A One Minute Explanation of Reichert's $500K Corporate Contribution

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 15:42


Blair Butterworth, a longtime Democratic consultant in the Northwest, explains the situation.  Essentially, Media Plus is a Republican establishment media buying firm (with a lot of corporate business) and is extending credit to the Reichert campaign.  David Goldstein has more.  There are various rumors about how this will work.  The Seattle Times was the only paper to even report on the story.

KOMO-TV sold Reichert's ad buyer, Media Plus+, the most recent TV slots on credit - a practice that is relatively uncommon for political advertising. KIRO-TV also extended credit for Reichert ads that are running this week, said Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik.

Most political campaigns pay for their ads upfront, but KOMO vice president and general manager Jim Clayton said the station sometimes bills buyers it has a good relationship with. He said KOMO regularly works with Media Plus+ and that the agency would be on the hook for the ad buy if the Reichert campaign doesn't pay."

Matt Stoller :: A One Minute Explanation of Reichert's $500K Corporate Contribution
Josh Feit explains what's going on.

This morning, Kathy Neukirchen, head of Meida Plus, Rep. Reichert's media buyer, confirmed for me that KOMO had given Reichert the time on credit, explaining the arrangement to me like this: Her firm gets its TV time for all its clients, political and commercial, on credit. Media Plus is a big local buyer and has an established relationship with the stations. She pays for the time at the end of the month (the practice is called "Net 30?). Her political clients are treated no differently, she says, than her commercial clients.

Neukirchen says Reichert pays her back daily as the ads run, and that Reichert has already paid her for yesterday's ads and will pay her today for that portion of the rest of the week's buy.

If this is true, and there's no way to verify until after the election when Reichert reports to the FEC, then Reichert will begin pulling down points off TV or his fundraising will rapidly spike (which we'll be able to see through 48 hour reports).  Of course, Neukirchen may simply be guessing or hoping that Reichert will pay her back, and if he doesn't, her other Republican and corporate clients will make up the difference.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Whoops! (0.00 / 0)
Matt caught this one in his article.

Here's the original article I was reading earlier this morning...

http://www.horsesass.org/?p=8995


[ Parent ]
Seattle Times (0.00 / 0)
What Matt doesn't mention is that the headline for the Seattle Times article was "Burner loans campaign $140,000 for ads." In other words, Reichert's shady airtime loan was buried in an unrelated piece. I wrote to the journalist about it:

Dear Ms. Heffler:
I just read your recent article, "Burner loans campaign $140,000 for ads." Most of the way through, you state that KOMO and KIRO extended credit to Reichert to run ads, a practice that is arguably illegal, and almost certainly unethical, considering that the networks present themselves as unbiased. Other sources say that KOMO lent $500,000 in airtime. Can you please explain why $500,000 in possibly illegal and unethical credit is buried at the bottom of an article about $140,000 in completely legal credit? Personally, I would much rather read about the $500,000.

If the Times is coming out with another article about the $500,000, then I apologize.


The reporter's response:

The $140,000 is verifiable through public records and is a fact. The $500,000 is an estimate (by the Burner campaign) and is a practice that the FEC says is likely legal. If the Burner campaign sues Reichert or otherwise pursues the issue, we'll likely cover it, and we may cover it anyway . As for yesterday, though, I led with the $140,000 because it is fact, and the questions about the loan seemed more to me like political rhetoric. (That's likely why only left-leaning blogs are covering it as "possibly illegal and unethical credit" today.)

I passed this information on to my friend in the Burner campaign. I hope they sue...  

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

As if right wing blogs would EVER concede it's illegal! (0.00 / 0)
Idiotic statement by this journalist. I otherwise see his point, but that's ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
Bad for Burner, but sadly not a good campaign point (0.00 / 0)
The way Reichert's crooks created this, it's legal. TV stations don't give credit to the candidate, but to Media Plus. The agency breaks down the large media bill into piecemeal payments, and Reichert pays 'as he goes'. I have to admit, that's brilliant. Certainly not what the lawmakers wanted when they created the regulation, but no cort wolkd do anything against this.

And at the same time, while it sure is a questionable practice, it's hard ot sell this as a scandal to the people. Reichert pays for his ads when they air, so what? The only way to fight back is to give more funds to Darcy to counter these ads, imho.  


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search