Spencer Challenges Carney on Primary Funds
Democrat Scott Spencer challenges his primary opponent, John Carney, to pledge not to use any Democratic Party money should he be endorsed by the state Party in his primary. It does seem to be a perfectly reasonable request. For we here at Delaware Liberal were all up in arms, and legitimately so, in 2008 when Carney, as the party endorsed candidate, used state party money in his race against Jack Markell. Progressives in the state party committees have moved for rule changes to prevent not only endorsements in contested primaries but also the use of party money in contested primaries. These rule changes have not been finalized yet, but John Carney is not a party endorsed candidate yet and has no access or right to the money. Indeed, the endorsement process is just now getting underway.
But, even if he was the endorsed candidate and even if he did have access to the money, Carney shouldn’t use it on principle if not experience. Indeed, his use of party money in the last contested primary produced negative publicity for his campaign. And who knows, if it wasn’t for that negative publicity, maybe Carney would have won the race, although it is just as likely that Carney’s use of the money allowed him to keep pace with the Markell juggernaut and make it a close race in the end.
The brutal truth, though, is Carney is not very likely at all to use party money against Scott Spencer. He used it in 2008 because he had to. He doesn’t have to now. He already has raised a half million as of the last quarter, while Spencer has not submitted a report likely because he hasn’t raised any money for his campaign. If Carney can’t beat Spencer using what he has already, well, then Carney can’t beat anyone.
But that doesn’t make Spencer wrong. Carney should take the pledge. Spencer has also challenged Carney to return all party funds donated to his campaign as the endorsed candidate in 2008. I don’t know about that one, but I don’t blame Spencer from trying to tap into that progressive anger at the Carney campaign in 2008. I will leave it up to you all to argue over.
I do admire some things about Spencer’s campaign. He’s certainly doing all he can to keep his name in the news. Good job on that, Mr. Spencer.
I’m no expert, but I think federal law doesn’t allow state party funds to be contributed to a federal candidate’s committee.
[This would stand to reason, since the state party can raise funds from corporations and in other ways that do not conform to federal restrictions.]
So there appears no need for Spencer or Carney to take the pledge. It would be like pledging not to … violate the law.
You know, John, I think you are right. I am researching that now since you brought it up.
Spencer is trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue, and it doesn’t do him any good. Debate real issue, Scott, not make-believe ones.
What actually is the point of having a party that endorses candidates if they can’t give them money. We’ll just go with the “we don’t really have a party just a pile of self-funding candidates with no accountability to anyone” system.
and if that doesn’t work to destroy us, we can always HAND the government back to the R’s.
There are other resources the candidates can tap, like voter lists that are owned by the party.
Well, one point is that, by propping up Carney to the chagrin and anger of many rank-and-file D’s, the Party itself suffered a downturn in donations. I hope they’ve learned their lesson. Plus, there’s a difference between endorsing candidates and ramming an endorsement down our throats precisely so the Party COULD marshall all its resources, which is what they did in 2008 on behalf of Carney. The ‘bleep you’ mentality was out in full force.
I disagree a bit with MJ regarding Spencer ‘trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue.’
We’re talking about it, many of us remember how PO’d we were in 2008 when it WAS an issue, so Spencer has already gotten some free media that he otherwise couldn’t afford to pay for. Pretty smart political move, regardless of how futile it might ultimately be.
John Manifold wrote “It would be like pledging not to … violate the law.”
Well, that would actually be refreshing.
El Som, you know we saw that differently, and I hope by now we understand a little better how we CAME to different conclusions in that case. But I just don’t get the whole … what did they call it, PUMA thing? Where the Hilary voters were supposed to be so pissed off that none would vote for Obama?
The first candidate I ever voted for who was elected was Clinton. Not the first I ever worked for… NONE of them made it on the ballot, mostly. But the first who trounced my guy/girl and I just showed up and voted, because we HAVE political parties, and if the D’s aren’t always the good guys, the R’s are always the bad guys. I signed up for the party because they clearly needed help. Some people adopt stray cats.
I don’t expect a line-item veto over party spending anymore than over government spending. I HAVE one in some government spending, and my observation is nearly no one gets any use out of it at all. People grouse, but they don’t vote.
If we got fired up Markell primary supporters who were so OUTRAGED by the spending of their money on Carney that they’d show up in RD meetings and make a fuss, that would be a win for everyone, don’t you think? If we get people who take their ball and bat and go home, they’re just being stupid, is my opinion. A party full of sulky quitters ain’t going to beat the R’s. it might have been a mistake for the party to support Carney, but it’s a FATAL mistake for the party not to support its candidates, at every level. We have to do that.
Of course, what we had in the Carney thing were people showing up for the two minimal meetings required to officially become voting members who then voted for Carney and then completely disappeared from the committee radar right afterwards. It was stuffing the committee, not building the committee.
And nobody took their ball and went home. We went out and got Jack nominated anyway.
Accordingly, Carney wasn’t the party candidate. He was the choice of those in the party who tried to game the system and dictate the result. That’s what got people so PO’d. The only people who took their ball and went home were the people who never intended to actually WORK for the Party, just those who came out of nowhere to vote for Carney in the committee vote and then disappeared back into the ether. THEY were the sulky quitters.
Don’t get the PUMA reference. I think that was largely a creation of the press and gave unwarranted attention to a couple of whack jobs getting their 15 minutes of fame.
I think most D’s, including myself, would have worked for and voted for John Carney had he been the nominee. It was the heavy-handed tactics that were so off-putting and, frankly, ultimately proved a disservice to the likable and qualified Carney. Plus, it demonstrated one serious weakness of his as a candidate–his inability to raise $$’s on his own. It appears that he took that to heart and is doing a much better job this time.
Well, 10 years ago the Delaware Democratic Party had worse troubles than now, and I hope we continue putting it in some kind of shape. We’ve gone from “Hard to find enough talent to fill the ballot” to “Qualified candidates not winning them all” and that’s definitely progress. 😉
Where’s the Castle story? Maybe I am a day late and you’ve already had it on here. From Huffington.
In the past two weeks, Castle has blasted multiple press releases publicizing stimulus funds awarded to his state. In his most recent release, he not only calls the money “imperative,” but in “announcing” the funds, he tacitly claims credit for securing them:
Washington | January 7, 2010 – Delaware Congressman Mike Castle announced today that $5,230,610 has been awarded to the State to assist families and individuals in need. […] “As we face the coldest season of the year, it is imperative we provide those programs serving Delaware’s most disadvantaged families and individuals with the resources necessary to house, feed, and protect those in desperate need,” said Rep. Castle. “These grants, totaling more than $5 million, will help the invaluable organizations and programs which are working to help the homeless, hungry, and those facing economic hardship throughout the State.”
There’s much more. It is a funny read. “I was for the stimulus bill before I was against it”. Or is it “I was against the stimulus bill before I took credit for it”. O. I can’t make up my mind.
Sorry to bust your democratic bubble Brooke. But there are plenty of democrats who have worked hard for the public as volunteers and activists who would love to serve. The problem is “they can’t get pass the inside corporate party hacks at democrat hdqtrs. The insiders pick the candidates, you know the ones that vote at the nod of some hacks head.
Carney never supported health care reform in Delaware. Other than go through the stepping stones to get where he is, please name one thing Carney really did that helped the citizens. I go with Scott Spencer!
I still can’t understand why Spencer supported privatizing passenger railroad service at the height of the Bush kleptocracy.
Nice guy who’s something of a goo-brain.
Well, I don’t. All that could be going on, but it sure is getting by me. People call and talk to me all the time who want to run for office, but I have NEVER had a call from a party official asking me to vote, or not vote, for anyone, at any point in the process. Somewhere there must be a whole lot of scheming that isn’t trickling down very effectively.
El Som – I was just as pissed as everyone else in 2008 with the party funding Carney’s campaign (I was a JackPacker). That being said, it hasn’t even been mentioned at any party meetings and for Spencer to try and make it an issue is just reaching for something that isn’t there.
As for what he’s done to help, from his exalted position as LT governor, I’d name support for the SEED program and the hiking trail initiative.
MJ-I look at it more as a candidate who doesn’t have the $$’s to go toe-to-toe with Carney ginning up some free media. Nothing more, nothing less. And candidates who don’t have the big bucks HAVE to find some way to break through the white noise. So, it was a smart move by Spencer. Don’t think it’ll make any difference, but I admire smart politics. That’s really all I was trying (not so well) to say.
If it’s not true, is it smart politics?
I favor political parties embracing non partisanship and giving half of their money to charity. That would be change we could believe in. The Dems should start.
Well, we could start with charitable organizations like Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Planned Parenthood.
That sounds very wise. The Dems would be out in the open with their anti-Christian policies instead of pretending to embrace the Church while stabbing it in back.
In the spirit of non partisanship, the Dems should also donate some of their funds to random Republicans. It would be a boon to the party and help their image.
David, You might want to see Tom Carper about that.