Reed Amendment

I’ve taken an initial scan of the disclosures. I noticed that Cagle promptly posted an amendment. Reed will need to as well. There are clearly some figures that need decimals moved and some addresses needed. When I have the time, I’ll put up a more comprehensive review of the situation. I will say this — having looked at the numbers, I think Ralph Reed made some tactical errors in issuing press releases like this one because it certainly drove expectations up to $2million. So, seeing that he was capable of that at one event in Cobb County, the average person paying attention could reasonably conclude that Reed was capable of multiple events like that — especially given his DC connections. So, to only have $1.39million — not even the $1.4million presumed on Friday by reporters — Reed’s campaign probably should not have sent out press releases like that. Keeping things more secret would have put me and others in a position to be more impressed by his ability to more than double what Casey Cagle raised.

To be fair, the blame cannot be entirely on Reed’s campaign. Many others inside and outside the party and inside and outside the Ralph Reed fan club did drive the expections up to $2million. But, that’s where the expections settled and Reed did not get there.


  1. GJA says:

    Casey Cagle beats Ralph Reed in virtually every category. Cagle is a genuine conservative. He is a man of character and integrity. His reputation is untarnished. He is self-made. He has a long record of legislative accomplishment. He has deep Georgia roots. He is solidly backed the elected conservative leadership of this state.

    Reed’s only advantage has been the widespread perception that he could raise more money than Cagle. He has lost this advantage. Reed had almost six months to raise funds. Cagle had less than three months. Without Abramoff, Scanlon and the tribes to help him, Reed is having trouble meeting the expectations that he and his campaign have created.

  2. Bill Simon says:

    A few items you may have not had a chance to catch yet, Erick:

    1) Casey Cagle personally gave his campaign $5000. Ralph Reed personally gave his campaign $20,000.

    2) Approximately $51,000 of Ralph’s contribution book comprises of “Run-Off” contributions which would have to be returned if there isn’t a run-off. And, unless Ralph can recruit a straw-man candidate to pay the qualifying fee and run as the third man to potentially cause a run-off, that money cannot be used.

    3) There is a peculiar series of entries in the Expenditures section of Ralph’s disclosure. From both McKenna, Long & Aldridge and Lisa Baron, there are a series of negative payments termed “Deferred Payments”. I’ve never seen that in a disclosure.

    I know that when one applies a “minus” to a “minus”, it becomes a “plus.” Meaning, where Ralph appears to be showing about $20,000 in “Deferred Payments,” that really should have been paid-out in cash this cycle. Had they been paid-out, this would actually cause a $40,000 swing to the negative in “Cash on Hand”.

    Decimal places FUBAR aside, there are some rather bizarre accounting tricks at play here.

  3. Bull Moose says:

    Not impressed that much by Reed’s showing, considering the fact that he should have been able to put it away. The fact that he didn’t or couldn’t shows a level of weakness…

    Considering that the latest round of Reed scandals are still making the rounds, it will be interesting to see how this is handled by his campaign. One can hardly call the Weekly Standard a bastion of liberalism.

    As for Cagle, he’s got his ducks lined up and once he starts working his finance committee — those who have maxed out — he will be able to bring in more money…

    The media also needs to remember that Reed had a good three month jump on Cagle in raising money — of course he raised more. Had Cagle had the same amount of time — they would be about equal.

  4. GJA says:

    “Bizarre accounting tricks” should not come as any surprise. Ralph Reed worked for Enron, among his many other sleazy clients.

Comments are closed.