Boooooo: $1 of every $2 goes to....consultants

   A new study, billed as the first of its kind, concludes that a stunning $1 of every $2 of total federal campaign spending in 2004 went to consultants.

      "The skyrocketing costs of running for federal office puts such a premium on time spent fundraising to pay for consultants that many elected officials seem to be in permanent, self-serving campaigns," said Wendell Rawls, who heads the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.

   For more info and a data base of spending by consultant or by candidate, go here.

Posted by Steve Kraske

Comments

[Tommy]

Does everyone know the definition of a consultant? It's the steer that stands in the corner of the lot and tells the bull how to get the job done.*

*a steer is a casterated bull...just in case some of you folks were wondering.

(John Evans--sorry I didn't go back to Merriam Webster for the correct definition.)

[CRD]

According to www.m-w.com, the correct spelling is "castrated."

[Bob]

Bush and Talent spent 300 billion dollars and 2800 American lives keeping Saddam Hussein from giving weapons he didn't have to terrorists he didn't know. And they lied about it, before, during, and after.

Get rid of Jim Talent - he is Bush-lite.

[MOBlogger]

How much of my KC Star subscription go towards paying Kraske's salary? Even better, how much did the star pay the consultants who came up with that horrible lay out for the paper?

Why is it so bad that money is spent on consultants?

[Tommy]

MOBlogger--
If my joke about castrated (thank you CRD) cattle and consultants was offensive, I apologize...simply a joke and not meant to be taken any other way. (I do have a few more, though, if you're short on party joke material...)

[JOCO GOP]

Bob -

Please put yourself above that propaganda. You're better than that. Saddam had weapons (and had used them before), harbored terrorists (and sponsored them). Talent and Bush, along with the rest of the world, including your French and German buddies, looked at that intelligence and made the necessary decision to move.

Give our honorable Senator Talent something better than that. Maybe something along the lines of...Bush Select.

[political junkie]

"Why is it so bad that money is spent on consultants?"

Answer: It isn't (for consultants). That you have to ask is precious, but I will give it a shot.

Let's say you have $100 to buy groceries, no more, no less. You must buy groceries, or go hungry. The goal is to maximize the amount of groceries you can get in exchange for the $100 in your wallet. The goal is NOT to maximize the amount of "advice about buying groceries" for your $100. Get it?

For consultants to take 50% of the "load" of campaign cash (for services of questionable value) is interesting (and a great argument for more campaign finance reform.

[locomotivebreath1901]

Is this a great country or what!

'If you're not a part of the solution,there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.' - consultant's motto.

Credit DeMotivators: http://www.despair.com/consulting.html

A great gig if you can get it, but a pretty sad commentary on lawyer avoidance.

[Wondering]

Political Junkie

All that campaign finance reform does is make more $ for them (consultants) to find ways around it. No one has yet come up with a practical way to limit spending.

[tsquare]

As a (non-political) consultant Allow me to explain:

A consultant is a professional, one who has done what you have not. You hire him to do this thing to come up with a plan. A plan that you then ignore, while you follow the advice of

Your wife
Your Mother
Your best friend
Your Dad’s best friend
Some guy you met in a bar last night
Some girl that you met in a bar last night

It goes without saying that none of those people have ever done what it is that you need done.

The consultant then becomes the guy you scream at when ‘their’ plan doesn’t work. You then demand that the consultant ‘fix’ the problem at no additional charge. The consultant is then the one laughing his head off.

The consultant then stops laughing and tells you that he will fix the problem but at twice the original price because that’s what you get when sh*t has to be shoveled, and a$$s must be kissed.

You scream a bit more, mostly for show, and then agree to a fee that is 1 ½ times the original.

That is consulting

I wonder who Washington, Lincoln and TR used as consultants?

[CRD]

"Please put yourself above that propaganda. You're better than that. Saddam had weapons (and had used them before),"

Iraq's offensive capability was pretty much completely neutralized in 1998's Operation Desert Fox. We had the guy contained. He was long on bluster, but posed no imminent threat.

We should have focused on going after Al Qaeda instead of sending our troops to die in Iraq for no good reason.

[SPSLE]

tsquare, you may be an experienced consultant, but the kids currently suckling at the teats of the Missouri Republican party are making huge salaries based on knowing the right people at the right time; for most, their primary credential is that they have been old enough to vote for at least one decade. They work hard because they have two jobs--one is a state position paid by the taxpayers, the other is a campaign consultant. I don't blame these kids, what I question is the politicians who now believe that the only way to get a loyal supporter is by purchasing him or her at an exorbitant price; several of these "consultants" are making four times the salary of the state senator or representative for whom they work.

[BeProudAmerica]

Two questions.

1) Do you understand what services is being paid for when a consultant is hired in a political campaign?
2) Did anyone take the time to read the article?

62% of the consultant fees went to media consultants and the second largest percentage went to direct mail consultants.

Ok, let's say I am a direct mail consultant, I get paid $10,000 to do a direct mail. Spend $750 on getting addresses ready, $4500 on post cards and $2500 to mail them. So then only $2250 is going to the consultant and that isn't figuring in any other costs.

So $1 out of every $2 going to a consultant is misleading, you could say that $1 out of every $2 is going THROUGH a consultant for their services and other products.

[JOCO GOP]

CRD -

Saddam was not neutralized. His own former chief of weapons spoke at our venerable learning institution out west, K.U., and addressed the fact that Saddam could've been nuclearly capapble in under a year if he so pleased. Your sanctions wouldn't have even been voted on by then. So, when he decided to pull the trigger and start that program back up, what do you say then? Go after Al-Qaeda? Well we'd have had to because they would've had Saddam's nukes so fast it would've made the collective leftists in this country spin to the right.

News Flash: We never stopped going after Al-Qaeda. There ya go, you heard it here first. We never reduced funding or troop size in the fight against Al-Qaeda. That argument isn't even discussed anymore it's so ridiculous.

Just go right ahead and admit it. If Clinton had gone into Iraq instead of Bush, you would've supported it. The difference is, I would've too.

[Bob Castle]

BeProud is correct. For the vast majority of campaigns, 70-80% of every dollar is spent on direct voter contact (commercials, direct mail, signs, etc.). Mr. Kraske seems to imply -- and most of this group certainly inferred -- that 50% of the money is going to consultant fees rather than hard costs of voter contact. This is not correct, as is borne out by a close read of the "study."