication staff, they were paying some staffers very amply, and of course there was the turnover issue. Curry didn't have nearly as much of that; he put his money into TV ads and advertisement.

If anything, the party had too much influence on Brown's campaign. They were heavily reliant on out-of-town operatives who clearly didn't know how to win in Jacksonville (Curry had his share of that, but apparently not as much)

Define amply?

That is the more likely scenario. It's also a slick way to get around (maybe illegally?) the no coordination rules of PACs and campaigners. Nearly all of Brown's PAC money went to the D. state party and 40 percent of Curry's went to the R. state party.

I hate to be this guy but the influx of "out of towners" to work on Jax campaigns makes me uneasy.

[TheCat]

Rather than why Brown lost or Curry "narrowly" won, perhaps we should be asking if spending millions on winning a poorly paid CEO job, a temp one at that, is truly in the best interests of the people of Jacksonville.

No one is spending millions on a poorly paid CEO job. That would be nonsensical.

By the way, Rummell has plans for a $400 million development project. Khan, has a pretty sweet plan for the shipyards.

Maybe, we should set the laws so the largest donors have to debate each other.

The donors should be under the lens of journalists, maybe even more than the actual candidate.

We should accept that the candidates are their to manage on the behalf the rich. I think this is actually "proven". Public opinion is all but irrelevant to the decisions of elected officials. 

So, maybe a ballot should list the top 10 donors to a candidate with the amount of money they contributed.

I mean, really, did I have a choice between  Curry and Brown in this election?

Or, did I have a choice between Khan and Rummell?

[Tacachale]

Sigh. No.

The Democrats pulled out all the stops for Brown. He was defeated by his own record and campaign.

Barring any evidence  that the Democratic Party took folks' $2.3 million and just didn't use it, the likelier answer is that they simply didn't spend it as wisely as the Curry campaign. It is known the Brown campaign had five different people on their communication staff, they were paying some staffers very amply, and of course there was the turnover issue. Curry didn't have nearly as much of that; he put his money into TV ads and advertisement.

If anything, the party had too much influence on Brown's campaign. They were heavily reliant on out-of-town operatives who clearly didn't know how to win in Jacksonville (Curry had his share of that, but apparently not as much)

Define amply?

Well, I don't know this for a fact, but on Melissa Ross it was said that some of Brown's out of town operatives were paid 10k or more per week. Combine that with overstaffing (who needs 5 communications people?) and axing people midstream and having to replace them (this may have been necessary, but could have been avoided by hiring the right people from the start), and it's no wonder they were out of money just as Curry was hitting his stride.

This thread's title and some of the comments are really irksome. If you're going to make serious claims, bring the evidence first (and make sure it's legit). This has been one of the worst things about Metro Jacksonville lately.

[strider]

Rather than why Brown lost or Curry "narrowly" won, perhaps we should be asking if spending millions on winning a poorly paid CEO job, a temp one at that, is truly in the best interests of the people of Jacksonville.

No one is spending millions on a poorly paid CEO job. That would be nonsensical.

By the way, Rummell has plans for a $400 million development project. Khan, has a pretty sweet plan for the shipyards.

Maybe, we should set the laws so the largest donors have to debate each other.

The donors should be under the lens of journalists, maybe even more than the actual candidate.

We should accept that the candidates are their to manage on the behalf the rich. I think this is actually "proven". Public opinion is all but irrelevant to the decisions of elected officials. 

So, maybe a ballot should list the top 10 donors to a candidate with the amount of money they contributed.

I mean, really, did I have a choice between  Curry and Brown in this election?

Or, did I have a choice between Khan and Rummell?

Yes, to the point, it is indeed nonsensical.  We do indeed seem to be at the point of electing the donors or the "money men" rather than the person who's name is on that ballot.  I guess it has always been this way to some extent, but it has appeared to be be getting worse the last few years.

Can a city or state have it's own election reform laws or does that have to come from above?  I know that it would take a miracle to make a change though so maybe it would have to come from a higher power after all....

[Tacachale]

Rather than why Brown lost or Curry "narrowly" won, perhaps we should be asking if spending millions on winning a poorly paid CEO job, a temp one at that, is truly in the best interests of the people of Jacksonville.

No one is spending millions on a poorly paid CEO job. That would be nonsensical.

By the way, Rummell has plans for a $400 million development project. Khan, has a pretty sweet plan for the shipyards.

Maybe, we should set the laws so the largest donors have to debate each other.

The donors should be under the lens of journalists, maybe even more than the actual candidate.

We should accept that the candidates are their to manage on the behalf the rich. I think this is actually "proven". Public opinion is all but irrelevant to the decisions of elected officials. 

So, maybe a ballot should list the top 10 donors to a candidate with the amount of money they contributed.

I mean, really, did I have a choice between  Curry and Brown in this election?

Or, did I have a choice between Khan and Rummell?

LOL. Okay, Arash.

Obviously Rummell backed Curry because he wanted him in and Brown out, as did a lot of others. But Khan's support of Brown was just the safest course. If Khan hadn't backed Brown and Brown won, he'd be miserable to work with. But Curry won't care, he'll work with Khan regardless: he's the new guy and Khan's the biggest name in town. If you to uncover the machinations of power, keep looking.

[TheCat]

Tacahale, relax. There's nothing wrong with having a conversation about whether or not the Democrats were full force FOR Brown. Just based on what I saw, they did not put out at the same level as the repubs.

That could have been Brown's doing. He wanted to be a tea-party democrat. That didn't work, I guess.

According to Brown's campaign finance reports the state democrat party contributed about $1.3 million in "in-kind" services to the Brown campaign. That leaves about $1 million that the Brown PAC "contributed" to the state Demo party unaccounted.

My understanding, legally, if a PAC is paying for a particular service they have to list that service. It can't be listed as a contribution. That, at least, is interesting.

LOL. Okay, Arash.

Obviously Rummell backed Curry because he wanted him in and Brown out, as did a lot of others. But Khan's support of Brown was just the safest course. If Khan hadn't backed Brown and Brown won, he'd be miserable to work with. But Curry won't care, he'll work with Khan regardless: he's the new guy and Khan's the biggest name in town. If you to uncover the machinations of power, keep looking.

Yes, obviously. Not so obvious with Brown, though?

I was making a greater point and being a bit sarcastic (kind-of).

The point, we are voting for the money behind the politician not the actual politician. So, when we make our vote we should consider more who and why a particular person(s) is financially backing a candidate.

I'm sure you don't think it's all altruism and rainbows. Or, is it?

[TheCat]

Rather than why Brown lost or Curry "narrowly" won, perhaps we should be asking if spending millions on winning a poorly paid CEO job, a temp one at that, is truly in the best interests of the people of Jacksonville.

No one is spending millions on a poorly paid CEO job. That would be nonsensical.

By the way, Rummell has plans for a $400 million development project. Khan, has a pretty sweet plan for the shipyards.

Maybe, we should set the laws so the largest donors have to debate each other.

The donors should be under the lens of journalists, maybe even more than the actual candidate.

We should accept that the candidates are their to manage on the behalf the rich. I think this is actually "proven". Public opinion is all but irrelevant to the decisions of elected officials. 

So, maybe a ballot should list the top 10 donors to a candidate with the amount of money they contributed.

I mean, really, did I have a choice between  Curry and Brown in this election?

Or, did I have a choice between Khan and Rummell?

Yes, to the point, it is indeed nonsensical.  We do indeed seem to be at the point of electing the donors or the "money men" rather than the person who's name is on that ballot.  I guess it has always been this way to some extent, but it has appeared to be be getting worse the last few years.

Can a city or state have it's own election reform laws or does that have to come from above?  I know that it would take a miracle to make a change though so maybe it would have to come from a higher power after all....

There's a fairly well-known study that compared how the rich impact policy creation in comparison to general public opinion over a certain amount of years. The results were as you would suspect. I'll try to find it today...

Sorry, Tacahale, I'm posting a vague reference to an unknown study. 

[Tacachale]

Tacahale, relax. There's nothing wrong with having a conversation about whether or not the Democrats were full force FOR Brown. Just based on what I saw, they did not put out at the same level as the repubs.

That could have been Brown's doing. He wanted to be a tea-party democrat. That didn't work, I guess.

According to Brown's campaign finance reports the state democrat party contributed about $1.3 million in "in-kind" services to the Brown campaign. That leaves about $1 million that the Brown PAC "contributed" to the state Demo party unaccounted.

My understanding, legally, if a PAC is paying for a particular service they have to list that service. It can't be listed as a contribution. That, at least, is interesting.

Well, to be frank, I'm not particularly confident in your number crunching given a lot of what you've posted lately.

LOL. Okay, Arash.

Obviously Rummell backed Curry because he wanted him in and Brown out, as did a lot of others. But Khan's support of Brown was just the safest course. If Khan hadn't backed Brown and Brown won, he'd be miserable to work with. But Curry won't care, he'll work with Khan regardless: he's the new guy and Khan's the biggest name in town. If you to uncover the machinations of power, keep looking.

Yes, obviously. Not so obvious with Brown, though?

Not so obvious with Khan. It might be tempting to see the election as a Rummell-vs-Khan thing, as they're both rich and visible, but reality isn't so black and white.

I was making a greater point and being a bit sarcastic (kind-of).

The point, we are voting for the money behind the politician not the actual politician. So, when we make our vote we should consider more who and why a particular person(s) is financially backing a candidate.

I'm sure you don't think it's all altruism and rainbows. Or, is it?

I understand what point you were trying to make. I just don't think you made it.

[TheCat]

I really don't think it's Rummell vs Khan thing...but horses are picked for a reason.

Good! You should totally look at the campaign finance reports and tell me your insights.