My usually reliable sources indicate another anomaly relating to the National Convention, this time involving the Convention Banquet. By highly reliable report the Convention Committee had intended to use Mark Tuniewicz and at least one other person as the banquet fundraisers: The people who gave the fundraising speech, worked the crowd, and incited giving money. By the same highly reliable report, National Chair David Bergland instead intervened—something he rarely did in party affairs—and directed that the fundraiser at the banquet should be led by his close associate Michael Cloud.
Early polling data on Browne’s campaign was not encouraging. The Rassmussen Portrait of America poll, which had the most extensive coverage of Browne, showed a post-convention spike to 1.6%. This number led to some confusion, because polls are typically accompanied by a misleading “margin of error”, often cited as 3-4%. On hearing the alleged 3-4% margin of error and Browne’s 1% outcome, some commentators incorrectly inferred that the Browne polling numbers were statistically indistinguishable from zero.
The oft-quoted margin of error is an oversimplification appropriate for most major party candidates. For candidates in Browne’s shoes, an alternative calculation gives a reasonable estimate for the margin of error: Multiply the number of people polled by the Browne percentage: The product is the number of Browne supporters in the poll. Take the square root of the number of supporters. Divide by the number of people polled and convert to a percent. That’s the margin of error, which for Browne was typically 0.2-0.4 percentage points. This margin of error was usually smaller than Browne’s polling performance.
On July 10, PRNewswire reported that Lorilei Communications, Inc (operating as “The Firm Multimedia”) had announced that it would begin media placement for the Browne campaign. Lorilei estimated that the campaign would generate substantial revenues—upward of $1,000,000. The TV ad campaign began in late July, with almost $17,000 for airing the ads and $14,000 for their production costs.
On July 17, 2000 the Browne campaign announced that the FEC lawsuit would have to be dropped. They had a legal report, a legal strategy, and an estimated cost of litigation: above $500,000. “…that kind of expenditure for a project of this nature is no longer an option for the campaign.” Once again, the campaign had raised money for a project and failed to follow through on the project. Once again, the Party’s leadership failed to register concern about the candidate’s fundraising tactics.
Media spending began with an announcement in the July 19th LibertyWire that the Browne Committee and the National Committee ‘wrote checks for $40,000 for National TV advertising buys’. The FEC records paint a somewhat different picture. Browne’s campaign spent $6936 on July 13 and $10,000 on July 19th. For the month, the National Committee reported spending $92,390 on “Coordinated Expenditures by Party Committee”. The associated Form F, which would have itemized the LNC’s spending, does not appear on the FEC web pages. I confirmed from a member of the National Party staff that the coordinated spending reflected ad buys by the LNC for Browne TV ads. In the July 26th LibertyWire on the topic ‘Another Update on TV Ads’, Willis claimed ‘We have just purchased another $22,390 worth of advertising.’ No such purchase appears in the FEC reports. All considered, for the month the campaign spent $16,936 on advertising, and claimed another $45,454. From FEC reports, the additional $45,454 does not appear to have been spent by the Browne campaign.
