Monday, June 13, 2005
AJC questions Frist's 2000 campaign finances
Michael Silence questioned why the "Red Coalition" wasn't blogging about this report from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Well, I have to admit that I hadn't read it because today was a long and exhausting travel day, with work in the courts of Carter County and other legal matters back in Knox County. Having read the report, I have a few reactions:
1) Excellent bit of investigative journalism by the AJC. I usually resort to calling the AJC some rather infamous names as a parody, but they certainly don't deserve it here.
2) I understand why Frist doesn't want to talk on the record, because there are other people in campaigns that handle monetary matters. These people are specialists and must be trusted to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. Yes, the buck stops with the candidate, but a candidate that micromanages all aspects of his/her campaign has a label come the election - "loser."
3) It seems that the Frist campaign poorly handled what should have been an afterthought of a campaign. I have never worked a Frist campaign (I was a bit green in 1994, and 2000 was a cakewalk), so I don't feel comfortable commenting on such fine details of their campaign strategy. However, this does reinforce one of my personal preferences, and that is to not work exclusively with the financing aspect of a campaign. I relish being out on the trail, but the FEC has made working the financial disclosures too much for even the heartiest of political wonks to embrace.
This story doesn't seem to have legs, but it is a sad account nonetheless.
1) Excellent bit of investigative journalism by the AJC. I usually resort to calling the AJC some rather infamous names as a parody, but they certainly don't deserve it here.
2) I understand why Frist doesn't want to talk on the record, because there are other people in campaigns that handle monetary matters. These people are specialists and must be trusted to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. Yes, the buck stops with the candidate, but a candidate that micromanages all aspects of his/her campaign has a label come the election - "loser."
3) It seems that the Frist campaign poorly handled what should have been an afterthought of a campaign. I have never worked a Frist campaign (I was a bit green in 1994, and 2000 was a cakewalk), so I don't feel comfortable commenting on such fine details of their campaign strategy. However, this does reinforce one of my personal preferences, and that is to not work exclusively with the financing aspect of a campaign. I relish being out on the trail, but the FEC has made working the financial disclosures too much for even the heartiest of political wonks to embrace.
This story doesn't seem to have legs, but it is a sad account nonetheless.
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 7:36 PM 
