The Bob Barr campaign’s big “Raising the Debate” push to hit $750,000 in contributions has fallen a bit short of the goal. According to the campaign website, yesterday was the target date for them to hit three-quarters of a million in funds raised, but they’re reporting only about $625,000 in actual contributions thus far.
If I was to offer the Barr campaign a totally unsolicited suggestion right now, it would be the same one I’d offered them several months back when they were an exploratory committee. Set your goals low and blow them out, then progressively inch the goals upward as you go.
So, instead of just changing the site to say “$1 million by September 1st!” or whatever… start at zero and challenge people to donate “$12,000 for radio ads in Utah and Montana” and then “$20,000 for billboards in Texas” and so on. Little projects, easy to hit goals. Something where if someone donates $2,000 they can see what a big impact their money had on moving the campaign towards completing a task.
The Ron Paul campaign was a different animal entirely and their goals were mostly about raising huge amounts of money (often in a single day) to prove they could raise huge amounts of money. That’s just not going to fly with this campaign.
It’s much more exciting for donors when you successfully hit the goal you set, and when that goal is something concrete rather than just shoveling money into engine room of the campaign.
That’s paulie with an e.
Incidentally, regarding the allegation that:
… thing, of the amount raised by the 2000 campaign, “$1,494,961, or 62% of the whole, was spent on outreach activities, including advertising, the web site, graphic design, candidate tours, campaign materials, media relations, and the volunteer program; $634,961, or 26% of the whole, was spent on fund-raising, including direct mail, campaign events, data processing, credit-card fees, and regulatory compliance; $293,412, or 12% of the whole, was spent on overhead and administration, including office expenses, equipment, staff relocation, and accounting.”
These figures can be verified with a trip to the FEC website, with the use of a a calculator you can steal from your lawyer’s desk when he’s not looking.
So just where are those figures that prove Browne “was spending the money on more fundraising as fast as it came in”?
And eight long years later, with a candidate you should be pleased with, how can anyone still be “smarting”?
Lance,
In all fairness, Steve and others did try.
Some of us who are on record as supporting a principled and consistent approach to Libertarian politics have submitted multiple letters to LPNews since the LP started going opportunist in, oh, about 2004 — and our letters were not published.
Heck, a bunch of us were even banned from just commenting — much less getting an original article published — on the LP blog. Not for cussing or making personal comments, but for questioning performance and policies, with language no worse than anything posted by reformers/opportunists.
With regard to letters to LPN, after a half-dozen letters of mine had been deep-sixed between 2003 and 2006, I gave up. There is no sense wasting time composing letters to a national party that no longer welcomes my views on internal matters. The time can be spent better elsewhere.
Once again, shame on the LP delegates in Denver for buying into the hype.
Just out of curiosity Steve, did you make the effort to go to the convention to help defeat Barr? If not, is it safe to assume that you have repeatedly cursed yourself for failing the party? Did you give the maximum contribution to his opponents? Did you start an informational campaign to persuade delegates about “the hype”? Since Barr’s possible campaign has been tossed around since last year, I guess I don’t even have to ask if you wrote a letter to LP News. You must have done that, and most or all of these things, I’m assuming, in order to earn that self-righteous feeling.
I think people who want to cast shame upon the Denver delegates ought to make sure they did everything in their power to play a part in the candidate selection process before they repeatedly curse LP members who did their best to help the party and the country according to their own assessment of the situation.
darren // Aug 2, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Verney is not an experienced fundraiser. His work on the 92 and 96 Perot campaigns required zero fundraising. He admitted that was the toughest part himself in a recent interview.
If darren had read my post correctly, where I said, “what is going on with the so-called campaign/fundraising experts Verney and Viguerie? ” They haven’t got this figured out?”, he wouldn’t have made such an uninformed comment!
Here it is again in a shorter sentence campaign-Verney; fundraising-Viguerie! Simple. I said nothing about Verney being a fundraising guru, only that he might have written the letter.
My main point here was that it was explained that the Verney/Viguerie team was assembled to make a first-class campaign. Where is the evidence of this?
Stalwart Libertarians Fred Collins and Barbara Goushaw ran a better campaign for Michael Badnarik, pulling together a team on the fly for an unknown after Michael won the LP nomination, than the so-called “experienced team” that Barr ( a household name, more or less) has assembled. This Barr campaign is a completely underwhelming effort. Once again, shame on the LP delegates in Denver for buying into the hype.
Some people with an axe to grind keep shoveling this stuff. In the past, I’ve asked some of them for specific cites.
Never got one in response.
I have file folders with fairly complete collections of LP and Browne fund-raising letters back to about mid-1997, and after having reviewed them more than once to find these alleged Browne statements, I haven’t found any that say (or “implied”) what the quoted writer claims.
But obviously what happened in someone’s imagination a decade ago is more important than what’s happening now that we have a “$20…. errrr… $40 million” campaign.
I’m still smarting from the promise some dude made that he was going to start another political party when in actuality he was spending his attention taking pot-shots from the sidelines at the party he (supposedly) left.
Somehow, I can’t see successful political participants who have changed parties (viz., people who actually are serving in elective office, such as Ron Paul, or Joe Lieberman) as spending so much of their time monitoring the activities and internal issues of their former parties.
Perhaps we should all reflect for a moment, before posting, upon the question: “what have I done *for* liberty today? And does that accomplishment outweigh the negativity of what I’m about to say?”
For that matter, I’d be happy if some would just reflect on whether what they were saying was just plain *truthful*.
Well, the major parties can afford to spend money to raise money.
spending the money on more fundraising as fast as it came in
A campaign behaving almost like a “Congressional Leadership” PAC? Unthinkable.
Pauli is dead on correct.
I’m still smarting from Harry Browne’s fundraising letters that implied he was building up a huge war chest when in actuality he was spending the money on more fundraising as fast as it came in.
The initial money has to be spent on results donors can see – TV and print commercials, DVDs, bumper stickers, buttons, yard signs, door hangers, billboards, radio ads, ballot drives, brochures, T-shirts, coffee mugs, pens, ballcaps, etc. – NOT just office and staff expenses and yet more fundraising overhead.
Then, and only then, will the donors give additional credibility to requests for more money. Tell them what you want the money *for*. Demonstrate how you have already spent the money donated for specific purposes, FOR those purposes. This isn’t brain surgery.
Has the Barr campaign done this? Not that I know of. Barr has been getting some “free media,” but I know of no ads. Campaign materials are scant. To my knowledge they have only been involved in one ballot drive so far, and it appears to have been a miserable, mismanaged and preventable failure – details coming soon.
Stories like the five figure air conditioning expenditure can’t be helping their credibility even with those who think their message presentation is fantastic.
Those of us who are critical of Barr should not be gloating either: this gang which can’t shoot straight nevertheless effectively outorganized us to capture the nomination, even though we had a big head start. All of us, every faction of the party, should be hanging our heads in shame.
… and Viguerie’s expertise lies in lists of half-dead Nixon donors. (This is why the margins are so low on eg BarrPAC, etc.). Not a prime demographic for an LP campaign.
Verney is not an experienced fundraiser. His work on the 92 and 96 Perot campaigns required zero fundraising. He admitted that was the toughest part himself in a recent interview.
Look at the Uncle Ralph debacle!
He had to start from scratch!
‘Nader’s Raiders and a head shot of Ralph?’
No No No, ‘Progressives’ and ‘Buffalo’!
He will chase middle of the road votes
off by the bus load.
Millions would be ‘contributed’ by Naders’
Raiders mugs, tees, and posters!
‘Declare your Independence’ ? Nothing!
I think the Barr campaign will beat Badnarik’s fundraising total of just over $1 million, but by how much . . . is anyone’s guess. Plus, even after the nomination, Michael, through Fred Collins and Barbara Goushaw ran a pretty lean and mean campaign. I don’t think the same can be said of Barr’s campaign . . . think a/c system install, etc.
Here’s another thing I don’t understand. there is all of this “advise” for the Barr campaign, but what is going on with the so-called campaign/fundraising experts Verney and Viguerie? They haven’t got this figured out?
Thank you for your limpdick support, Ayn!
I promised that if he answered my religious question I’d finally donate. But his limpdick response scaled the size of my donation. The postage cost more.
“you’re [sic]”…. argh.
… meanwhile, they really need to take that “$750,000 by August 1” graphic down and quick… no need to keep reminding the world you didn’t make you’re fundraising goal…
I noticed that too… but I bet they added in a chunk of mailed and other offline donations (Ron Paul’s meter had periodic jolts like this for the same reason.)
$750K was too ambitious of a goal, no question. The fact that they’re over $625K is kind of surprising, acutally. We’ll see what if any effect the August 5 BarrBomb has….
I would have thought the headline would be that so much money came in yesterday. The night before they were around 550K on the website. They had been bringing in a few thousand dollars a day. Then all the sudden they bring in 75K on one day!
“Set your goals low and blow them out, then progressively inch the goals upward as you go.”
That’s what I was saying. But they don’t listen to genius.
svf, that sounds great. Especially since there store shit is overpriced.
Since I know my advice is so valuable to the campaign… I should add putting a deadline on this “limited time offer” to get the free shit is key.
But they know that, right?
Excellent advice.
Also — give people free shit for donating.
$75 gets you a “free” bumper sticker.
$150 gets you a “free” baseball cap.
$500 gets you a goodie box full of Barr paraphenelia and a signed “Meaning of Is” book.
Whatever. Look at PBS/NPR fund-drives for example.
People may consider funding a “sure-to-lose message campaign” if they at least get something tangible out of it. Meanwhile, Barr spreads more of his stuff around, getting his name out there.
It’s a win-win proposition and a net financial gain to the campaign (they will NEVER “sell out” of all their campaign materials).
Harry Browne was no fundraising champion, but he did understand this part. The only way he got over $100 out of me was to give me that “Great Libertarian Offer” VHS tape in return.
(or… is this somehow “illegal” according to campaign finance laws now…?)