Obama Spent $1.3 Million in Florida

[BeatleBoot]

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=335


<snip>

Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida—more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

<more>


http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/18/101423/027

Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in Florida

He didn't get a very good return on his campaigning in Florida:

Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

That, from the Center for Responsive Politics. I realize that it's still going to be a fight to make the Democratic Party convention a 50-state event, rather than the 48-state event that some want it to be, but this puts to rest the notion that Obama didn't campaign in Florida.

<more>

[Hawkeye-X]

1. MyDD is pro-Clinton website

Let's try again...

[BeatleBoot]

2. Center for Responsive Politics had the original article

[NYCGirl]

4. Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's Florida claim

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/18/161834/399

Here's the text of the email Massie Ritsch sent to me regarding Jerome Armstrong's claim published with his permission {Emphasis mine.}:

Paul,

The information from the Center for Responsive Politics that Jerome Armstrong cites comes from our Feb. 5 analysis of the candidates' year-end campaign finance reports; it's not something we posted today. He also conveniently left out this disclaimer from that same item of ours: "Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."

To explain further, the expenditures figures Jerome cited are calculated by looking only at the addresses of the vendors that each campaign paid. They are almost certainly not accurate counts of how much was spent in a state. It's possible that Obama hired a vendor based in Florida who did work outside the state for his campaign. For example, maybe the printer of his signs is in Florida. The amount of money spent on signs would appear in the campaign finance reports to have been focused solely on Florida, when, in fact, the signs were used to campaign all over the country.

Bottom line: I wouldn't use state spending totals gleaned from campaign finance reports to saw anything authoritative about a candidate's effort in a particular state. The FEC's requirements for reporting expenditures just don't allow for that sort of precision.

Feel free to share what I've told you with the blogosphere. And thanks for your question.

Massie Ritsch
Center for Responsive Politics

[BeatleBoot]

10. I got an email from Englebert Humperdink

Here, let me type it for you...

He said to share it with everyone.

Sincerly,

Englebert

I received it right after the email I got from Jim Morrison.

[NYCGirl]

13. Did Engelbert tell you your claim was bogus? He should have. NT

[BeatleBoot]

16. You tell me. I posted his email. Just like you posted yours.

:rofl:

[NYCGirl]

20. Tell it to this guy: http://kid-oakland.mydd.com/

He's the one who wrote to The Center for Responsive Politics.

[tabatha]

8. I searched that site and could not find Obama's money in FL.

Would appreciate a link.

[Califooyah Operative]

22. It's a shame too. It used to be a decent blog. nt

[Medusa]

3. At least he had the money to spend

unlike Hillary's clueless campaign which apparently couldn't figure out they were awash in red ink.

[jillan]

5. I heard from someone that lives in Fla that he had ads running non-stop.

[TayTay]

11. He did not.

He had an ad buy on national cable, I think CNN. This meant a national ad ran in Florida because CNN could not cut it out of it's national feed.

That is not the same as buying ads in a specific state or targeted area. Obama did NOT have specific ad buys in Florida.

[jillan]

21. Tay-Tay - this is what someone I know told me.

I don't live in Florida, I'm just going by what she said.:shrug:

[benddem]

6. if he wasn't on the ballot

what difference does it make?

[goldcanyonaz]

12. He was on the ballot.

[Bad Thoughts]

14. If you want to be in GE in Florida ...

... you must be on the primary ballot, by law.

[tandem5]

7. uh oh

[Bad Thoughts]

9. How many times in a day ...

... can this be reposted?

After thoroughly being drummed about in the comments, Jerome Armstrong was forced to admit that he could not say that the money was spent on campaigning, that indeed it could have spent on anything, including fund-raising (approved). Moreover, almost a million dollars was already spent "in Florida" by the Obama campaign by the time of the pledge.

This is stupid. Please move on.

[madrchsod]

18. it will be posted again before 12

by the way has anyone figured out how much hillary spent? still have not received an answer on that...

[Kaylee]

15. Why did you leave out the rebuttal to this claim by the

Center for Responsive Politics? A poster on myDD wrote to Massie Ritsch at the Center for Responsive Politics to ask him for a clarification of the accuracy of the above claim and received the following response.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul,

The information from the Center for Responsive Politics that Jerome Armstrong cites comes from our Feb. 5 analysis of the candidates' year-end campaign finance reports; it's not something we posted today. He also conveniently left out this disclaimer from that same item of ours: "Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."

To explain further, the expenditures figures Jerome cited are calculated by looking only at the addresses of the vendors that each campaign paid. They are almost certainly not accurate counts of how much was spent in a state. It's possible that Obama hired a vendor based in Florida who did work outside the state for his campaign. For example, maybe the printer of his signs is in Florida. The amount of money spent on signs would appear in the campaign finance reports to have been focused solely on Florida, when, in fact, the signs were used to campaign all over the country.

Bottom line: I wouldn't use state spending totals gleaned from campaign finance reports to saw anything authoritative about a candidate's effort in a particular state. The FEC's requirements for reporting expenditures just don't allow for that sort of precision.

Feel free to share what I've told you with the blogosphere. And thanks for your question.

Massie Ritsch
Center for Responsive Politics



----------------------------------------------

[durrrty libby]

17. Obama is a fraud. Shhh......don't tell the cultists

[ProSense]

19. What's Hillary hiding:

Show Us the Money

[aaroh]

23. misleading

the tv ads was directed to New Jersey but the TV network had to include Florida, there was no choice but to air the ads. So that 1.3 million in florida is a bit misleading, nice try.