Fans of Darcy Burner are blaming her loss to incumbent US Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8) on biased reporting, a last-minute smear campaign implying she had lied about her education, and newspaper editorial pages that were in Reichert’s pocket. But the most devastating blow undeniably came in the form of an ad campaign by Republican ad firm Media Plus, which bought $300,000 worth of TV time in the final two weeks of the campaign. The ad, titled “Harvard Hoax,” accused Burner of “making up” her “experience… record [and] credentials.” Although the worst you could say about Burner is that she misstated what subject her degree from Harvard was in (in a single public appearance, Burner claimed a degree in economics, when her degree is actually in computer science with an economics focus), the accusation stuck–and Burner went from being up eight points to losing by less than 10,000 votes.

Josh, who’s been all over this story for the last month, reported in October that TV stations were loaning Reichert air time until he could pay them back for the ads–essentially, letting him broadcast his ads for free, with the promise that he’d pay them back once he had more cash on hand. Today, he drops another bombshell</a>: Reichert didn’t have the money on hand to pay for his last minute ad blitz–the blitz that was widely credited with winning him reelection. Without a loan from either Media Plus or the TV stations–both illegal–Reichert couldn’t have run the ads. Whether or not you believe that Burner was the right candidate for the position–personally, I’m fairly certain a stronger candidate could have defeated Reichert in that rapidly swinging district–the fact that Reichert got free air time in the vital last weeks of the campaign gave him an unfair advantage over an opponent who played by the rules.

14 replies on “Reichert Didn’t Have the Money for Ad Blitz”

  1. This is actually an interesting legal question. I’m all for coming down on the TV statations if what they did does constitute an illegally unreported campaign donation. But it’s not at all clear that it does constitute an illegally unreported campaign donation — lots of business transactions work on 30-90 day settlement schedules.

  3. I’m upset about the illegal ad drop, too, but I second the notion that a stronger candidate would have won. Burner got killed in south King and east Pierce – just like two years ago – and she spent little to no time down there.

  4. Oh that Sandeep is so pithy. What campaign did he do before this one? The losing prop 1?

    Campaigns are often in debt at the end, e.g. Hillary.

    Burner lost because she just wasn’t that good. If the tables were turned and she was running as a Rep. against the most mediocre Dem you all would be howling about her inexperience.

    Burner as a candidate was nothing but a creation of the DLC, had no substance and therefore had no depth of credibility to weather the little storm of economics or not degree.

  6. Agreeing with the nuance offered by Erica and Lt. Frank Drebin @3.

    Yes, that ad buy is troubling.

    But yes, Dave Reichert would not have beaten a strong Democratic candidate this year. I’ve long pegged Darcy Burner as a lightweight in the Maria Cantwell mode, really going back to an op-ed on energy independence she wrote in early 2006. Just read that; it’s nothing more than warm-over George W. Bush panaceas.
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c&hellip;

  9. Nothing that a very very large sum of borrowed money to spew lies didn’t help happen.

    So, who “owns” the corporations that agreed to the “loans”?

    That’s what real reporters would be telling us …

  12. Oh stop it. She lost because she doesn’t have anything positive to offer, and there is nothing terribly wrong with Reichert. Period. Get off the conspiracy theories that have prevented a real qualified candidate from running.

Comments are closed.