On 10/22/10, John Pomeranz <jpomeranz@harmoncurran.com> wrote:
Ben Smith's article says...
"Crossroads GPS on the right and the liberal 501(c)(4) groups
around America Votes on the left will never disclose their spending on
field."
...but that's not completely accurate. To the degree that these groups
are expressly advocating for or against federal candidates in their
canvassing, phone banking, etc., they are obliged to report those
expenditures to the FEC (at this point within 24 hours if they spend at
least $1000).
Ben Smith also says:
"We're left, then, either relying for now on groups' claims or on
partial tallies.
But AFSCME's boast does seem to have put a dent in the Democratic
narrative that they're being wildly outspent, as does a memo
circulated yesterday by the group America Votes, [...]"
Actually, if an entire sector of political spending like field (minus
the express advocacy part of it as John Pomeranz points out) is
secret, happening across two "disclosures" in the otherwise secret
spending area doesn't necessarily "put a dent" in anything. (It's a
nonrandom anecdotal sample of "field")
Where the expenditures ultimately remain secret, all we have to go on
is the assessments from "troops" in the field on both sides regarding
what's being done in field, and these will, like intelligence often
does, conflict in some cases and in all cases are assessments colored
by the fogs of political "war." These kinds of "measurements" don't
meet the standards of good science but they are sufficient for actors
to make tactical field responses upon, and to be fodder for debate.
But considering the kind of rapid response coverage Politico is famous
for, Ben Smith got it right on the basic level. He's on to the next
story... or the one after that.
Paul Lehto, J.D.