So Trippi only made $200K - Where are the retractions ?

[exclark4dean]

and apologies from all the people here who trashed him and Dean, calling Trippi a thief, and the Dean campaign corrupt ?

Oh wait.

These are the same people who are now complaining about the attacks on Kerry for alleged womanizing, and trashing all the DU'ers who dare to comment on this issue !

What goes around ..

[dsc]

1. Yep

and I think the first source for this was the very same one they are in high dungeon about now, fancy that. It actually gets better, evidently Trippi would have made exactly the same amount no matter what he did as that company had done Dean's ads in Vermont for years.

[maggrwaggr]

2. Dean was assassinated by the media, so they could

get Kerry to be the nominee, knowing the whole while they had this sex scandal on Kerry and they could bring him down with that.

Dean came out against the media, he declared war on them, and they kicked his ass.

A sad state of affairs.

[Julien Sorel]

4. Hmmm.

[Kool Kitty]

8. Listen, Pacifica radio did a report about the

"assassination" of Dean's campaign by the corporate media on Tuesday night. They didn't mention the supposed "sex scandal" concerning Kerry, byt they were dead on in a bunch of ways.

[Toucano]

3. Do you have a link? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

6. Link.

http://changeforamerica.com/blog/

[AP]

10. Read closely. He's speaking hypothetically. He says "if" we did 7 mil

in advertising...

Unless I'm missing something, he never says what he made, or how much they really spent on TV.

And it's still open to debate whether 7 million, or whatever they spent through the firm was exhorbitant. He says he didn't have check signing authority, which is good. But you have to bet that the people who did were aware that theiir boss was who was getting the money.

Also, he's cagey about how much he really makes. He's saying that he got 7% of the advertising bill as campaign manager. But he doesn't talk about whether his firm got a profit on the advertising. He says the hypothetical 7 million would have gone to TV stations. But it really would have gone to his partnership to make the commercial, cover overhead, and buy TV time (I presume), and the firm itself might have had a built in profit in that price.

[Toucano]

12. JINX!

You owe me a Coke! LOL! :)

[exclark4dean]

14. But there's no way it's 4 or 5 Millon like some here were saying

Agree ?

[Toucano]

15. No, actually.

It can't begin to be determined until we know how much was spent on TV ads.

I can grant you this. Trippi says the contract was for 7% which is half the standard rate of 15%.

That concerns me because if Trippi's firm gave them a service for less than the fair market value, the difference is considered an "in kind contribution". Could be FEC problems.

On Edit:

I don't imagine it could be much more than 2 or 3 million. That's a lot more than 200K, though. Trippi isn't being completely candid.

[exclark4dean]

18. 2 to 3 million ? You're still trying to allege this ?

Amazing !

HA !

[AP]

21. If his firm also charged a fee for the TV commercial production,

it could have been.

He's just talking about how his campaign mngr salaray was calculated -- a % of the money his firm charged for the commericals.

He doesn't really talk about what made up the fee his firm charged for the commercials.

[exclark4dean]

23. I suggest you look at the filings before you smear him any more

The figures are there.

[Toucano]

27. Do you have a link to the filings?

I'd be happy to check them out.

[Toucano]

26. I never alleged anything!

For the record, I never claimed anything about Joe Trippi in the past.

Trippi's blog post proves absolutely nothing, however. You've been suckered in with his less-than-forthcoming disclosure.

Do the math:

$41 million dollars

2/3 (generally) spent on TV = 27.06 million

7% of 27.06 million = 1.89 million.

Factor in the profit to the firm built into the cost and you might get to 2 or 3 million dollars. TOPS!

Now, what we should be concerned about is the in kind contribution. If Trippi's firm normally charges the industry standard of 15%, that would represent a $2.16 million in kind contribution. That would be illegal.

[AP]

28. Trippi's post raises more questions than it answers.

[exclark4dean]

30. The anti Trippi-Dean posts here answer many questions

and the smearing continues

[AP]

31. It's not a smear to do a close reading of what Trippi is saying.

[exclark4dean]

More outrageous irresponsible speculation and innuendo

2/3 ?

HA !

Less than 25 % !

The campaign paid $7.2 million to Trippi, McMahon and Squier, the Virginia-based consulting and media firm - 23 percent of the $31 million it spent through Dec. 31, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks political spending.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.trippi08feb08,0,2870058.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Millions more in production costs ?

The Dean campaign paid Trippi's media and consulting firm -- Trippi, McMahon and Squier -- $7.2 million last year, about $6.7 million of which was spent to buy Dean advertisements, Trippi said. His partners split the 7 percent commission, leaving him with about $165,000.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/09/state2123EST0159.DTL

The facts that people are continuing to smear and attack Trippi and Dean is beyiond belief.

[AP]

32. Through Dec 31. The primaries started on Jan 19. The might have spent

twice or three times as much after Dec 31 than they speng before.

Do you have the numbers for January?

What is going on at DU? Someone quotes an Adam Nagourney article, and people call it attacks on Clark. Someon posts a story about Trippi and people read it closely and it's called an attack?

Why does everyone want to characterize engaging in a discussion as an attack?

What is gained by pretending there is lots of internal strife....oHHHHHHH.....I get it.......

[AP]

33. There were a few questions in this post.

Anyone want to venture a reply to any of them?

[exclark4dean]

34. It contains so many inaccuracies I almost didn't bother

>>>twice or three times as much after Dec 31 than they speng before.

>>>Do you have the numbers for January?

Dean spent 31 Million in 2003, appox 7 Million of it, or 23 % on ads.

Most of his ads were BEFORE the primaries, as anybody following the campaign knows.

For Dean to have spent TWO OR THREE TIMES that since Dec 31, as YOU specluated, using the percentages used in 2003, he would have had to have raised at least 62 Million to 93 Million in the first 2 months of 2004 !


Speculation like this IS an attack, and a smear, and more baseless innuendo.

I realise the other campaigns are jealous of our fundraising, and it is shown in the obvious resentment and smears directed at Dean and Trippi, and I realise the other camps hope to co-opt our fundraising for their own campaigns, but it's not going to happen.

[Toucano]

11. Thank you. Did I miss something?

It seems like Trippi is talking about a hypothetical that IF the campaign bought $7 million in TV ads:

"2. I recently inquired about the contract and my compensation. It turns out it was a 7% contract. Meaning that if $7 million in TV was bought 93% went to TV stations to buy the time and 7% or $490,000 was paid to the firm in which I was a partner. My firm has 3 partners so my third or share comes to approximately
$165,000. I will let the grassroots and donors of the campaign decide if that was too much compensation. $165,000 is a lot of money, but it is not the $7 million the media and those leveling the attacks want you to believe either."

I may be going out on a limb here, but I hope Dean spent more than $7 million of his $41 million on TV ads.

[AP]

13. That's freaky!

[JVS]

Welcome to DU

[exclark4dean]

7. I've been here for a while, but thanks ! -eom-

[John_H]

5. If this is verified with the final filings, i'll be happy to retract

Right now it's Trippi's word against a "Dean official" quoted in the NY Times. I don't trust either of them.

[exclark4dean]

9. Let's see the quote from the NYT, since there never was one

saying Trippi made Millions, like many people here were alleging, in an effort to smear Dean and Trippi with unsubstantaited rumors.

[John_H]

20. Really?

"Some questioned the arrangements by which Mr. Trippi forfeited a salary as a campaign manager but collected commissions — said to be as high as 15 percent in some cases — based on advertising buys."

You're right. I should have said officals. Plural.

[exclark4dean]

25. Millions ? Do you see 'Millions' did you allege 'Millions' ?

Someone here still is !

What a joke !

[NV1962]

16. It's good that he cleared it up - but it's sad he "had to"

I remember when that "news" broke - found it very hard to believe that a percentage deal of 15% was made.

I'm glad it wasn't even half of that, and that the 7% was a three-way split for the media handling firm. That is by all accounts reasonable.

For comparison, the Clark campaign used a flat fee system, and applied all possible rebates and kick-backs to buy more airtime. With a succesful i.e.: high-volume) campaign, that is actually the "cheapest" way.

However... In Dean's case, it wasn't simply media handling - that 7% paid for media handling and campaign management.

So, in hindsight it's all been a storm in a cup of tea... Hey, stop crying in yer cuppa! :D

[John_H]

19. self delete

[killbotfactory]

17. Rumor-mongering and gossip is ok as long as its not about Kerry's sex life

Dean is fair game.

[exclark4dean]

22. And even fabricating dollars amounts and outright lies

about an honest man.

The shame !

[Capn Sunshine]

24. Sure

because unless we all fall in line behind Kerry, apparently anything less is "sad" "Weak" and "shameful"

[DU GrovelBot]

29. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.