Gingrich selling access to donor list?

posted at 9:16 am on April 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, BuzzFeed reported that Newt Gingrich’s donors have pleaded with the candidate to stay in the race.  They may end getting more than they bargained for, or at least their inboxes and mailboxes might.  Politico reports that Gingrich will sell access to his donor list in an attempt to raise money for the campaign, a move usually reserved for after the campaign ends:

Scrambling to dig himself out of a $4.5 million hole, the former House speaker has resorted to renting his presidential campaign’s most valuable asset – its donor list – for as much as $26,000-a-pop.

It’s a risky move for an active presidential campaign to give outsiders access to his best supporters and possibly donors who could be easily turned off — just as he says he’s trying to mount a comeback. Diminishing his best asset looks more like a sign of surrender, rather than a genuine effort to challenge Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. …

The scramble to retire debt comes as Newt Gingrich is loaning his campaign thousands of dollars to keep him out on the trail, and he’s eying an uncertain political and financial future, since “Newt, Inc.” – the network of companies and non-profits that made his fortune – has crumbled.

How did they get so far into the hole?  Politico quotes unnamed campaign insiders who claim that Gingrich refused to scale down his operations even after the money stopped flowing into the campaign.  They describe an “entourage” for Callista Gingrich, although that “entourage” only consisted of two aides, which hardly sounds Elvis-ish.  (One of the aides reportedly dressed occasionally in an elephant costume to help Mrs. Gingrich promote her children’s book, though.)  The use of private jets ran up the cost, but Politico’s sources also criticize the Gingriches for maintaining their security details, which doesn’t exactly sound like a luxury for a serious presidential candidate.

But does the sale of access to donor lists mean the campaign has come to an effective end?  Campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond denies it, arguing that the campaign is just “pursuing new sources of revenue,” but the same donors who were encouraging Gingrich to stay in the race might be less enthusiastic after telemarketers begin flooding them with contacts.

Donors have to know these days that their information will eventually get shared with other campaigns and political organizations, at the very least, if not sold to high bidders at the end of campaigns, so the fact that they have ended up on a marketing list shouldn’t shock anyone — but it will make the campaign look a lot less serious about running for President and a lot more interested in being focused on cash for the sake of cash alone.  That’s not a recipe for a comeback in credibility, let alone support.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

First!

powerpickle on February 19, 2013 at 9:33 PM

$7 billion would run the federal government for about 16 hours.

Talk about Green Energy…

The Government spends more then God did….

OK..

Obama is to blame…

Electrongod on February 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

First!

powerpickle on February 19, 2013 at 9:33 PM

I will give that..

But you need more substance….:)

Electrongod on February 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Don’t let Bishop catch you ;-P

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Good evening EG!

Ok, another aspect of politics I just don’t ‘get’. I shall read and hopefully be informed by HA commenters comments!

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Ok, another aspect of politics I just don’t ‘get’. I shall read and hopefully be informed by HA commenters comments!

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM

I was following you…:)

No..

It’s in my heart…

Let’s see where this leads….

I am curious myself..

Electrongod on February 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I am confused really.

Will this be a good idea or a bad one?

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Say isn’t that about what the US spends on hamburgers per year? Including the White Castle ones…

ajacksonian on February 19, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Unless they open up the QOTD pretty quick, I can sense a Scrumpy overload. And we ain’t gonna be able to stop her. ;-)

tommy71 on February 19, 2013 at 9:50 PM

tommy71 on February 19, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Lmao…uh huh Uncle Tommy!!

I’ll see you there no doubt!

If I am not mistaken wasn’t this up yesterday? Or earlier today?

It seems vaguely familiar, or is it de ja vu!

Bomp bomp boomp!!

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Oh well, think I’ll go wait in the lobby…

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

I thought getting money out of the hands of rich people are corporations was the aim of life?

Let me know when light is shone upon “foundations”, really for anything, but specifically, activism (all forms).

John Kettlewell on February 19, 2013 at 9:57 PM

rich people are and corporations

fixed =/

John Kettlewell on February 19, 2013 at 9:58 PM

In the beginning only people who were invested in the nation were allowed to vote. Land owners, business owners and people who paid the few taxes that were levied. Effectively the producers which grew the nation were allowed to determine where their money went through thier votes.
Now everyone gets a vote. No need to be invested in the nation, hell in many cases you do not even seem to need to be a citizen… I kind of see how they had wisdom back in those days.
Funny thing though, not only are producers and invested people marginalized by having their votes diluted and put up against the parasite class, they are also prevented from using their produced wealth in order to fund politicians.
No wonder this nation is going to hell.

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Jeez Scrums, stop calling me Uncle, lass. :-)

tommy71 on February 19, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Why should the current admin be the only ones allowed to buy votes?

OldEnglish on February 19, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Personally, I’m not against anyone donating money to a candidate, what I’m against is all the hidden donations that go to PAC’s with all the great sounding names.

After the Obamacare ruling, God only knows what they’ll rule in this case. Has Obama threatened them, like he has the Republicans? We’ll find out.

bflat879 on February 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Oh well, think I’ll go wait in the lobby…

Scrumpy
on February 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

.
Ohhh NO you don’t !

You get back here and work with the same ‘disadvantage’ the rest of us do.

listens2glenn on February 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

…I like poems!…not PACS!

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Personally, I’m not against anyone donating money to a candidate, what I’m against is all the hidden donations that go to PAC’s with all the great sounding names.

After the Obamacare ruling, God only knows what they’ll rule in this case. Has Obama threatened them, like he has the Republicans? We’ll find out.

bflat879 on February 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM

We have a secret ballot in order to allow citizens to support the candidate of their choice with as little coercion as possible. Making public the information of your donations brings back the potential of coercion. Do not believe me? Just ask the people in California who donated to support marriage in California.
Conservatives have internal barriers to attacking others for their views, progressives have no such aversion.

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM

listens2glenn on February 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM

*swoosh* ;-)

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Do you mean ‘gay’ marriages…

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM

No wonder this nation is going to hell.

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM

going?

chemman on February 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Do you mean ‘gay’ marriages…

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM

The people who were attacked, bullied and threatened were on the side of traditional marriage.

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Conservatives have internal barriers to attacking others for their views, progressives have no such aversion.

So true Asteronii

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Thank you!! My mind isn’t as clear as usual, sorry…

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM

I think you should be able to give as much money as you want to whomever you want.

When they fix voter fraud – like the lady in Ohio who voted 6 times then they can come talk to me about campaign finance reform.

gophergirl on February 19, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Meh…

… But this looks interesting. What happened?

“Orly Taitz ~ U.S. Supreme Court Grants Expedited Decision On Obama Fraud For Tuesday February 19, 2013″

Seven Percent Solution on February 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM

gophergirl on February 19, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Her being able to go on tv and BRAG about what she did, just shows you how wrong things are going in this country… why hasn’t she been arrested?

Appalling!

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I hope that Mr. McCutcheon and the RNC wins. Instead of unsavoury Super PACs, it would be better to give directly to the candidate and their official fundraising organizations, without putting a $ limit on it. Theres more accountability that way.

tommy71 on February 19, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Seven Percent Solution on February 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM

WOW!!!! Wonder how this is gonna turn out?

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Her being able to go on tv and BRAG about what she did, just shows you how wrong things are going in this country… why hasn’t she been arrested?

Appalling!

Scrumpy on February 19, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Her reasoning for voting that many times is jaw dropping. She thinks what she did is okay.

That is what we are up against.

gophergirl on February 19, 2013 at 10:31 PM

We never hear any hand-wringing about that number.

except if/when they want to start taxing and regulating garage sales, right?

ted c on February 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Congress passed these laws. We are not here to interpret or apply the constitution. We are not here to save the people from the tyranny of their elected officials or of the majority. We hereby reverse Marbury and the Magna Carta.

/John Roberts

besser tot als rot on February 19, 2013 at 11:50 PM

We don’t need more restrictions on citizens advancing their interests; we need more restrictions on politicians advancing theirs.

cthulhu on February 20, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I want all donations (in the aggregate for a candidate per election) under $5,000 to be anonymous. I want to see an end to public reporting of donations.

Do you really want the “death panel” looking up your political donations on opensecrets.org before deciding your medical treatment fate?

crosspatch on February 20, 2013 at 4:08 AM

Brave, Brave Sir Roberts needs to know if Obama and his state-run media might say something mean about him if he votes the wrong way.

After all, we have to assume federal laws are constitutional and then twist ourselves into knots to allow govt to do whatever it wants, don’t we?

DRayRaven on February 20, 2013 at 6:21 AM

Roberts will cave.

SAMinVA on February 20, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Another reality check: 2012 was the most expensive campaign year in history, clocking in at $7 billion, according to the FEC.

There was a lot of hand-wringing over that number when the FEC announced the stat, with this bit from Politico typical: “The total number of dollars spent on the 2012 election exceeded the number of people on this planet.”

$7 billion would run the federal government for about 16 hours. The 2012 campaign was a garage sale value by comparison. We never hear any hand-wringing about that number.

Bingo!!

Bitter Clinger on February 20, 2013 at 7:59 AM