"25,000 Members" But Only 5 Donors? Is This The New Math?

Earlier this week, we wrote about the Republican group, Vets For Freedom, and their ability to run $1.5 million dollars in TV advertising with seemingly no support.

In our blog post, we noted that the founder of the group was claiming thousands of donors.   And the group claims to have 25,000 members.  A number which if true might give a hint of credibility to their claims. However, when it is becoming increasingly clear that more and more real veterans are coming out in support of Barack Obama, is it possible that VFF actually has 25,000 members?

Well, we're not from Missouri but frankly, we'd have to see the membership roster to even believe that they have 2,500 members, why?

First, in their last report, they have exactly 5 donors listed. One, two, three, four, five. So unless their marketing efforts are truly horrific, to the tune of a .00000005 response rate, we have to believe that their member list is slightly inflated.

Second, if you look at their web site traffic on public sites, you'll see that the traffic is very very light; with some recent days in May hovering around zero, wouldn't a 25,000 member person organization have more than a couple of thousand total visits a month?

Unfortunately, many news organizations are taking the 25,000 numbers as a fact versus a 'claim' -- if we claimed that a million people read everything we wrote, it wouldn't make it true -- but who knows maybe people would start writing that -- just like we are seeing these.

There's an old expression, a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on, and today from The Guardian in London, we have proof.

The £750,000 campaign launched by the 25,000-member Vets for Freedom implicitly criticises the Republican senator's anti-war Democrat rival Barack Obama, who has stated he wants to withdraw combat forces within 16 months of taking office.

On the other hand, if Vets For Freedom really does have 25,000 veteran members, we'll post the whole membership list right here, just send us the names guys, we'll put everyone up.

After all, we can easily fit in five names right here.



Display:


This is an excellent diary, however... (none / 0)

...$1.5 million ain't pocket change. If you don't members to make your case, but there's cash behind the organization, that still makes it semi-credible. I wouldn't use the term, "credible," here. But, money is a threat, no matter how many folks actually stand behind that money.

Let's look at Freedom's Watch, for instance. They've blown around $25,000,000 so far, and there are really only about a half-dozen, serious money folks funding that. Maybe a bit more.

With the advent of these newfangled 501(c)4's (with virtually no accountability behind them), the various ways by which the election/soft-money finance rules may be circumvented now is far greater than it ever was--allowing money to "talk," even if there's not a crowd of support behind it.

So, I wouldn't diminish the negative impact this has on the potential outcome of these races, simply because we all lived through the Swiftboating nightmares of four years ago. With nary a shred of truth behind their claims, a few folks with really deep pockets pushed a bunch of media b.s. on the American public and certainly affected the outcome of that election.

It's critical that we take these groups well-funded groups quite seriously, regardless of the size of their membership. Money does talk, to some extent. But, votes matter!

Thanks for this post. At the end of the day, anything that's done to pull the curtain aside to expose this crap for what it is (a few people with serious money) cerainly helps, regardless.


by bobswern on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.