Political Animal
Blog
After reams of publicity about the power and glory of Super-PACs in this presidential cycle, and considerable scrutiny of the antics of big donors like Winning Our Future’s Sheldon Adelson and Red, White and Blue Fund’s Foster Friess, people are finally beginning to pay some attention to how much of this money is spent on items other than nasty ads.
This report is from yesterday’s Washington Times, in a story that begins with FEC warnings to Newt Gingrich’s campaign about questionable reimbursement of candidate and staff expenses:
A separate disclosure Monday showed that Becky Burkett, a former top official of a nonprofit Mr. Gingrich headed who now runs a pro-Gingrich super PAC called Winning Our Future, paid herself $220,000 in donated money last month — making more in 20 days than any other super PAC official has made in total since the groups exploded onto the scene, a review by The Times showed.
Super PAC spokesman Rick Tyler said the payments compensated her for November, December and part of January. The fund brought in its first donation Dec. 7…. [T]hat rate puts the Gingrich confidante on pace for an annual salary in the millions.
Hmmm. You may recall that Winning Our Future, after its viciously effective attacks on Mitt Romney in SC, was expected to reprise its activities with a blitz in Florida after a fresh subvention of cash from the Adelson family—but didn’t quite come through. Looks like maybe the Super-PAC had other financial fish to fry.
This small but illuminating incident is a good example of the phenomenon Walter Shapiro wrote about in the last issue of the Monthly: the ongoing overvaluation of the services of political consultants.
But it’s all a matter of perspective, I guess. As Winning Our Future’s Rick Tyler said when questioned about Becky Burkett’s large income:
“In this business, we all could be out of a job next — you just don’t know,” he said. “People make more knowing that this could be a short-term contract.”
Welcome to America, folks.
Facebook
Twitter
Mimikatz on February 23, 2012 11:18 AM:
What do you expect when a party is taken over by con men? Sooner or later they begin to con each other, with the biggest marks being the billionaires, who seem to be as unsophisticated as the rubes at whom most of the they finance ads are aimed.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
berttheclock on February 23, 2012 11:23 AM:
But, Ed, at least they are creating jobs in the US, eh?
stormskies on February 23, 2012 11:35 AM:
This perfectly reflects the intent of the John Roberts activists U.S. "Supreme"=Corporate=Corrupt" Court: the recreate our country in the form of a Plutocracy which is essentially how it started.
And, of course, this intention by Zarathustra Robets, et-al, reflects his own beliefs that some humans are superior to the other humans in which the self-appointed Zarathustra's have a natural right to 'rule' over anyone else.
So now we have that intended reality by pig shit Roberts. And look at the consequences it is creating.
Welcome to the USA indeed.
Anonymous on February 23, 2012 11:44 AM:
“In this business, we all could be out of a job next — you just don’t know,” he said. “People make more knowing that this could be a short-term contract.” Uh, don't you mean before you land your next short-term contract? They don't call it Wingnut Welfare for nothing.
P.S. If the Washington Times wrote this, does that mean the Moonies are anti-Newt? Or are they rationalizing?
Ken on February 23, 2012 11:52 AM:
Based on his past behavior, if Newt is paying Becky that much money, Callista may soon find her own arrangement is also a short-term contract.
Josef K on February 23, 2012 11:54 AM:
I'm not sure which I find more apalling: the salary quoted, or the fact we're getting this via The Washington Times.
ceilidth on February 23, 2012 12:08 PM:
One good thing that's coming out is that we are seeing the top tenth of one percent in action. Realizing how few of them are paying for so much of the junk we see on TV is making at least some of us realize how distorted our system really is. So go on Adelson--let us see how someone who made his money catering to the terminally stupid in casinos uses his money propping up Newt Gingrich.
Patango on February 23, 2012 12:09 PM:
So who would the FEC fine , who would pay the fine , and how worthless of a fine would it be ? Since this is all they seem to do , 2 years later when no one could ever give a hoot ...
We need these gop con men to blow the lid off of our election system for good , the american election system has achieved BELOW 3rd world status , with the blessing of the east coast media / corporate castle inhabitants / DC bobble head politicians , they act like we are all just victims of it , there is nothing you can do about it , then lobby to make sure nothing is done about it ...
Outlawing K street and making it illegal for lobbyist to live in , or even have offices in DC would be a good start , make them all have to commute 100 miles to get there ....
square1 on February 23, 2012 12:12 PM:
For some reason, the question of whether Super-PAC administrators are overpaid is pretty far down on my list of things to give a damn about.
Newt Gingrich has spent more than 20 years bending and sometimes violating the law when it comes to taxes and non-profits. He's also spent that time siphoning off money from various charities and non-profits for his own benefit.
Let's be honest. Anyone who is on board with Gingrich in 2012 doesn't give a flying f--- about Burkett's salary as long as she is doing her job: e.g. illegally performing campaign work at an illusory arms-length distance from the actual campaign. And, as far as I can tell, journalists don't seem to care about the sham-independence of the PACs. We are left with Steven Colbert being the best critic of the Super-PAC system.
DRF on February 23, 2012 12:27 PM:
On one level, the more these super-PACs pay in salary for their executives, the less they have to spend on deceptive advertising, so I'm fine with tht.
On the other hand, $220,000 for 2 1/2 months of employment is an absurdly large salary for a non-profit entity whose sole function is raising money for political issues advertising, having those ads produced and aired. It raises some obvious questions as to why she is being paid such a large salary. Is it possible that some portion of these payments are making up for money she was owed when she worked at Newt's non-profit, or that there is some other reason for this?
royalblue_tom on February 23, 2012 12:40 PM:
Why fight for the 1%ers if you aren't gong to be one. These are not the rube followers. They may be committed to the cause, but they are out for number one. They know what is going on, they know where the bodies are buried, they've built up a store of favors, and expect to be made for life.
It's about building a brand - these people are the Cheney's to be; the one's who will get CEO positions later solely based on who they know. The likeable one's may later run for the house/senate/governor, and they therefore can't be seen as unsuccessful.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on February 23, 2012 12:46 PM:
“In this business, we all could be out of a job next — you just don’t know,” he said. “People make more knowing that this could be a short-term contract.”
Yeah, well you tell that to the average bloke on the street who's working a temporary, low-wage, no-benefits job... Wish I could say that about my job, since every 2 or 3 months it seems a staff member disappears. Hey, Boss, how's about you add a couple of extra zeroes on the end of that paycheck, seeing as I don't know whether or not I'll be purged next?
g on February 23, 2012 1:18 PM:
Grab it while you can!
sparrow on February 23, 2012 1:18 PM:
Somehow, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this is indicative of just the Republican party's political consultants.
Trollop on February 23, 2012 2:25 PM:
Super-duped, what a surprise in politics!