Spending Spree

As I've said, I'm a bit skeptical of some of these "Clinton campaign is full of screwups" stories. An election is a tough, zero-sum competition and you can do the overwhelming majority of things right and still lose. In other words, I have a lot of sympathy for what Jim Jordan says at the end of this article on people second-guessing the Clinton campaign's spending decisions:

“Obviously, some campaigns are more careful and wise with their money than others,” Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who ran John Kerry’s presidential campaign until November 2003. “But these budgetary post-mortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful. In truth, campaign budgeting is hard and complicated and three-dimensional and just impossible to understand without the full time-and-place context of the whole race.”

That said, some of this stuff simply isn't a question of mistakes or not mistakes:

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. [...] The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

That just sounds like self-dealing by the people running the campaign. Obviously, once the money's been handed over to them, they're allowed to spend it however they see fit. But if you're a working person thinking of sending $50 or $150 over to her campaign, you've got to wonder if that's just going to wind up going to rooms at the Four Seasons or as part of some kind of million dollar payday for Mark Penn.

Comments

That just sounds like self-dealing by the people running the campaign.

Nature of the beast, though, isn't it? That's the way--according to a WaMo article, I think--the industry has structured itself.

The $30 mil. for an all-but-unopposed Senate race is all that resonates with me in all of these stories.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2008 3:50 PM

Yeah, I think the $10 million for Mark Penn looms a little larger than however much they spent for Pizza in Dubuque.

Posted by Chilly | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM

The groceries and party platters were for food several hundred caucus sites in Iowa, not for some sort of victory party like the article implies.

Posted by Anonymous | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM

To be scrupulously fair, one should probably look into the details of where Obama's staff has been staying, and how much they've been spending on various things (maybe someone has, and I've missed it). I'm guessing they haven't been staying at one-star motor lodges.

Posted by Haggai | February 22, 2008 3:54 PM

Wouldn't a lot of the money be going towards all the unpaid volunteers of the campaign who get their room and board taken care of? Not that I don't think the entire system is completely out of control when it comes to how much it costs to run a protracted campaign and the time spent in Iowa would clearly cost more than a weekend jaunt to Wisconsin. I'm sure Obama's expenditures aren't much less, especially since he's raising a lot more money - so he gets to spend even more.

It's not really fair to get all bent out of shape about one campaign's spending when we don't have the expenditures from the others to compare to.

Posted by Julene | February 22, 2008 3:56 PM

Hey, you get what you pay for.

Posted by Mark Penn | February 22, 2008 4:03 PM

Grr ... we need a better breakout of Mark Penn's payday. He runs a polling firm; presumably he has to pay pollsters. Axelrod runs a media firm with some employees; he's not just depositing $1.2M into his bank account. It's not clear to me there's any there there.

The deli platters were part of some plot for the Clinton campaign to pre-count their supporters, so they could figure out who wasn't showing up.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Well, it's pretty clear that the key decision-makers
in the Clinton campaign decided they would win it
on Super Tuesday, and budgeted accordingly. And
when Obama came out of that with roughly a draw,
they had no backup plan and no money in reserve to
fight the next few primaries.

Doubtless a whole lot of people in the campaign
have done good work. But a good strategist - and
a good leader - would be prepared to deal with
setbacks and have some contingency plans. They
didn't. They maxed out their donors, spent the
money early, and blew whatever chance they might
have had. Given that HRC has raised about $175M
since 1999, it takes quite a bit of stupidity to
end up broke in what turns out to be the crucial
stretch of the primary season.

It's not the worst of her sins (waffling on
torture is the worst; waffling on the Iraq vote is
close behind). But the Obama campaign has clearly
built a bigger donor base, turned out more voters,
and kept better discipline. If managerial
competence is the criterion, it's an easy choice.

Posted by Richard Cownie | February 22, 2008 4:06 PM

I think a lot of the money to Mark Penn ultimately found its way into the hands of the pizza industry.

Posted by David B. | February 22, 2008 4:16 PM

--To be scrupulously fair, one should probably look into the details of where Obama's staff has been staying, and how much they've been spending on various things (maybe someone has, and I've missed it). I'm guessing they haven't been staying at one-star motor lodges.--

i couldn't care less if Obama and the family stayed in solid-gold hotel rooms, since their campaign is not constantly making excuses for losing primaries because they're low on cash.

on another topic, is there any way we could, i don't know, send Mark Penn and Karl Rove to the moon or something? maybe we could lure them into the rocket with a trail of chili dogs or something.

Posted by rob! | February 22, 2008 4:17 PM

richard cownie gets at the point i wanted to make: the budget for partying in iowa points to how they intended to play "inevitability:" clinton would win in iowa, win in new hampshire, and then roll up on super tuesday and the race would be over before obama got out of the gate.

it's a fascinating tidbit, really, $100K for Iowa celebrations that fizzled (i said, that night, and of course not alone, that it was now obama's to lose).

Posted by howard | February 22, 2008 4:17 PM

The New York Times reporting has been pretty good.

In another piece today they report: "Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has less than two weeks to stop an 11-contest losing streak against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois — a run that Mr. Clinton attributed to his wife’s campaign’s being at a “a terrible financial disadvantage.”

Matt linked to a Chris Bower Open Left entry which had statistics on the donors, and Obama had a lot more lower amount donors. Seems like his campaign is more "popular" as opposed to being funded by limosine liberals, which is the stereotype.

And then curiously enough, earlier in the primary McCain was flat broke and had no pollsters even. Wonder if the Internets and its pneumatic pipes have something to do with the weird way the campaign has played out.

Posted by Peter K. | February 22, 2008 4:17 PM

It's hard to overlook foolish spending when it happens repeatedly. Remember this from her 2006 campaign for re-election to the Senate?

Not so for Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign reported sending a $6,585 check to Flutterbyes for flowers in Las Vegas, $5,397.50 to Le Petit Gourmet Catering in Glendale, Colo., and $80,000 to Tavern on the Green in Manhattan. Those were among the bills gleaned from a page-by-page review of Mrs. Clinton’s third-quarter campaign finance report, which showed disbursements of more than $8 million.

The chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Michael E. Toner, said only a handful of Senate candidates had ever spent more. The spending patterns of the Clinton campaign demonstrated “an extraordinary burn rate,” he said, which was particularly striking considering she did not seem to have a serious challenger in John Spencer, her Republican rival.

Posted by Just Karl | February 22, 2008 4:18 PM

An election is a tough, zero-sum competition I'll give you tough, but I'm pretty sure Obama has proven that it is not zero sum. He seems to have gotten money and voters Clinton never would have seen. The opposite does not seem to be true.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | February 22, 2008 4:19 PM

I'm more concerned with the Clinton campaign not paying their pizza and deli bills from the Iowa caucus as well as some outstanding hall rental bills from various rural Boys and Girls Clubs. Per Hilzoy's post on Andrew Sullivan's blog -- Obama has fewer outstanding bills and they are almost all major businesses that regularly do business on credit. Clinton is carrying accounts on Ma & Pa businesses. That's BS.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 22, 2008 4:19 PM

The difference could just be multi-millionaires spending the money rather than just well to do folks spending the money....were rooms shared as is customary, or did they go first class all the way for example?

Regardless, the most telling thing about both campaigns is who they hired to spend the money in the first place, what kind of success those folks had in the past running a campaign.

The planning (or lack thereof) reflects more arrogance on all parts in the Clinton campaign...the admitted lack of how to take donations (primary money as opposed to general) (not understanding the campaign COULD go beyond Super Tuesday). This shows a shortsightedness that is indicative of many of the other Clinton initiatives over the years.

Who do I want handling the federal budget? Pretty clear...

Posted by G Davis | February 22, 2008 4:23 PM

The problem with Hillary's spending is what she spends on consultants and media(TV and the like). Obama and Co. obviously had a lot better plan. Hillary didn't have a plan for after Super Tuesday. Obama did. Where did all her money go that she couldn't compete in a number of the states after Super Tuesday that Obama won. The point is, Obama is getting a big bang for his buck, Hillary isn't. While it isn't Rudy type debacle, it is close because she had a huge name recognition advantage and she's been getting blown out lately. If this was a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the match by now.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 22, 2008 4:25 PM

Just Karl seems to have this right. There wouldn't be much of a story here (10,000/month for pizza == $330/day == ~30 pies/day over the entire state of iowa, what are people shocked about?) were it not for the fact that her burn rate is part of an overall pattern of blowing through money that didn't need to be spent, such as in her Senate re-election campaign.

Volunteers need to be fed and transported. Receptions need to be held at places that charge money for space. Hotel rooms aren't just a place to sleep, they're places to hold meetings. However, given a consistent pattern of profligate spending, there's a reason why this is turning out to be part of the story of how the campaign stumbled in a big way.

Posted by Tyro | February 22, 2008 4:25 PM

The Clinton people would not give out in food in our caucus (I thought that was the point) even when they only needed one more person to be viable. Obama had his people make cookies, and donate water and it was given to all!

Posted by Eh? | February 22, 2008 4:33 PM

This story is killing her more than anything from the debate last night. Cable is playing the story over and over and over.

Posted by evie | February 22, 2008 4:36 PM

I remember reading that, during the 2000 campaign, R/lph N/der liked to stay at Hampton Inns, because they have a really awesome breakfast buffet. Not that that makes his run that year much less of a disaster for the country, but a big shot who doesn't mind staying in a budget/mid-price motel can't be all bad.

Posted by kth | February 22, 2008 4:37 PM

The "$100,000 for party platters" is being wildly taken out of context. It was an important part of their caucus night operational plan for keeping keeping their supporters organized at the caucuses (which took place at supper time) and attracting weak-willed undecided or realignment support.

The $25,000 for rooms and services at the Bellagio would seem outrageous if not for the fact that -- THE BELLAGIO WAS A CAUCUS SITE. Campaign workers and volunteers used those rooms either to sleep in or as a command center or combination thereof.

The only outrageous expense is Mark Penn's compensation, but even that is somewhat justifiable when you understand that he is the campaign's only pollster, and the Clinton Campaign like the Obama Campaign quite frequently commissions polls, and polling ain't cheap.

Posted by dry_fish | February 22, 2008 4:44 PM

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm rather sick of this angle on TPM and it makes me not want to go there. Although I do, first thing every morning ;-) It's like Josh has made it his personal quest to point out all the screw-ups in the Clinton Campaign. It rather detracts from his other, more important work. What's the point of all this? And more importantly, who cares? Um, besides the Hillary haters, that is? Maybe I just answered my own question.

Posted by shaker o salt | February 22, 2008 4:49 PM

OK at least she's saving money on campaign themes. "Hillary Clinton Solutions for America" was lifted from "Rudy Solutions America" PAC. Rudy's PAC is circa 1997 (I know). Think of how many pointless pizza dinners at the Bellagio were foregone because the Clintons already had a theme. A message. A rallying cry.

I say this more in vindictiveness than anger as I was the one that cooked up Rudy's PAC name.

Posted by wren | February 22, 2008 4:55 PM

The $25,000 for rooms and services at the Bellagio would seem outrageous if not for the fact that -- THE BELLAGIO WAS A CAUCUS SITE. Campaign workers and volunteers used those rooms either to sleep in or as a command center or combination thereof.

I'd add that, while I don't know specifically about the Bellagio, many of the hotels on the strip are very competitively priced with the Holiday Inns or what-have-you out on the edge of town. Possibly even more so for an extended stay-as many campaign staffers would presumably be making. It looks extravagant on paper, but Las Vegas is...unique.

(Also- $25,000 = 20 staff * 10 nights * $125/night, which hardly seems outrageous.)

Posted by jack lecou | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM

Hello, they didn't give out food in Johnson county Iowa, even when they only need 1 person. It happened all over. Johnson county went big for Obama, so they were very sore. Seriously, I saw the deli trays but they wouldn't let anyone have any. Despite the fact that it took over 2 hrs, and it was hot! Like I said, Obama told his people to make cookies. After the caucus local bars had people over and gave our free bear. ONe merchant passed out Baracklava! All for free. So yes the fact that they spent that much money, and refused to give people food, even when they desperately needed it (388 people in a room not one would jump ship for HRC). That's a huge story but fine don't listen to someone who caucuses @ precinct 19 Johnson county IA. Oh btw this was not isolated, it happened all over Johnson county, they were being really sore losers when they saw all the young people come out (even though her precinct captains were young).

Posted by eh? | February 22, 2008 5:02 PM

I'd add that, while I don't know specifically about the Bellagio, many of the hotels on the strip are very competitively priced with the Holiday Inns or what-have-you out on the edge of town.

The Bellagio is not one of those. It is the third most expensive place to stay on the strip, after Wynn and the Venetian. They could easily have stayed within walking distance of the Bellagio caucus site at 1/2 to 1/4 the price.

Posted by DivGuy | February 22, 2008 5:16 PM

I was at one of those iowa caucus locations. the party platters were teh suck. that didn't stop the clintonistas from trying to buy my (vegetarian) support with a deli sandwich and a bottle of water. no. thanks.

Posted by idiotic | February 22, 2008 5:17 PM

joejoejoe: "Clinton is carrying accounts on Ma & Pa businesses. That's BS."

Yup, it is. Which is why one of my wife's previous employers, a small junk... ah, direct mail firm billed strictly cash on the barrel for political campaigns. The full cost, not just the postage.

Posted by cmholm | February 22, 2008 5:21 PM

At our caucus Obama turned water into wine and somehow fed the entire room with one loaf of bread and one fish. I don't know how Hilary competes with that.

Posted by vanya | February 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Idiotic- Really, they must of had more love for your crowd than ours, you couldn't give them money to come up off of their sandwiches. They were so pissed, the only needed on more person but in a room of close to 400 people they could not get 57. I heard from a couple of other friends that their caucus were like that too.

But you know I'm a latte drinking grad student, so I don't count.

Posted by eh? | February 22, 2008 5:25 PM

BTW, where were the party plates at MY caucus site? I was lucky to find a place to sit. And if anyone tells me that living in Hawaii is its own reward, I'm gonna beat them with a coconut.

Posted by cmholm | February 22, 2008 5:26 PM

'The real question is whether Obama, as he did this week, will be able to render these attacks impotent, even cause them to backfire, because they and their propagators will appear to be so ugly and small and irrelevant in light of the type of candidate he is, the rhetoric he produces, the vision to which he aspires. I have no idea whether Obama's transcendent charisma or the historically demonstrated efficacy of low-life right-wing attacks will be more potent -- I think it's a much more difficult challenge than many Obama supporters (by virtue of understandable desire, rather than objective assessment) have convinced themselves it will be -- but there probably aren't very many priorities more important than cleansing our political process of this type of dirt and petty distraction.

'What our political establishment relies on more than anything else is keeping Americans distracted away from what they are really doing and focused instead on how Mike Dukakis looks in a helmet and whether he'd want to murder his wife's rapist; on blue dresses and penile spots; on the inspiration for Love Story and who invented the Internet; on how John Kerry looks in windsurfing tights, on how manly George Bush's brush-clearing is, and whether Nancy Pelosi's scarf-wearing means she loves the Terrorists. That's how our Beltway culture remains indescribably broken and corrupt without much protest or backlash.'

Nice. Go GG!

Posted by burning flock | February 22, 2008 5:31 PM

The Bellagio is a couple of hundred bucks a night. Ten rooms for two weeks isn't extravagant. And you have to feed people who are knocking on doors in freezing weather. They need bagels and coffee in the morning and sandwiches and more coffee at lunch. That's why you buy groceries and platters.

Posted by Bloix | February 22, 2008 5:49 PM

What Just Karl said. Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Clinton's 2006 Senate re-election campaign, spent astounding piles of money to beat a nobody, and as a result, was able to transfer a much smaller amount than anticipated to Hillary's Presidential campaign.

I regard this as a Good Thing, but from the standpoint of the Clinton campaign, it was incredibly stupid and wasteful.

And Solis Doyle got rewarded by being put in charge of the Presidential campaign. Eff up and move up. And oddly enough, she did it again, burning through the second largest (to Obama's) amount of money ever raised for a primary campaign.

I don't see where zero-sum comes into this. If a company had promoted a product the way Solis Doyle ran those two campaigns, they'd have spent far more money than they'd had to, and gotten a lot less for their money than they should have.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 22, 2008 6:08 PM

The real issue here is that they probably kept underestimating the amount Obama could raise, every step of the way. With reason.

Until the true ClusterF*** hit them in the face in January---this guy has no ceiling .

Posted by Andruw | February 22, 2008 7:28 PM

Obviously the burn rate is absurd and doesn't bode well for her as a nominee or president, but what seems truly bizarre to me is the $5 million LOAN. When those poor white women working the night shift donate to Clinton's campaign, are they going to get it back? But the Clinton's investment in their own campaign, which though huge they could easily write off and shrug off, is just a loan!

Posted by aleks | February 22, 2008 9:39 PM

The fact the Clinton campaign was not designed to go beyond Super Tuesday does not reflect that poorly on the campaign. That their strategy failed and their spin for the past three weeks as been idiotic does. Running as the quasi-incumbent the longer the race went the worse it was for her. I think the smart move probably was to dump all their money early to bury Obama and wrap it up on Super Tuesday. The strategic mistakes and ineptitude that should really be examined happened from October 2007 to February 5.

As an aside, about 65% of Obama's 2007 money was from large donors. His small donor operation has been impressive especially since January but it was the big money that allowed him to compete in the two early contests.

Posted by smoke 'em if you got 'em | February 22, 2008 9:45 PM

what seems truly bizarre to me is the $5 million LOAN.

At least she not charging the campaign interest on the loan. Kerry did in 04.

Posted by Just Karl | February 22, 2008 9:49 PM

Just Karl - I thought she put the loan at 1.26%

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431569/324192/sc/ALL

admittedly, I don't know a lot about campaigns and the nuance of finance, but it looks like she should be making some dough on this loan. If anyone has a different take on the info from this link, please share.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 22, 2008 10:22 PM

Candidates can even charge their campaigns interest, as John Kerry did in 2004. But a Clinton campaign adviser, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters, said that fund-raisers have been told that Hillary's loan is interest-free. Wolfson wrote that the campaign had signed a promissory note for the loan and that Clinton could forgive the debt if she wishes, though the campaign adviser said "she expects to get paid back when this is over."

From Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/109678/output/print

Posted by Just Karl | February 22, 2008 10:34 PM

And Solis Doyle got rewarded by being put in charge of the Presidential campaign. Eff up and move up.

Sound anything like *you're doin' a heckofa job Brownie*?

Are we ready for that kind of *manager* of our government again? Yikes...

This budgeting stuff matters because it's a clear insight into the sort of operation a candidate will run if elected.

The arrogance of assuming inevitability, the hiring of inept and inexperienced managers (has Penn ever run anything before?), the blowing through money they obviously didn't have (much of their money was general election tagged) should tell us this is not a good manager.

HRC has had two big tasks assigned her in her career...health care the 90's and her campaign.

Can anyone say they haven't both been a mess? And we should hire her to the most powerful office in the world....why again?

Posted by G Davis | February 23, 2008 12:38 AM

I believe that Mark Penn was -involved- with the Gore 00 campaign but got himself fired for being too right wing...

Posted by Jagged | February 23, 2008 5:52 AM

The deli platter situation is complicated. Word was that the Clinton campaign was ordering platters for every caucus site (some 1,700) from Hy-Vee (incidentally, NOT a Ma & Pa chain). But some county Dem parties decided just before the caucuses that sandwiches could NOT be given out. Cookies and bottled water yes, sandwiches and coffee no. Go figure. So, at our caucus site, the Clinton sandwiches were evicted but not their Hy-Vee cookie platters. FWIW, Edwards had the homemade goodies and the Obama folk brought nothing...

Posted by Too much on platters | February 23, 2008 9:16 AM

Even if Clinton wins it all and becomes an amazing president, Penn's career needs to be over yesterday.

Posted by Reality Man | February 23, 2008 10:56 AM

Just Karl,

As I intimated earlier, I'm not the biggest finance wonk and I could be wrong. That Newsweek article does, however, contradict the info over at the Federal Election Commission website. Whether someone wants to believe an anonymous campaign adviser as opposed to a government regulatory agency is up to the individual, but I am personally inclined to go with the FEC. If anyone knows why the loan might actually be interest free even while it is listed by the FEC at 1.26% (I'm certainly not denying this as a possibility - if applying an interest rate is some kind of formality that can later be disregarded, I don't know), I would appreciate the explanation.

For those interested in the origin of the link to the loan information, I came across it in a discussion over at dailykos. For the record, I have tried to go through the FEC website and arrive at that particular page, but I have been unable to perform the exact search that yields that exact link. Judging from other pages I have extracted from the site, there is no doubt in my mind, however, that the link does originate from the FEC pages.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 23, 2008 11:31 AM