Anita Andrews Campaign Claim- Verify and I'll Send RP a Check

[libertarian4321]

Reading the threads about AA, some folks that went to the meetings said she claimed to have "won a campaign where she was outspent $30,000,000 to $300,000".

Okay, I did some research.

First off, this couldn't have been a Senatorial Campaign- I have found only one instance in history where any Senatorial Campaign has raised 30 million- that was Hillary Clinton in her last Senate campaign. Even in large states, with competitive races, the candidates will rarely raise more than $15 million.

Certainly races for the house of representatives don't raise this kind of money.

We know it wasn't a Presidential campaign- no Presidential race has had that kind of lopsided funding.

So the only possibility would be a gubernatorial race. BTW, $30 million would be a LOT of money for a gubernatorial race- it would have to be a large state.

The ONLY race I could think of at the gubernatorial level that has been a major upset was the Minnesota race in 1998 (Jesse Ventura). However, even in that race, Ventura spent close to $1 million (and his major party opponents raised less than $6 million COMBINED- and spent less- they were limited by campaign spending laws).

So, heres the deal: If anyone can find any campaign that fits the claim that Anita Andrews allegedly made, I'll send the Ron Paul campaign another $250 AND I'll never question her qualifications again.

Good luck- I personally don't think there is a chance in hell that I'm going to end up writing that check.

 

[Sematary]

Reading the threads about AA, some folks that went to the meetings said she claimed to have "won a campaign where she was outspent $30,000,000 to $300,000".

Okay, I did some research.

First off, this couldn't have been a Senatorial Campaign- I have found only one instance in history where any Senatorial Campaign has raised 30 million- that was Hillary Clinton in her last Senate campaign. Even in large states, with competitive races, the candidates will rarely raise more than $15 million.

Certainly races for the house of representatives don't raise this kind of money.

We know it wasn't a Presidential campaign- no Presidential race has had that kind of lopsided funding.

So the only possibility would be a gubernatorial race. BTW, $30 million would be a LOT of money for a gubernatorial race- it would have to be a large state.

The ONLY race I could think of at the gubernatorial level that has been a major upset was the Minnesota race in 1998 (Jesse Ventura). However, even in that race, Ventura spent close to $1 million (and his major party opponents raised less than $6 million COMBINED- and spent less- they were limited by campaign spending laws).

So, heres the deal: If anyone can find any campaign that fits the claim that Anita Andrews allegedly made, I'll send the Ron Paul campaign another $250 AND I'll never question her qualifications again.

Good luck- I personally don't think there is a chance in hell that I'm going to end up writing that check.

You are basing your thread on hearsay?

 

[constituent]

ok... well to cut a battle short...

can anyone first substantiate that the "alleged" statement was made
by A.A.?

 

[davidhperry]

can anyone first substantiate that the "alleged" statement was made
by A.A.?

Yes, she said basically the same thing last night. However, she said is was a campaign about the amending the constitution in a particular state - not an election.

 

[pcosmar]

I have seen a couple threads on this subject (Anita Andrews ), Who is Anita Andrews, and is she running for any office?
Are we trying to get Ron Paul elected, or promote other folks?
Who is Anita Andrews ? and why is it relevant?

 

[Sematary]

Why this need to to diss this woman? The campaign cannot afford to put people on the ground in every single state - so, from everything I understand, they hired this individual to TEACH US HOW TO WIN!
So what's the big deal?
She has a difficult road ahead of her, teaching 40,000 + neophytes how to help Ron Paul win the primaries. Instead of working AGAINST her, we should be working WITH her.

 

[Slugg]

I have seen a couple threads on this subject (Anita Andrews ), Who is Anita Andrews, and is she running for any office?
Are we trying to get Ron Paul elected, or promote other folks?
Who is Anita Andrews ? and why is it relevant?

She is a consultant for the campaign. She is traveling around training the grassroots on how to focus our efforts in a more meaningful way. With change there is always controversy, so we are seeing controversy.

 

[Sematary]

She is a consultant for the campaign. She is traveling around training the grassroots on how to focus our efforts in a more meaningful way. With change there is always controversy, so we are seeing controversy.

The whole thing is ridiculous. The campaign wants to teach US how to help THEM win.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I have seen a couple threads on this subject (Anita Andrews ), Who is Anita Andrews, and is she running for any office?

She is an official regional coordinator for the Ron Paul 2008 PCC. I'm not aware that she's running for any office.

Are we trying to get Ron Paul elected, or promote other folks?

Both, if the other folks are good people with the right message. This need not be an either/or proposition, and Ron Paul will need all the allies in government he can get.

 

[Dustancostine]

No the controversy comes from her requiring people to sign no disclosuer agreements. With out that there probably wouldn't have been a problem. I can gaurantee that I will not go to one of her meeting under those kind of conditions. I would not go to a campaign meeting headed by Ron Paul under those kind of conditions.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Oh geez, not again

Anita Andrews is listed on the Campaign website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/

We have hashed and rehashed this subject. Someone from the campaign has come over here a couple of times to attempt to put our minds at ease. Search for Don Rasmussen.

She is doing what the campaign asked her to do.

 

[pcosmar]

She is a consultant for the campaign. She is traveling around training the grassroots on how to focus our efforts in a more meaningful way. With change there is always controversy, so we are seeing controversy.

Ok. That would explain things.
I was afraid it was another attempt at self promotion. I am in favor of any help to promote Ron Paul and his ideals.
I am in a very rural, low population density area. Sort of the edge of the world. I welcome any help. I understand the focus on high population areas, thats where most of the votes are.
If she is a asset, help her to help us.

 

[Sematary]

No the controversy comes from her requiring people to sign no disclosuer agreements. With out that there probably wouldn't have been a problem. I can gaurantee that I will not go to one of her meeting under those kind of conditions. I would not go to a campaign meeting headed by Ron Paul under those kind of conditions.

Let me use an analogy. You are the head coach of a football team. You have a playbook and signals to get those plays to your players. You DON'T want the other team to get your signals, or your plays. If they do - you lose.
THAT is the reason for the non-disclosure. It makes complete sense. You don't want the "other team" getting your plays.

 

[constituent]

is there anyway to avoid this altogether... say perhaps we entertain her notion of intellectual property and just pool our money and purchase the program from her?

has anyone considered this... are there any bargains being cooked up?

 

[constituent]

this whole playbook has become yet another 'sword of damocles'

this theme seems to never stop in this campaign.

-just sayin.

 

[Sematary]

is there anyway to avoid this altogether... say perhaps we entertain her notion of intellectual property and just pool our money and purchase the program from her?

has anyone considered this... are there any bargains being cooked up?

I've suggested (through Debbie Hopper) that perhaps she could create a generic youtube video detailing things we need to do that ANY campaign would do. This way, her tactics which she doesn't want disclosed could remain private and the stuff that any campaign would do anyway could be disseminated more quickly and efficiently.

 

[constituent]

LibertyEagle... we do understand that, but the OP has brought up a specific issue...

probably should have done it in hot topics, but let's cut the battle short and try to calmly rationalize our way out of this until a peace loving moderator comes along this morning and shuffles our feet.

 

[Dustancostine]

Let me use an analogy. You are the head coach of a football team. You have a playbook and signals to get those plays to your players. You DON'T want the other team to get your signals, or your plays. If they do - you lose.
THAT is the reason for the non-disclosure. It makes complete sense. You don't want the "other team" getting your plays.

I am sorry Sem, but that analogy does not work. Ron Paul is paying her. It is no longer her property but his. Ron Paul is not paying us. We are not working for anyone. In your analogy the owner owns the team, the coach, the players and the playbook.

Here is the main problem. If you sign a nondiscloser agreement it will open you up to all kinds of liability. The point of such an agreement is to derive a benefit from information but not to compromise the person giving it to you. We are recieving no benifit (the campaign is) and we are protecting Andrews, but putting our neck on the line in the form of liability. This is not a smart idea to me. (If you want to assume that liability for the information, then that is fine).

How can I as a meetup leader implement anything that she says if I can't tell my meetup members about it?

How can people who can't go get the information?

What if we are already doing or have thought of what she is telling us? Can we now not do those things or talk about them?

What if next year after this campaign cycle is all over and I want to help someone else run for political office? Can I not help them because I have signed some stupid agreement?

I highly doubt anything that she says will be beyond what most political strategist already know. So how is what she has to offer so special? Why would another campaign want to steal what they already know?

This agreement is a HUGE problem in my opininon. I will not ever sign one under these conditions.

--Dustan

BTW I have signed nondiscloseur agreements before when they were merited. For instance I worked as an Extra on a Tarantino movie and we had in our possesion parts of the script. In that instance I signed the agreement.

 

[davidhperry]

I suggest we focus our energies on getting Ron Paul elected. As someone who signs non disclosure agreements on a daily basis, I can say that they serve a valuable purpose and are quite necessary.

If given the choice, you can certainly opt out of signing an NDA if you want to but I think everyone will agree that the campaign know much more about running campaigns than we do.

I've heard Anita speak and I think that what she has to say it so important that it could mean that we win if we do what she advises. I also agree that the NDA is necessary since I wouldn't want the info she shared with us in the hands of another campaign.

An NDA is all about protecting "trade secrets" and that's it.

 

[mdh]

I'm going to this thing tonight, so I'll see if she makes those sorts of claims. If she does, I'll get further information to back it up and permission to quell the rumors on here.