Mallory contribution was wrong, party chair says
Greg Harris, the two-time Democratic cannon fodder for the First District congressional seat, was outspent almost 6-1 in campaign against incumbent Republican Steve Chabot last year. Just 5 percent of his funding came directly from the Democratic party.
So Harris (above) concedes he's a little sore about the support he got from party leaders. But when he learned that the Hamilton County Democratic Party contributed $12,500 to the campaign committee of its co-chairman last year, he was really sore.
That co-chairman: mayoral candidate and state Sen. Mark Mallory.
"He knew he was going to run for mayor when he got that money. People who gave to the county party didn't give for that purpose," Harris said. "That money was for the 2004 election. I was at all the events where it was raised."
"The county party chair stuck his finger in the cookie jar," he said. "It's just despicable."
Mallory's co-chairman, Timothy M. Burke, said the contributions were in line with a longstanding policy of helping those candidates who most help the party.
Still, he said, he regrets that the last chunk of the $12,500 -- a $4,000 contribution made in November -- came after it was clear that Mallory could have Democratic competition from David Pepper and Alicia Reece in the mayor's race.
Neither Pepper nor Reece received any money from the county party. Mallory stepped down as party chairman after the 2004 election, in part because of concerns about a conflict of interest in running against other Democrats.
"Frankly, I wish there were no contributions after he announced he was running for mayor," said Burke, now sole chairman of the party. "He was part of that decision. In retrospect, given that we have made a position of neutrality as a party -- in retrospect -- that contribution was not appropriate to happen."
Mallory said the last contribution came after he was no longer co-chairman and before he filed petitions for mayor. He did contribute $500 back to the party earlier this year, according to campaign finance reports.
"Those contributions were made almost a year ago now, and if anybody had a problem with it, they should have said something a long time ago," Mallory said.
Should the party make an equal contribution to Pepper's campaign? Mallory, who's trailing Pepper in fund-raising by a 3-to-1 ratio, said no.
"Doesn't David Pepper have enough money?" he said.
28 Comments:
Harris couldn't have won even if he matched Chabot's dollars & he knows it-he's just jealous of a candidate who's actually electable. As far as Burke, how convenient that NOW he says it was wrong.
Kudos!
It is time we take a stand on all of this crap that is going on in the Democratic Party here in Cincinnati.
David Pepper's people have stated that they will spend $4,000,000 on David's bid for Mayor.
How significant or how big of an issue is $12,500.00 to the Mallory campaign...unless the other camp for some reason is running scared.
Pepper's campaign manager Greg Landsman worked on Harris's campaign so I'm sure it wasn't hard for him to get Harris to whine. So, after Nov.8 Landsman can list TWO losing campaigns on his resume.
Landsman can also say he worked on Ted Strickland's winning Congressional Campaign and that he worked for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Are Greg Landsman and John Cranley related? I think they resemble each other.
is that because they both went to Harvard?
greg landsman is hot!
As usual Harris shoots himself in the foot. If Mallory wins Harris stands to potentially benefit. Mallory could choose Rep.Barrett as his replacement and Harris could go for Barrett's seat.
Pepper spent a WHOLE bunch of money to get a measly 100 votes more than Mallory. His expenses report shows $330,000 for one consulting group alone, through August. Add to that 4-5 staffers and numerous other "consultants" and he'll NEED to raise that 4 million the other post mentioned. When a candidate spends that much on his campaign, do we really want him as our city's leader? Seems like he only knows how to throw good money after bad..
No way Pepper spends 4 million.
Anyway, Mallory should have stepped down from Hamilton County Democratic Co-chair as soon as he declared for the mayoral race, as many people requested him to do. That way he could have avoided all this.
Harris backed Reece. He's bitter for her.
Maybe if Harris had paid more attention to what he was raising during his own race, he wouldn't have gotten his ass handed to him by Chabot.
...twice.
Harris lost twice because we've got a crappy gerrymandered district that splits Cincinnati in half and runs all the way up to Oxford. Wonderful that we have such a compassionate and personable man like Steve Chabot representing poor blacks in the Over the Rhine. I have to wonder if Chabot has even ever been to OTR. At least Harris cares about ALL the people in the district.
Does Pepper need $12,500.00 to add to the budget named by certain members in his camp to be aound $4,000.000.00 dollars in this campaign.
Why are people insulting Harrison?! He has raised a perfectly legitimate point. Mallory took $12,000 from the Dem. party fund for his own campaign even though he wasn't running for office in 2004 and was in his last term due to term limits. It's clear that Mallory intended to funnel money from the county party to his mayoral account.
I'm glad that someone finally has the balls to stand up to this corruption.
Korte's glib comments and the insults from all the ANONYMOUS folks are really pathetic. You can't defend what Mallory did, so you just insult Harrison.
The first district is not gerrymandered. It's the largest minority district in Ohio that is not represented by a Democrat. Dave Mann won the district in 1992, after Republicans drew the map, and lost in 1994. Chabot's got the power of incumbency. Don't spout this gerrymandering crap as an excuse for the Democrats running crappy candidates.
The district was gerrymandered in 2002 after the 2000 census you dumbass!!! The district Mann ran in was far more democratic.
In 2004, 99% of incumbents got re-elected by an average margin of victoy over 40% (70-30). But yeah, I guess it's Harris' own fault that he wasn't the one candidate to defy these national trends. The issue isn't Harris as a candidate. The issue is the almost insurmountable powers of incumbency.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mann lost as part of a national trend, Longabaugh (the forgotten loser) lost because he was perceived as a carpet-bagger, Qualls lost because she couldn't find her way out of the city, Cranley lost because as a 26 year old, the DCCC didn't think there was any way he could do as well as he did, Harris lost (twice) because he couldn't raise money for shit, Chabot was too entrenched as a candidate, and he didn't speak to ANY of the issues voters in the first district cared about.
David Pepper lives in the Second District.
Not living in the district never stops Charlie Sanders.
Voting the party ticket is a way for lazy ass people to be able to say they voted. If you believe the crap coming out of either party you are a fool. The spin and deceipt coming from the media would lead you to believe that someone was looking out for your interests. This is not true unless you are a big developer or a major welfare receipient. The misleading information from lazy reporters is what we've come to rely upon when we make decisions about politics. Heaven help us. Our politicians won't.
You don't need to live in the district you run in. The party actuallu courted Portune to run in this summer's special election in district 2, even though Portune lives in district 1.
Omn that note, Portune did quite well in the district 1 portion of Hamilton Co. The national party may consider targeting the seat again if Portune runs.
But no Democrat should run unless the seat is targeted. Otherwise it's just too hard to raise the resources to compete.
"In 2004, 99% of incumbents got re-elected by an average margin of victory over 40% (70-30)."
This really shocks me. Why doesn't the Enquirer tell this story? Instead they just make fun of challengers, without challenging the system itself that seems to be moving away from democracy with the almost guaranteed re-election of incumbents due to influence of big money.
No wonder it's harder for challengers to raise the resources to compete. Thank God Hackett was the ONLY congressional race this year, and the alternative media and online activisits made sure he'd have the resources to compete while the National Democratic Party and mainstream media dismissed his race until right at the end.
Those who say Pepper is raising $4million are deliberately planting a lie. It's the same way Mallory uses Nate Livingston as a surrogate to spread lies about Pepper--that he's gay, his girlfriend is a cover, etc.
Rages like the Whistleblower pick it up, and the falsehoods start to be received as truth.
Mallory is very unethical. he swindled $40k from the Kerry campaign during a very close election, and swindles AT LEAST $12k from the county party. Scum bag.
Greg Harris is a slimy bastard in his own right. He claims to represent the "people" but its all just rhetoric for an upper middle class English professor who fails to put his money where his mouth is. He is not liked - let alone adored - over the Rhine in the black community. We would prefer politicians who represent our real interests (i.e. jobs, economic opportunity, investment, education and health care) rather than one who panders to the liberal base. A man with "fresh ideas"? More like a warmed over post-socialist guilt ridden liberal who could't cut it in the academic world -- and jumped over to politics when his personal life went sour (and his access to women from minority communities became a premium.)
I'm just astounded by the logic of Mallory defenders.
You say Greg Harris "panders to his liberal base" INSTEAD of talking about "jobs, economic opportunity, investment, education and health care." But if Harris doesn't talk about these things, then how can he at the same time be pandering to his liberal base?
I guess he's a "socialist" who does not care about healthcare, economic opportunity, education, etc? Huh. A pandering liberal/scoialist (I guess they are one in the same?) who just happens to not speak to any leftist issues. Interesting logic.
But your "logic" gets even better! According to you, Harris decided to run for congress because he "failed" as an academic. So I guess he concluded, "gee, I can't be an English professor (assuming he ever was one), so I'll run for congress." That makes so much sense!
As does . . . "gee, my personal life sucks, I guess I'll run for congress and satisfy my appetite for minority women!"
Wow! Harris stands exposed. You Mallory supporters are brilliant character assassination! A pandering liberal who panders by not speaking to nay liberal causes runs for congress because he couldn't be an englsih professor and he wanted to have sex with minority women. Harris' true motives are exposed!
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home